What lenses for my new ZI

[Rudolphono]

Hi.

I want to buy a new ZI because of the bright viewfinder
and the big baselength.
Its my first RF with interchangeable lens.
I want to use a fast 35mm standard lens (short focusing distance would be nice too)
and a ultra wideangle lens (15-21mm) as a start.

I want a fast and small/light 35mm lens, beacause i am shooting a lot at verry changeable light conditions.

What are the right lenses for me?
I would prefer new lenses. No exotic used stuff.
I could spend about 1200$ for the 35mm.
The ultra wideangle should be a bit mor affordable.
Thanks für youre help.

Ralle

[back alley]

how fast is fast?

for me f2 is fast but 2.8 is fast enough.

[Burlap Jacket]

Voigtlander 35/1.4. Small and fast.

[kshapero]

I had the CV 35/f1.4 but I like the CV 35/f1.7. It is fast enough, handles better and draws a little more old timey. IMHO. Oh it is lots cheaper.

[jonmanjiro]

Voigtlander 35/1.4. Small and fast.

Seconded. It's a great little lens, and makes for a really light setup on a Zeiss Ikon.

[scottwallick]

for me f2 is fast but 2.8 is fast enough.

I agree, so I went with the newer 2.8/35 ZM, which is a bit smaller (smaller enough, rather) than the 2/35 ZM. I've been very pleased with what I've managed with it. This lens compliments my 2.8/28 and 2/50 ZMs nicely.

But if I was going to have just one lens for my body for a time, I'd probably go ahead with the faster 2/35 ZM.

[mfogiel]

Ralle
You shoud say also, if you shoot B&W only or colour as well. I think the most universal high quality 35mm around, outside of expensive Leica stuff, is the Nokton 35/1.2, but it is not small. I would put the 35/2 Biogon second, (but not in terms of results) as on a ZI it makes for a combination that really delivers. I got a disproportionate amount of technically excellent shots with this combo. As for the 21mm, if you can be happy with the f4.5 max aperture, grab the C Biogon 21/4.5, period.

[Double Negative]

I would suggest something like the Zeiss 2/35 Biogon and 2/50 Planar ZM lenses. I started off with those two on my ZI and they're fantastic lenses. The 1,5/50 Sonnar ZM is also very nice - but some understanding of it is important (whereas the Planar is more "straightforward").

[Rudolphono]

Hi.

I'm using 65% B/W Film; 20% color positive and 15% color negative Film.
And i like orange filters and slow films.

The 35/2 Biogon and the Nokton 35/1.4 were my first choice.
Does the more expensive Biogon pays off?

A faster wideangle would be nice. Because it fits better to the standard lens.
The price for a external viewfinder for ZI lenses is crazy.

Or should i choose slower lenses because of the smaller size, better price? (better picture quality???)
Otherwise i like a small depth of field.
What do you think?

Ralle

[mfogiel]

If you also shoot colour, stay with Zeiss. I don't have a first hand experience with the CV 35/1.4, but I use both the the CV 35/1.2 (which is considered a better lens than the 35/1.4), and the 35/2 Biogon : from f2.8 on, the Biogon is a certainly a winner. As to the 21mm, you have the following options:
Lenses -C Biogon 21/4,5 - best lens optically by a wide margin, Biogon 21/2.8, excellent lens, but more distortion, much bigger and more expensive, CV 21/4P - I've heard good things about it, but it has some distortion and less sharpness than Zeiss.
Viewfinders: Bessa R4A - good VF for 21,25 and best of all 28mm, as a bonus you get the 35 and 50mm frames, plus a camera body ;-), then Zeiss 21mm - only a bit less expensive than the Bessa R4A, but the best 21mm VF on the market, CV 21mm VF - some distortion, but least expensive of all.
See which combination suits your finances, I'd go for the R4A+C Biogon 21/4,5 and some fast film...

[Double Negative]

I considered the 1,4/35 Nokton myself but in all the sample photos I've seen, I just don't care for the "wiry" or "harsh" bokeh. It's a matter of preference, certainly - but I know it wasn't mine... So I left it at that. I did just pick up a 1,2/35 Nokton though - which definitely has some of the smoothest bokeh around, is nice and bright, priced right and nicely sharp. Downside is that it's "huge" and "heavy" (by RF standards). I intend to use this lens in low light situations or when I need the razor thin DoF of f/1.2 primarily (which I do like to shoot quite often).

But I'd never give up the 2/35 Biogon (short of maybe a 1,4/35 Summilux Asph). It's not the smallest 2/35 out there, and perhaps could be a hair sharper wide open - but otherwise it's an outstanding lens.

I can't really speak of Leica lenses (I only have the 2,8/90) but as far as the Zeiss lenses - I really appreciate the nearly identical ergonmics and handling between the lenses in the lineup as well as similar rendering. They're all ridiculously sharp and are so across the entire field. Distortion is non-existant.

I chose my focal lengths, in part, so I wouldn't have to rely on external viewfinders. I just don't care for them - and as such, don't own a single one. However, I *might* pick up an 18mm just to use the 4/18 Distagon on the Ikon (I bought it primarily for the M8).

[Tim Gray]

The ZM 35/2 is a really nice lens.

Also, be sure to check out a the CV 15/4.5. It's small, affordable, and a lot of fun to use.

[hiromu]

Biogon 35/2 and CV21 both can be had for the price of Nokton 1.2.
Hiromu

[Rudolphono]

Whats the difference betwen the Biogon 35/2 and the C Biogon 35/2.8.
At the moment i am on the way to choose slower lenses for traveling and every day use.

R4A + C Biogon 21/4,5 + a 35mm (C) Biogon sounds like a nice combination.
I can get an ZI + a fast 35+50mm lens if the RF thing works good for me. (sometimes in the future)

Ralle

[Double Negative]

^ About one stop. :p

Seriously though, they're both good lenses. The f/2.8 is a good bit shorter than the f/2 and a bit lighter. Optically they're both excellent.

Same goes for the two Zeiss 21mm lenses. The downside with the 21mm lenses is that there are no framelines for them on the ZI. Part of the reason I went with the 2,8/25 - I can use the entire viewfinder on the ZI and the 35mm framelines on the M8 (as mentioned, I don't care for external viewfinders). Personally I'd consider the 4,5/21 a bit on the dark side.

If you're considering the R4A, then you're golden - it has 21mm framelines. :)

[noimmunity]

Everybody has given you great advice. You can't go wrong with any of the choices above.

Based on your criteria (small, light, fast, new, under $1200), I think you really have only one choice for a 35: the CV 1,4/35 .

Yes the other lenses mentioned are all very appealing for this or that reason, and since I have them and not the smaller Nokton, I might be expected to persuade you otherwise. But no! Your criteria are clear. The only caveat is that IF, however, you would be shooting architecture or things with straight lines, then you should veer towards the other lenses.

Yes the CV 1,4/35 has certain limitations, but ultimately this is what RF photography is all about.We have to pick which compromise we can work with. Within those parameters the rewards are rich and you won't be feeling "limited" at all--quite the opposite.

Plus, it sounds like you will expand your gear later on.

Another vote for the C Biogon 4,5/21.

[Double Negative]

^ Jon makes a very good point. If you want small, fast, light, cheap, etc. then the 1,4/35 Nokton is the best fit.

Do look at sample photos (e.g. here on Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/groups/nokton35f14/pool/)) and see if you like the signature (e.g. bokeh) of the lens. It does have a little distortion, in the form of barrel distortion which you should be aware of as Jon mentions.

For me personally the bokeh and distortion kind of ruled it out, but it's an awesome lens and I'm just picky like that. For the money it's a fantastic bargain and considering its speed, wonderfully small.

[thomasw_]

I recommend at least f2 for the 35mm as it will be your normal lens. The cv f1,2 or 1,4 might work if you like their virtues and can live with their shortcomings -- the f1,2 is very large and the f1,4 can show some barrel distortion; both are in your cost range. The f2 ZM is a great lens; very sharp and modern, particularly sweet with kodachrome 64 colours; its downside is that it is the same size as the Leica f1,4 summilux: not a big deal to me, but if you like a small/compact form, there are better choices. The lenses at f2 I recommend most would the summicron v.3 and v.4. Both can be obtained in your stated range. The v.3 flares less but the rendering, the coma, of the v.4 is very contentious: i love it but some prefer a less dreamy look. But whether the dreamy OOF areas are worth the extra dollars is for you to decide; many like me think it is.

[Sam N]

Just to give an alternative POV (and FOV har har), how about the CV 40/1.4? It's even cheaper than the 35/1.4 and doesn't have the barrel distortion problems. On my ZI the 35mm framelines are pretty accurate for it as well.

[noimmunity]

Just to give an alternative POV (and FOV har har), how about the CV 40/1.4? It's even cheaper than the 35/1.4 and doesn't have the barrel distortion problems. On my ZI the 35mm framelines are pretty accurate for it as well.

exactly one of the reasons I have that 40. With all the interest in the 35, I picked up a mint 40 for a song. (Hint: look for non-US sellers). The 40 seems to have no noticeable distortion, but it does vignette a little (YMMV) and it has, like the 35, somewhat vexing bokeh wide open (which stopped down smooths out well; use it as an f/2 lens with that extra stop in reserve and it's sweet). Plus, the progression from 21 to 40 is a natural which the OP could later expand up into the Zeiss-friendly 85 (several choices here) and down into the CV 12.

[gohaj]

Hi.

I want to buy a new ZI because of the bright viewfinder
and the big baselength.
Its my first RF with interchangeable lens.
I want to use a fast 35mm standard lens (short focusing distance would be nice too)
and a ultra wideangle lens (15-21mm) as a start.

I want a fast and small/light 35mm lens, beacause i am shooting a lot at verry changeable light conditions.

What are the right lenses for me?
I would prefer new lenses. No exotic used stuff.
I could spend about 1200$ for the 35mm.
The ultra wideangle should be a bit mor affordable.
Thanks für youre help.

Ralle

Leica Summicron 35mm f/2 Type 4
Zeiss ZM 21mm f/2.8 or Zeiss ZM 21mm f/4.5 (depending you want it for low light or compact in size)