Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,266   Posts: 1,534,324   Online: 777
      
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 50 of 50
  1. #41
    brian steinberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    2,331
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    100
    Shooting it is nice. I'm still getting used to the arrows for metering in the VF. I'm used to aperture priority mode in my other RF's. But the build quality is amazing, and the shutter is nice and smooth. I still have yet to develop any film yet.

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Pasadena
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,687
    I'll go so far as saying there are not any bad Leica OR Zeiss lenses made for the M - in fact no "bad" Voigtlander lenses either! The main difference is that the late model Leica and Zeiss lenses will maintain a ridiculously high degree of sharpness wide open, whereas the earlier ones will not be quite as sharp wide open (but certainly darn good compared to the general field of 35mm lenses). And yes the aspherically surfaced Leica's deliver that wee bit of extra performance for the most demanding among us (and wealthiest!).

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    568
    Quote Originally Posted by brian steinberger View Post
    Shooting it is nice. I'm still getting used to the arrows for metering in the VF. I'm used to aperture priority mode in my other RF's. But the build quality is amazing, and the shutter is nice and smooth. I still have yet to develop any film yet.
    Coming from Auto, it won't take long for you to get the hang of manual exposure. For most situations you only need to meter once. Auto and the manual meter indicators move around a lot in response to slight changes in the reflectivity of the subject. If the light hasn't changed, or your subject hasn't moved into radically different light, then you don't need to change the exposure. Matching the arrows for each shot will not improve the exposure.


    My apologies if you already know that and it seems too basic, but it is not always obvious when moving from auto exposure. I am speaking about negatives. The issue is similar, but the decision making is somewhat different for slides (need to make sure the highs don't blow out).

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    15
    I'm in the same predicament as the original owner of this thread. To buy the 2.8 or 2.0 Zeiss biogon. I'm wondering Brian how you feel about the size of the faster lens now that you have been using it a while? I want the F/2 but I'm worried about the size of it. I will be using the lens on a Voigtlander R2A.

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    35
    great combo! i dont have a 35 mm, but a 28 mm, all great lenses.

  6. #46
    Mustafa Umut Sarac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    İstanbul - Türkiye
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,818
    Images
    108
    I prefer a Leitz lens which is a result of hand calculation optimization not computer. An Genius sits on a table and works 10 hours a day for 2 or more years and when working with mathematics , he develops new mathematical view angles , formulas.
    An computer can generate a lens but it cant generate itselves rules. Why Leica expensive , because they developed all better chemistry, mathematics , physics by themselves , they did not buy a 40 dollar research article , carry in to software and than generate the lenses as much as good as article.

    Dont forget , older 60 years old Leitz lenses have two times more resolution at the corner than latest Summicron. Bokeh is not important , texture , degrades and colors are important. You cant get same color with canada leicas. I really hate everything about latest Leica images.

    Dont waste your hard earned money to tourist traps , buy a IIF with Summar , no other lens can beat it.

    Umut

  7. #47
    janrzm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Tauranga
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    39
    I have the 35 Cron Asph which I fully intended to sell when I bought the new 35 Lux, but I just have not been able to do it yet......I have no experience of the other Leica 35mm lenses so can only say that the Asph is an amazing lens but costly. I have several VC lenses which I hold in high regard, you should seriously consider the VC Nokton 35 f/1.2, faster and a lot less strain on the pocket. I know you said 35mm but the 40mm VC Nokton f/1.4 is a lens I can never quite put out of my mind.....

  8. #48
    peter_n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Boston, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by janrzm View Post
    I have the 35 Cron Asph which I fully intended to sell when I bought the new 35 Lux, but I just have not been able to do it yet...
    Well the OP has already purchased his Biogon so that is done. However your post did remind me that I used to have the 35 Summilux ASPH and then got a 35 Summicron ASPH. Nine months later I sold the Summilux and bought a v.1 Summicron (8 element) which I like just as much as the ASPH but for different reasons. We are all different.


  9. #49
    Rol_Lei Nut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hamburg
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Mustafa Umut Sarac View Post
    I prefer a Leitz lens which is a result of hand calculation optimization not computer. An Genius sits on a table and works 10 hours a day for 2 or more years and when working with mathematics , he develops new mathematical view angles , formulas.
    An computer can generate a lens but it cant generate itselves rules. Why Leica expensive , because they developed all better chemistry, mathematics , physics by themselves , they did not buy a 40 dollar research article , carry in to software and than generate the lenses as much as good as article.

    Dont forget , older 60 years old Leitz lenses have two times more resolution at the corner than latest Summicron. Bokeh is not important , texture , degrades and colors are important. You cant get same color with canada leicas. I really hate everything about latest Leica images.

    Dont waste your hard earned money to tourist traps , buy a IIF with Summar , no other lens can beat it.

    Umut
    While some lens designers may well have been geniuses, the ones working for companies had many slav... er, assistants (mostly women) working all day doing the routine calculations for them. Not really different from a computer, just much slower.

    60 years ago, Zeiss lenses were almost always better than Leica's (possible exception being the Elmar).
    Given the same design, the made in Canada lenses were just as good as the made in Germany ones.
    That a Summar is unbeatable is a statement which lies far, far (far!) in the realm of taste.

    Whew...
    M6, SL, SL2, R5, P6x7, SL3003, SL35-E, F, F2, FM, FE-2, Varex IIa

  10. #50
    cmo
    cmo is offline
    cmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,457
    Images
    57
    I have the Zeiss 2/35 since a few weeks. Great lens, tacksharp, very good mechanics, and it's better at backlight shots than any other lens I ever used - it seems to be unable to produce flare or ghosts, and I am a backlight addict. The only downside is that it's a bit bigger than a Leica 2/35.
    The future belongs to the few of us still willing to get our hands smell like fixing bath.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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