Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,921   Posts: 1,584,854   Online: 1061
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,336
    Sure, but the new introduced Leica Summarit lenses will be in the same price range (Eur. 1000,-) than most ZM lenses, which is of course a logical development in the RF lens market.
    When looking at the new Leica M-mount C.V. 21mm/25mm lenses they are also looking good (and are optical also good) for again a fraction of the price of a Zeiss equivalent. But a lot of inside details are different. It's just what you want and can afford for the last few percent more quality

    I would like to have a Zeiss 2,8/15mm but can afford a C.V. 4,5/15mm which is 20x cheaper but fortunately not 20x less quality.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    196
    so if it is made by cosina in Japan, what about Voigtlander 35/1.2 Nokton Aspherical and 35/1.7 ASPH Ultron. According to cameraquest.com, "users report performance comparable with the legendary pre-aspheric Leica 35/2 Summicron! One of the sharpest fast 35mm lenses ever made in Leica Screw Mount". And it is only half the price of ZM.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,336
    C.V. 1,2/35mm is also M-mount.
    Here a review about this special lens:
    http://www.imx.nl/photo/voigtlander/...n_11235mm.html

    Conclusion

    The lens is a complex design with ten elements and three aspherical surfaces and from these specifications we may infer that the image quality might be at least as good as the performance we expect from more normal designs. The additional half stop to 1:1.2 and the wide angle of view seem to impose such limits to the designers that the compromise they searched for is a bit elusive. While very good 1.2 designs were made in the seventies in the 50mm focal length (see my Canon report), the step to a 35mm focal length is, even today, a bridge too far. The Nokton 1.2/35mm Aspherical is a good performer at smaller apertures, but at the wider apertures, it is just acceptable.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    196
    I have both CV 35/2.5 and Nokton 50/1.5. The latter flares a lot. and both of them have the issue that when I take photos at night, the light in distance doesn't show up as one blur spot, rather, a spot in the middle and a separated ring around it. my G1+45mm planar doesn't have me this problem.

    maybe I did something wrong?

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,789
    Images
    2
    Agreed, the CV lenses look like a fantastic value. I will definitely be picking up a 40/1.4 and the 15mm lens in the future. For what will be my bread and butter lens, the 35mm, I figured since the ZM seems to be very well received, I'd sprint the extra couple hundred dollars.

    The real question is what to I go for in 28. I'd love to get my hands on a Konica lens, but they seem hard to come by. The CV 28/3.5 looks fun, but a bit slow.

  6. #16
    Rob Skeoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Burlington, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    984
    There's so many great choices now.
    I've used the 35mm a couple of times and thought it was great. I don't think you can go wrong with any of their lenses.
    I just ordered a zm 28mm for myself. I hope to get it in time for a trip to Yosemite later this month.
    -rob
    Rob Skeoch
    This is my blog http://thepicturedesk.blogspot.com/
    This my website for photo supplies...
    www.bigcameraworkshops.com
    This is my website for Rangfinder gear
    www.rangefinderstore.com

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    London
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    80
    Has anyone compared a 35mm Biogon (or Jupiter 12?) with the 35mm f2.8 lens of a µ[mju:]-II?

  8. #18
    kivis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    South Florida
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    215
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Tim Gray View Post
    Agreed, the CV lenses look like a fantastic value. I will definitely be picking up a 40/1.4 and the 15mm lens in the future. For what will be my bread and butter lens, the 35mm, I figured since the ZM seems to be very well received, I'd sprint the extra couple hundred dollars.

    The real question is what to I go for in 28. I'd love to get my hands on a Konica lens, but they seem hard to come by. The CV 28/3.5 looks fun, but a bit slow.
    I just got the CV 28/3.5 with the idea that I would probably sell it. Now I think not. It really is growing me. Damn its cute. It is so small that I feel invisible. Shoot away!
    Akiva S.

    Nikkormat FTN, Nikon F, Nikon FE, Leica M3

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/kshapero/

    My Blog



  9. #19

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Tim Gray View Post
    Agreed, the CV lenses look like a fantastic value. ... The real question is what to I go for in 28. I'd love to get my hands on a Konica lens, but they seem hard to come by. The CV 28/3.5 looks fun, but a bit slow.
    I am very pleased with my CV 28/1.9 It could be smaller, but it feels good and delivers quality.

    Happy shooting,

    Dirk

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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