Fair enough, but I had such a thing in my Voigtlander Vitessa-L. The 50/2.0 Ultron is probably my favorite 50mm lens for 35mm, the only problem being that it's 35mm, so I sold it.
Originally Posted by Sanders McNew
Well, I've used all of 'em, and reviewed 'em for the comics, and my favourite comment comes from another reviewer (I apologize for forgetting who, but I think it was in AP. Or it might have been the BJP):
If Voigtlander, ZI and Leica were all made by the same manufacturer, their prices would accurately reflect their position in the market place.
Voigtlanders are superb cameras, and incredible value for money.
Leicas are, well, Leicas....
ZIs are somewhere between. Even my wife Frances Schultz, who likes the ZI very much and finds it easiest of all to hand-hold for long exposures, says she's want to try the ZI and MP side by side for 6 months before making a decision (the MP has better metering and M-series Leicas have a longer track record).
And all the Zeiss lenses we've tried are superb.
This would seem to be correct.
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks
My expectation is that CV positions the Voigtlander at the low price point versus the Leica. This leaves the middle for the ZI that it builds for CZ under supervised license.
I'd guess that CZ is really more interested in developing its lens line (both as to f-lengths built under license by CV and those built in-house) but realizes that it needs a quality (if not necessarily, top quality) body to provide a systemic opportunity.
For this reason, I would not expect many "improvements" to the CV-constructed under CZ supervision ZI body going forward. But it probably is a good "buy" - especially as "price pointed" against CV's own R3M etc.
Although the ZI does not have 90mm framelines, its 85mm framelines have virtually the same coverage. I've used a 90mm lens on the ZI and the framing is spot on.
Originally Posted by HerrBremerhaven
If you intend to use 75mm lenses, however, the ZI doesn't really accommodate those.
Seconded. Taking the MP 90mm frame as 100%, the ZI 85mm frame is identical; the M2 is 3% bigger; the R2 is 6% bigger; the R3A, 3% smaller.
Originally Posted by troym
Test: cameras on tripod at fixed distance, edges of horizontal field of view marked with film canisters.
All in-camera frames are 'scant', not least because they do not change size to accommodate focusing variations: the zoom TEWE finder, with separate indices for infinity and 1m/3 feet, shows almost 20% more at infinity and 12% more at 1 metre; the Russian turret finder shows 9% more; and the Voigtlander accessory finder (which has twin frames for infinity and close-up) shows 12% more at infinity and 6% less at 1m.
I'm currently waiting for an 85/2 from Zeiss to compare coverage...
Roger (these figures are from www.rogerandfrances.com, but they're in one of the paid-for modules, the ZI test).
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)