S
scottmcl
Guest
I'm currently shooting a CV 50 Nokton. Not too many complaints except that (1) the lens is a bit large; (2) the shade sucks, so I almost always shoot it without a shade; (3) I sometimes think I want a different lens signature. I also have the little CV 50/2.5 and have been giving that one another chance at the encouragement of some folks on another forum.
As for signature, I toy with (1) a current Leica 2.8 for the "Tessar look" that I like with my Nikon 45/2.8 AI-P. I'm told that if I like the Nikkor, I should really like the Leica collapsible. (2) a clean Leica rigid for a lower contrast + creamy bokeh or even (3) a current 50 Summicron to just go for fantastic resolution in a modern lens.
In my indecision, I save some money and keep shooting the Nokton
I'd let it go, but I have a Leica 28/2 that I just adore, and given I shoot the 50mm FL so much more, I wish I could fall in love with a 50 in the same way.
Anyway, how does the new ZI 50/2 fare? What are its strengths and weaknesses. I've heard good things about the ZI 35/2, but little about the new Planar.
BTW, I shoot pretty much 100% B&W with my RF gear.
Scott
As for signature, I toy with (1) a current Leica 2.8 for the "Tessar look" that I like with my Nikon 45/2.8 AI-P. I'm told that if I like the Nikkor, I should really like the Leica collapsible. (2) a clean Leica rigid for a lower contrast + creamy bokeh or even (3) a current 50 Summicron to just go for fantastic resolution in a modern lens.
In my indecision, I save some money and keep shooting the Nokton
Anyway, how does the new ZI 50/2 fare? What are its strengths and weaknesses. I've heard good things about the ZI 35/2, but little about the new Planar.
BTW, I shoot pretty much 100% B&W with my RF gear.
Scott