Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,692   Posts: 1,482,407   Online: 691
      
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 55
  1. #31
    Rol_Lei Nut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hamburg
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,118
    Quote Originally Posted by brucemuir View Post
    I have nothing wider than the 50 planar so will need to be investigating one in the future.
    What are your guys favorites?
    The 28 f/2 looks interesting but may be too steep to justify.
    As mentioned before, the 35mm 1.4 is fantastic.
    The 18mm isn't the sharpest in the corners by today's standards, but gives a wonderful Zeiss 3-D look.
    I have the 35mm and 85mm 2.8 in Rolleiflex version: they are both tiny and very sharp (high acutance), though their optics may be different from the C/Y versions.
    The 60mm is one of the great macro lenses.
    The 25mm is often maligned (apparently they changed the optical formula at some point), but a later version I have (after two poor earlier ones) has sharpness + the 3-D look.
    M6, SL, SL2, R5, P6x7, SL3003, SL35-E, F, F2, FM, FE-2, Varex IIa

  2. #32
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,045
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    424
    If you can scrimp and save for the 28 f2, do so. That's another legendary optic. The 28 f2, 35 f1.4, 50 f1.4, 85 f1.4, 100 f2, the aforementioned 60 macro and the 100 macro, 180 f2.8, 200 f2 are all in that legendary category. There's also the 15(?) rectilinear, but that's in the "if you have to ask..." price range. For the ultimate performance in wide-angles, the G-series optics for the rangefinders are the bees knees. I have the 21 f2.8 for my G2 and you can pry that lens from my cold, dead hands.

  3. #33
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,567
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera View Post
    The 135 is not bad, but it's not in the same league as the 180. The 180 is legendary, like the 85 1.4 .
    Ah,thanks. I'll likely control myself then. Like the Contax G lenses, I find the 21/28/45/90 amazing but the 35 while good, just not having the same magic......
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  4. #34
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,567
    Images
    1
    I find the 35/2.8 PC-Distagon to be a simply phenominal performer. I got an UG one for $800 or so many years ago. Seems they are going for a ransom these days in almost any useable shape. The build quality, the feel and sound of the aperture clicks, and the PC movement, is simply divine. Sounds crazy but if you held one and tweaked it you'd see exactly what I mean.
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  5. #35
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,045
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    424
    Yeah, the 35 for the G, were it not in such august company, would be considered an outstanding lens in anyone else's lineup. But when you're going head-to-head with the likes of the 21 or the 28, well... I think I remember reading somewhere that it was actually a better lens, optically, than the equivalent Leica M 35 f2. But it just doesn't render transitions between sharp and soft as pleasingly as the Leica or the 45 f2 for the G. It kind of reminds me of this Bausch & Lomb Tessar II b I have for my 11x14. In theory a great lens, but just doesn't quite measure up to the hype.

  6. #36
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,567
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera View Post
    If you can scrimp and save for the 28 f2, do so. That's another legendary optic. The 28 f2, 35 f1.4, 50 f1.4, 85 f1.4, 100 f2, the aforementioned 60 macro and the 100 macro, 180 f2.8, 200 f2 are all in that legendary category. There's also the 15(?) rectilinear, but that's in the "if you have to ask..." price range. For the ultimate performance in wide-angles, the G-series optics for the rangefinders are the bees knees. I have the 21 f2.8 for my G2 and you can pry that lens from my cold, dead hands.
    The 100 macro and 200/2 are on my lust list. Although I will say my 60/2.8 macro is amazing. Ever tried the 100-300 Vario-Sonnar? It's sharpness is truly jaw-dropping. Said to be sharper than the 300. I owned and later sold the 80-200. Was not that impressed with it.
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  7. #37
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,567
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera View Post
    Yeah, the 35 for the G, were it not in such august company, would be considered an outstanding lens in anyone else's lineup. But when you're going head-to-head with the likes of the 21 or the 28, well... I think I remember reading somewhere that it was actually a better lens, optically, than the equivalent Leica M 35 f2. But it just doesn't render transitions between sharp and soft as pleasingly as the Leica or the 45 f2 for the G. It kind of reminds me of this Bausch & Lomb Tessar II b I have for my 11x14. In theory a great lens, but just doesn't quite measure up to the hype.
    Yup. Used to have friendly arguments with some on The Contax G pages mail list (when it was around) about the 35. Some thought it performed right up there with the 28 and 45 but I just did not see it. Sharp? Yes. Decent performer? Certainly. But I used to shoot a lot of chromes then and the 28 and 45 shots were regularly mind-blowing on the light table in their 3-D rendering while the 35 was simply meh in comparison. Since I have acquired the 35/2 Biogon for my Leicas and it's got a different signature to it than the Contax G 35mm to me. I love it.
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  8. #38
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,045
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    424
    the 80-200 was fine for what it was - an inexpensive way to add some range to an otherwise limited lineup for me. Better than an equivalent Tamron/Sigma. I got some good wildlife shots down in Belize with it. It had reasonable macro focusing capability for a lens like that - I want to say it could hit 1:3. I never had the 100-300 - not only a big lens, but an expensive one at the time I was building that kit.

  9. #39
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,045
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    424
    The 35 f2 for the G series is actually a Planar, not a Biogon. I would be shocked if they did have the same lens signature. The Biogon formulation is one of those legendary lens designs - I've been fortunate enough to have shot with several, including the 38mm Hassy Superwide and the 21mm for the G series.

  10. #40
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,567
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera View Post
    The 35 f2 for the G series is actually a Planar, not a Biogon. I would be shocked if they did have the same lens signature. The Biogon formulation is one of those legendary lens designs - I've been fortunate enough to have shot with several, including the 38mm Hassy Superwide and the 21mm for the G series.
    Agreed. I keep the 35/2 Biogon on my MP as my usual go-to normal wide lens only switching to another lens now and then when using that camera. Have heard and seen great things on that Hassy Superwide, and owning the 21 for the G also agreed completely. Being more of a normal and short-tele shooter I sometimes struggle with wider lenses much to my chagrin knowing what an awesome lens that 21 is.

    Now if you have not you must try the Jupiter-12! Supposedly a Biogon copy. I like mine since I got it so cheaply and it's quite the novelty though its very awkward to use with its interior aperture ring and such. Pretty lens for what it is.
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin