Don't overlook the 40mm Summicron C, an f2 beauty. And the Summaron.
Printable View
Don't overlook the 40mm Summicron C, an f2 beauty. And the Summaron.
As many mentioned, there are many choices out there, most of which are good, albeit in different ways.
I'll put a plug in for the last pre-asph Summicron (yes, it's the proverbial recommendation of the "lens I have", though I have to say that I tried many before choosing that particular one).
Not the very sharpest or fastest or cheapest out there, but it does hit a sweet point in all parameters: especially size, weight & ergonomics work very well. It's also very flare resistant (very important for me).
While you could hardly do wrong getting almost any of the lenses mentioned if they come up at a good price, the "Summicron IV pre-asph" does pretty much everything well.
This one looked great because it's so small and it's still an f/2. The problem is, on my M6 you'd have to select the 50mm framelines, which is still doable but I would think would become an annoyance over time.Quote:
Originally Posted by bill h
Just curious, I see there is both a Carl Zeiss 35/2 and a 35/2.8. You can purchase both brand new for a rather good price, $800 for the 35/2.8 and $1000 for the 35/2. I like the idea of the smaller f/2.8 but would love the extra stop of light afforded by the f/2. I have heard that the f/2 intrudes into the viewfinder framing. It's a tough call.
Brian,
I can't say much for the 35mm focal length Zeiss or Leica. But I have nothing but amazing things to report about the 35mm f/1.4 Voigtländer Nokton. Wide open it's gorgeous, and with a 25mm aperture you're right on for portraiture. Then, stopped down it's just incredibly sharp and makes perfect negatives to print.
All I'm saying is to not discount it. I've used one now for a few months, and am in love. It makes pictures that strongly remind me of the 80mm Hasselblad Zeiss Planar.
- Thomas
The Zeiss f2 should be a great lens. Your save a chunk of change over the Summicron Ashperic, but pay for it a bit in size and weight. I regularly use f2 on my Summicron and personally wouldn't give up a full stop of speed. Often you don't even notice slight blockage in shooting, but if the finder blockage ends up being a problem I'd sure look into a used Summicron before loosing half the speed with the 2.8 Zeiss. If your shooting style doesn't emphasize available light, then your conclusion may well be different.Quote:
Originally Posted by brian steinberger
The 6 element Summicron is tiny and the most affordable. I know of one locally if you are interested (think it is still around).
BTW, my impression has been that the 40 Summicron (that you mentioned in another post) is based on the 35mm 6 element design. The designs look virtually identical and pererformance is very similar except the edge performance is slightly better on the 40 due to the longer FL. I've had more than one of each over the years.
I have been very happy with my older 35mm f2 Summicron. I have no idea about what model it is but it is one of the 1913 - 1983 aniversary specimens. I bought it slightly used together with a new M6 in 1986
Don't use it much these days but it is just one of those cameras/lenses that will go when i go.
I had a Summicron and a Biogon and kept the Biogon. You can buy a Biogon brand new for less than a used Summicron these days. The performance of the Biogon is pretty spectacular too. It is practically optical perfection. I took a lot of the same images with both lenses and the Biogon was crisper, had more even illumination and was better corrected for distortion.
There are a lot of choices and the reality is you would be fine with almost any of them. As they say, so many choices, so little difference.
I'm still torn as to which Biogon to get, f/2 or f/2.8. My instinct is to get the 2.8. It's smaller and the reviews I've heard are just fantastic. The thing is, I was hoping to do some low light photography with it, not serious low light stuff, but stuff like indoors without flash photography. Could I get away with the 2.8 in most circumstances like this with, say, pushing Tri-x to 1600?
When I shoot outdoors, at night with only street lights to aid me, or indoors with only indoor lighting, I use 3200 film shot usually around 6400 with an f/1.4 lens wide open unless someone is close to a light source.