ZM 35/2 pics

[Marc-A.]

I'm fascinated by how picky people are today over their equipment. I'm not putting anyone down but many of the folks that I see picking lenses apart generally do not enlarge their images beyond full frame on 8x10 if that. Certainly not all are this way but many are just snap shooters making small prints. Very often I see people on various forums making judgements on equipment when clearly the issue is not the equipment but an obvious lack of technique and skill. Again I certainly do not want to make anyone feel bad. Overall this forum has better photographers as members than others like pnet and I value opinions from RFF members much more than other forums.

HOPE I DON'T LOSE FRIENDS OVER THIS!

Good morning RFF community,

X-Ray,
Among other RFF members, I highly value your opinion (many of your photos are in my favorite, and I started a thread on political photo inspired by your work; just wanted to mention that).
A thought: many of us are picky about our gear maybe because this way we always have an available excuse for failing to produce good photographs: Not my fault, lens' fault, you know.
I don't say that for Todd who always has amazing results with any of his lens/camera; btw it's very disturbing. At the beginning, I thought: well he has better lens than yours, that explains the difference; so I bought Leica gear, and it turned out that the explanation lies in the difference of photograpical skills ... too bad.
Anyway, in some cases, I can understand the gear discussion when good photographers like you guys expect very particular effect. So I'm pleased to read and learn about ... not the better lens (it's nonsense), but the more appropriate lens for a particular kind of pictures.

Ok my post doesn't get us any further, sorry, but I had to tell.

Best,
Marc

 

[Didier]

It's hard for me to understand the complaints about size of the ZM 35/2. Its exactly the same size as a 50/2 Summicron & certainly no one complains about its size. Its not super compact like the 35/2 Summicron or the CV 40/1.4 Nokton, but these are exceptions - & in the case of the Summicron, much more expensive. It's more compact than the CV 35/1.7 Ultron, for example, & the speed of the Ultron isn't significant enough to make much difference. (It was tested by the way at f/1.8 by Pop Photo.) As you can see, it is shorter than the Summilux as well

You can't compare its size to others by referring to the published data. Zeiss' lens measuresments include the lens mounts while Leica & CV do not, so the 56 mm published length & quoted here by Didier, is really 43.3 mm when measured in the same way as Leica & Cosina.

Huck

You're right with the different measurements of Zeiss and Leica and I apologize for the mixup. Indeed, the 35 Biogon is even a tad lighter and smaller than the 35 asph 'Lux. I had the Biogon in my hands and bought the 'Lux a few months later, but never had both lenses side by side.

I must admit speed was the main reason to prefer the Lux, and I still find the Biogon is a bit too large for a 2.0 35mm rf lens. Large lenses must be fast, small lenses can be slower - that's my philosophy. Just the usual speed/compactness evaluation. The Summicron 2.0/35 and Canon 2.0/35 are not exceptions, that's the size I expect from such a lens, and I couldn't excuse the size of a 35 by saying it's anyway not bigger than a 50. The 40 Nokton and the pre-asph Summilux are more exceptional in size compared to speed. You're right, the Ultron is too long for it's modest speed improvement over a f2. But a 35/2.0 must be compact for me, and I accept more size only if it's together with at least one stop more speed.

But we gonna see more and more bigger RF lenses, as digital sensors do dictate a retrofocal design.

Didier

 

[Marc-A.]

Didier,
Naïve question: what does make the pre-asph 35 Summilux better than the asph one (if it is better)? I wonder that because I see the pre-asph is much praised by user. Is it another Leica myth or does the pre-asph Summilux have real unique properties?
Best,
Marc

 

[Didier]

Hi Marc

I never owned the pre asph summilux. Real unique properties? Difficult to say. It's very small for it's speed, offers a creamy bokeh, but is not that sharp (not to say soft) wide open and in the corners, even when stopped down. It certainly has a very classic signature, but there's a lot mythes in the praises, too.

The 35 asph lux is very, very sharp even wide open, which can bee seen on large prints which show a lot of details. It's bokeh is a little bit different, I wouldn't say harsher, but more "modern", a tad less creamy, has 8 blades instead of 10. This might be a reason why some prefer the older version.

As I do enlarge on big prints from time to time (60x40cm, 24x18"), I wanted to have one killersharp lens, otherwise i would have preferred the smaller and more affordable old version.

Didier

 

[Huck Finn]

Huck

You're right with the different measurements of Zeiss and Leica and I apologize for the mixup. Indeed, the 35 Biogon is even a tad lighter and smaller than the 35 asph 'Lux. I had the Biogon in my hands and bought the 'Lux a few months later, but never had both lenses side by side.

I must admit speed was the main reason to prefer the Lux, and I still find the Biogon is a bit too large for a 2.0 35mm rf lens. Large lenses must be fast, small lenses can be slower - that's my philosophy. Just the usual speed/compactness evaluation. The Summicron 2.0/35 and Canon 2.0/35 are not exceptions, that's the size I expect from such a lens, and I couldn't excuse the size of a 35 by saying it's anyway not bigger than a 50. The 40 Nokton and the pre-asph Summilux are more exceptional in size compared to speed. You're right, the Ultron is too long for it's modest speed improvement over a f2. But a 35/2.0 must be compact for me, and I accept more size only if it's together with at least one stop more speed.

But we gonna see more and more bigger RF lenses, as digital sensors do dictate a retrofocal design.

Didier

I had the same confusion at first. I also prefer smaller, but I can live with the size of this lens because of its quality & price. It's not overly large. You certainly can't go wrong with the 'lux!

 

[Huck Finn]

Didier,
Naïve question: what does make the pre-asph 35 Summilux better than the asph one (if it is better)? I wonder that because I see the pre-asph is much praised by user. Is it another Leica myth or does the pre-asph Summilux have real unique properties?
Best,
Marc

Are you sure you're not confusing it with the pre-asph 'cron, which is regarded as special by many users?

 

[J. Borger]

Are you sure you're not confusing it with the pre-asph 'cron, which is regarded as special by many users?

Well i am one of the people who consider the 35 lux pre-asph special ... it is a wonderful lens .. with typical "old school" signature, super creamy .. fantastic tonality in B&W .. king of the midtones .... and TINY!

 

[Didier]

Are you sure you're not confusing it with the pre-asph 'cron, which is regarded as special by many users?

THAT would be something different! The pre-asph 35 summicron has one of the loveliest bokehs, which is, IMO and inside the Leica lens line, only topped by the 75 Lux bokeh. The pre-asph cron is much sharper at f2 than the pre-asph summilux at f2.

If I would have to decide which 35 cron, I would certainly take the pre-asph 4th version.

Didier