size or speed?

[back alley]

given the shock that some members expressed when i announced that i was thinking of going from the zm 35/2 to the new zm 35/2.8, i thought i'd ask the question...speed or size?

[BillP]

Size matters.

By which I mean, I have a number of 50mm lenses, ranging in size from a Canon 1.2 to a 5cm 3.5 Elmar. Guess which one gets the most use? That's right. The one I can carry most conveniently.

"F8 and be there", I think the saying goes, not "F8 and I wish I'd brought it".

Regards,

Bill

[hans voralberg]

Uhmm can I have both ?

[sebastel]

second for "both". that's why they are changeable.
by the way, while 2.8 may not be fast, it's not slow either (my own useless opinion).

cheers,
sebastian

[Robin P]

Ah, and one of the advantages of RFs is that lenses tend to be smaller and the viewfinder doesn't dim if you use a slower lens.
With SLRs I've found that 28m f2.0 is so much nicer to use than 28mm f3.5, fortunately I discovered one (a Komine built Vivitar) that is small and good.

Cheers, Robin

[Roger Hicks]

Uhmm can I have both ?

Easily. Pre-aspheric Summilux 35/1.4.

Sure, other lenses deliver better quality pictures of test charts -- but that's unlikely to make me (or many others) a better photographer, or to show a real-world difference.

Cheers,

R.

[payasam]

I wonder if this is a question that can include "other things being equal".

[FrankS]

One of the stated advantages of RF cameras over SLRs is compactness of the gear, especially lenses. My 1969 version Summicron is probably the technically best 50mm lens I have, but it gets used less than some of the more compact 50mm lenses. When I first saw the Zeiss 35f2 lens, I thought it was pretty big.

All things being equal I think here refers to image quality.

I wonder though how much better the compact Zeiss 35f2.8 is than the (at least) equally compact CV35f2.5? If one is really into best optical performance at any cost, shouldn't you be looking at using medium format?

[crawdiddy]

I'd go for size Joe, keep it compact.

Take a look at your recent work, have you really been needing the extra speed?

I go for speed, personally, unless it gets extreme-- I don't lug the 50mm f/0.95 around much.

Btw: Richard, I like your new avatar-du-jour. If you don't actually play the bass, you look like you do.

I was concerned with your recent mug-shot avatar. Considered posting a link to lawyers.com.

[Bingley]

I prefer compactness.

With a Canon 50/1.5, though, you can have both speed and small size...

[gb hill]

Depends on the camera I was shooting with. If I was using a Bessa R4a then size would be my main priority. I would be a bit annoyed if a 1/3 of my vf was blocked by a large lens. (thank God for pancake lenses right) But with the gear I have I don't have that problem & the speed is nice to have. But then there is that short base length to deal with on my Bessa R. So I guess I'll compensate on faster film speed if I need it.

[steverett]

As a happy owner of a CV 35 Nokton, it's pretty obvious that I prefer speed over size.

[drewbarb]

Interesting that the voters prefer speed, while the posters perfer small size.

I'd be unhappy if I didn't have at least one fast lens in my bag. Trouble is, it's often still at home when I need it, since I prefer to carry the small ones. Mostly I get by just fine pushing my film.

My fast lenses tend to get used only when I plan ahead and have something specific in mind for them.

[infrequent]

how abt fast and small? like the new cv nokton?

[back alley]

i might enjoy a fast lens more in winter but right now i am having a hard time using 1.4 on the nokton 35. time for slower film perhaps.
till now, my fast lens was the sonnar 50/1.5, not all that much slower then the nokton.

[pvdhaar]

The aperture difference between f2 and f2.8 isn't large enough to make me vote for the faster lens.

I think it makes sense to have one fast, very fast, lens in a line-up. Just to be able to shoot in ultra low light, or get paper thin DOF. But f2 at 35mm doesn't seem like that kind of lens to me. I'd say it's either f1.4 for speed, or f2.8 for compactness, but nothing in between..

[kmerenkov]

I prefer both size and speed and can't say what is more important for me.

Speed is important because I like to go shooting when light is dim (after work), 1/30 is one of most used speeds during this time, so speed is important to me.

Size? I can give an example for SLR - I sold my new brand 35 bazooka and bought 30-40 years old 35 just because it is twice smaller.

Voted for size, because I don't like to hang around with bazookas during daytime.

[mfunnell]

I think it makes sense to have one fast, very fast, lens in a line-up. Just to be able to shoot in ultra low light, or get paper thin DOF. But f2 at 35mm doesn't seem like that kind of lens to me. I'd say it's either f1.4 for speed, or f2.8 for compactness, but nothing in between..I like my little UC-Hexanon 35 - its small and has f2 :D

...Mike

[pvdhaar]

I like my little UC-Hexanon 35 - its small and has f2 :D

...Mike

Ooh, that makes me envious..

If you just tell me where you live, me and a big guy called 'Bubba' will pay you a visit.. :D

[ruby.monkey]

Size on a rangefinder, speed on an SLR.

[ferider]

Given that you have a fast 35/1.4 that is probably around the same size as the new "compact" Biogon ....

I just think compactness on the new Biogon is pure marketing. You know how small the color skopar is - which is faster, too.

So it's not really about speed vs. size I guess.

Roland.

[back alley]

would you say that the leica offerings in 2 and 2.8 are about marketing also?

[ferider]

Well the new Leica offerings are certainly way, way overpriced, IMO.

One of my 3 (long discontinued) Leica lenses that I think are worth having is the 35/2 v3. About the same size as the 40/2 that you know. I like it mostly because it is so small. Again, much smaller than the new Biogon.

You know I don't have a lot of lens brand integrity :)

Think about it this way: at a normal party, in a restaurant, some bar or dinner situation you need 400 ASA, f2, 1/15-30s.

Roland.

[back alley]

i wasn't thinking so much about the new sumarit line as much as the summicron/elmar/elmarit lenses.
i agree the new leica lenses seem to fit nowhere given their prices.

i rarely go out at night anymore and 99% of my shooting is outside and daylight. i have the 50/1.5 for low light.

if i were to go for the new smaller zm lens i would likely sell the 1.4 cv and the zm f2 lens as well.

it's all theory right now though.

[ferider]

I am the last one to make rational recommendations .... :)

Just buy it and try it out - then sell the others if you think the new one is a substitute, Joe.

[thomasw_]

Hi Joe, I would caution you against selling your cv35/1,4; as the 35mm focal length is your favourite. You would be best to have a lens capable of handling lowlight in your favourite focal length. If you have doubts about the cv35/1,4 that's another issue, but I assume here that you are satisfied and pleased with its rendering at 1,4. It seems to me your question is about the two ZM 35s; which would be better suited as your primary lens, the f2 or f2,8? Grant that the optics of the f2,8 model are on par with the f2. Accordingly, by your own account, you would use it mostly in daylight; so to me it would make sense to trade your f2 biogon for the f2,8 model simply because it is more compact. But, again, to my mind, it would make sense to have a second fast lens in your favourite focal length.
Good cheer, Thomas

[jonmanjiro]

Uhmm can I have both ?

Sure :D Nikkor-S 50s in S-mount are both small and fast ;)

[back alley]

Hi Joe, I would caution you against selling your cv35/1,4; as the 35mm focal length is your favourite. You would be best to have a lens capable of handling lowlight in your favourite focal length. If you have doubts about the cv35/1,4 that's another issue, but I assume here that you are satisfied and pleased with its rendering at 1,4. It seems to me your question is about the two ZM 35s; which would be better suited as your primary lens, the f2 or f2,8? Grant that the optics of the f2,8 model are on par with the f2. Accordingly, by your own account, you would use it mostly in daylight; so to me it would make sense to trade your f2 biogon for the f2,8 model simply because it is more compact. But, again, to my mind, it would make sense to have a second fast lens in your favourite focal length.
Good cheer, Thomas

very sensible...

i have been using the cv 35/1.4 on the zi this past weekend but have not processed any of the film yet. i think i prefer it on the zi and not the r4a for several reasons. if the shots come out ok it would make sense to keep that lens. then, yes, it would be a matter of maintaining the status quo or swapping the zm 2 for the 2.8, which is attractive simply because of the size difference.
i wish there were some shots on the net taken with the 2.8 but i have not yet found any.
it would be great if the zm lenses were compared similarly to the summicron and the now discontinued elmar m (in 50mm) - i love that elmar m.

joe

[Gabriel M.A.]

speed or size?

It's how you use it :)

[ewoq]

size or speed?

i prefer a happy medium. a nocti 1.0 would be to clumsy, a 3.5 lens to slow.

something around f2 works well for me in size and speed.

[shadowfox]

This is RFF.

Of course it's size :)