Making a big decision

[lucasjld]

Which lenses would you suggest? I liked the Zeiss 50mm 1.5 and 28mm.
Is there any wide angle Voitglander with similar quality to the Zeiss 28mm?

Is it "better" to have a 28mm and 50mm rather then a 35mm and 50mm?

[santela]

Originally Posted by lucasjld

Which lenses would you suggest? I liked the Zeiss 50mm 1.5 and 28mm.
Is there any wide angle Voitglander with similar quality to the Zeiss 28mm?

Is it "better" to have a 28mm and 50mm rather then a 35mm and 50mm?

That will depend on ur preferences. I personally like the zm 35/2 a lot, and I think it goes well with the 50 sonnar. The voigtlander 28/2 is also worth considering.

[Archiver]

Originally Posted by lucasjld

Which lenses would you suggest? I liked the Zeiss 50mm 1.5 and 28mm.
Is there any wide angle Voitglander with similar quality to the Zeiss 28mm?

Is it "better" to have a 28mm and 50mm rather then a 35mm and 50mm?

The Zeiss Ikon was my first rangefinder and a super introduction to rangefinder shooting. So good, in fact, that it spoiled me for a few aspects of the M9 and M7. These included the lightness and slimness of the camera, the hinged back, and the massively large and bright viewfinder. Having said that, I now use the M9 as my go-to camera and I find the M7 a more pleasurable tactile experience than the Ikon.

The Zeiss 28/2.8 was the first lens I bought, at the same time as the Ikon, and I love it. I'm a big fan of the 28mm focal length and the sharpness and look of the Zeiss 28 suits me very well. The Ikon with that lens is light and slim enough to put in the side pocket of a large jacket, something the M9 couldn't really manage due to its extra thickness and weight.

The 50/1.5 is a magical lens, although you need to decide whether you want the lens optimized at f2.8 or f1.5. F2.8 is the default setting and you'll need to send it to Zeiss for recalibration if you want to go the other way. I will most likely do this as I shoot this lens wide open most of the time, and leaning forward to compensate after focusing is a bit hit and miss.

As for whether it is 'better' to have a 28 instead of a 35, or vice versa, that depends on how you shoot, how much bokeh you want to have available, and how you like 35 vs. 28. 28mm is my preferred general purpose focal length as you can always crop a 28 but you can't expand a 35.

In recent times I have realized that I tend to build lens collections around the 28-50 combination. I have the Ricoh GXR with 28 and 50 modules. I have a Pentax ME with 28/2.8 and 50/1.4 lenses. I often carry the M9 with the 28mm Elmarit and 50mm Summicron, or the 28mmm Biogon and 50mm Sonnar. I also like to go wider with a Zeiss 25 or 21.

[Paul Jenkin]

Just a quick suggestion - a bit out of left field but.......

I have (and use) Leica M6TTL / M4-P and a 3 lens set up (28mm, 50mm and 90mm) and love the creative options it offers to me. However, as has been mentioned earlier in this thread, 35mm image quality - though good - isn't a patch on medium format.

Fairly recently, I acquired a Mamiya 7 with 65mm and 150mm lenses (approx 32mm and 75mm angle of view equivalent to a 35mm rig) and I love it. The Mamiya 6 is, arguably, even better if you want 6x6 rather than 6x7 - especially as you'll get 12 on a roll compared to 10. The Mamiya lenses are also super sharp and contrasty. Okay, at f3.5 and f4, they're not as quick as the Leica / Voigtlander lenses but you can always shoot 400ISO as your stock film and still get better image quality than a 35mm offers.

All that said, I doubt you'll go wrong either way. If you are comfortable with film and scanning and you're happy to make the switch, then I don't see what there is to lose.

[Peter^]

You can't go wrong the a Zeiss Ikon. The glass is wonderful; I don't think anyone here seriouisly claims that Leica is always better, but it is always more expensive.
Don't plan on doing sports with it: Sports suck with a rangefinder.
To add to the philosophy monographs above, if you are interested in the zen of photography, go back to the basics: manual focus, aperture priority, focal length, film speed.
The only problem I have is the lack of time to develop my backlog of film.

[iandiam]

Originally Posted by lucasjld

I also considered a Hassey 500, as you can get extremely cheap deals nowadays and shoot landscapes a lot.
Have anyone tried 6x6 format?

Sure. If you want to get in slow and low (usually my only option as just a hobbyist) you might consider an even-lesser-priced TLR. I love(d) my Yashica 24 (sold) and wait for times I can spend a day with my Yashica 124, (120 and 220 film)

Were it me, I think I would hang on to some of the DSLR stuff and pick up a couple of cheap, good performers, I can recommend a bunch, but here are some easy to find ones:

Olympus 35RC - great optics, not-so-fast lens, rangefinder, easy to adjust.

Yashica 24 / 124 - 6X6, 120 & 220 film. (Yes, the 24 takes 120 with caveats) Great lenses, not so fast, but to balance, they are supported by the strap at waist level. I've had some nice 1/4 sec exposures...

Yashica Electro 35 G / GS / GSN - fine, fast (f1.7), aperture-priority auto exposure. Stellar camera for CHEAP ($40 in ready to shoot condition.) Do a flickr search, you'll see.

Originally Posted by AndrewNYC

That taking a shot on film, and then scanning it, is another "capture" which can be just as complex and has all of the variables that your original capture. It is certainly possible to do it well, and to get your variables down to a handful, but it is another "picture" that you need to manage. First, get everything right in the photo, then getting everything right in the scan. It takes a significantly longer amount of time.

I disagree, unless your protocol is to snap away like a kid with a new cap-gun. Learn composition, your glass, and your film, and you have eliminated numerous steps. On a hobby level, most of us can guarantee much more satisfaction with hours of shooting and less behind a computer rather than the opposite.

Try a few rolls of basic color film in something less than $100 Out of my list above, I'd go for a recently CLA'd Electro 35. I'll be happy to recommend more. If you like it, sign up for film - but keep some digital around, even if its a nice P&S like the S90 or Olympus sp-350 that shoot raw...

While there are arguments above about how you can achieve any effect with digital and post, remember that time is money and so is your workflow.

[lucasjld]

Thank you all again!

I just lost an auction on a Black Zeiss Ikon, used but no marks.
The winning bid was TEN FREAKING EUROS higher than mine. It was the ultimate chance for me to buy a reasonable priced zeiss ikon. I'm really pissed.

[Rogier]

Familiarize yourself first with a Rangefinder camera and buy a used Yashica GSN. Fix the seals and battery and off you go. This will get you introduced into manual focussing and the rangefinder concept.

If you really like it, buy a used Leica body and a Zeiss lens to save some cost.

Alternatively if you want to spark your creative juices. Here is my advice:
Put all your other stuff in a deep dark closet and only mount ONE prime focus lens on your current camera and live with it for a full year :-)

If you want to juice it up a bit more, buy one Zeiss MF lens for your digital slr. You will be amazed!

Originally Posted by lucasjld

Hi there,

I've just registered this forum as I was looking for some info on the Zeiss Ikon ZM camera. I have a big doubt before switching to Rangefinder.

I currently work full time with ads and marketing, but still take some freelance jobs, mainly sports or weddings (yes, big contrast).
Unfortunately, I need to choose between both. They all affect each other, so I can't keep them at the same time.

I don't know why but lately I've been disappointed with my own work, not accepting wedding jobs anymore (also because its not my main income), even though I've recently updated all my equipment. I just got tired of people asking for stupid prices, not having time to travel, etc.

I'm thinking of leaving photography as a hobby only. And while I randomly looked for photo discussions, the Rangefinder cameras came through.
It just looked perfect. Light, compact, amazing IQ. I don't care if its film or digital. I was never interested in Leicas, mostly for the price, and didnt know the "incredible" world of rangefinder cameras.

So, I could sell all my DSLR stuff (Canon) and would have enough money to buy a Carl Zeiss ZM + 2 or 3 lenses.
I'm going on a big trip to Europe (I'm from Brazil), and I just felt it would be amazing to register such an experience with theses little cameras. I know I'll need 100 film rolls, but its doesnt matter as it would make me more "thoughtful" before pressing the shutter.

I didnt plan to write all that down and sorry for my "on, at, in, with" mistakes. I just wanted to know if anyone had the same experience or anything like it.

[thegman]

Originally Posted by Rogier

Familiarize yourself first with a Rangefinder camera and buy a used Yashica GSN. Fix the seals and battery and off you go. This will get you introduced into manual focussing and the rangefinder concept.

If you really like it, buy a used Leica body and a Zeiss lens to save some cost.

Alternatively if you want to spark your creative juices. Here is my advice:
Put all your other stuff in a deep dark closet and only mount ONE prime focus lens on your current camera and live with it for a full year :-)

If you want to juice it up a bit more, buy one Zeiss MF lens for your digital slr. You will be amazed!

Respectfully, I disagree with the above. I think a Leica is only worth getting if you love the Leica feel/brand. I speak as a Leica MP owner. Leica cameras are great, but the Ikon offers more bang for the buck, and the viewfinder is better. If you've not been seduced by the Leica aesthetic (like I was), then I really think the Ikon is the better buy. You've got the better finder, AE if you want it, and most people will find the film loading easier. The money saved can be spent on travel, film, lenses etc.

The Ikon is the only range finder I'd sell my MP to buy, compared to the MP, I really think for the money, it's a lot better buy.

[Matus]

I would say that you have a good plan - though you should try to shoot (and develop or have developed) a few rolls before leaving to be sure that the camera you have is OK and that you 'understand', so to say, the camera.

I would only add one more comment - there were a few proposals to skip 35mm and go for 6x6 or similar. I have traveled with a 6x6 TLR and now with Mamiya 6 - I would just say that it is a different experience. If you do more 'thinking' (=more time per shot, not to disgrace 35mm shooters) while taking a picture and/or photograph more static subject, than the MF will reward you with beautiful tones and allow you to print large. But the slowness of the lenses (mostly f/4) may be disadvantage (as well as slow top shutter speed - often just 1/500). And even though cameras like Mamiya 6 are reasonably compact for MF, it still weights a bit more than 2 kg with all 3 lenses and is quite a bit larger than 35mm RF. Getting just 12 images per roll needs also be considered.

Have fun with film

[migtex]

Lucas
Before dive onto RF, get some cheaper RF's cameras and feel yourself with it. If you felt great than you can always move to digital (RD-1, Fuji X1 Pro and yes the L) or analog RF's (Bessa R2/R4/R4, Nikon or the L too). Remember that analog will be more time consuming... but can be great!

[Haigh]

A rangefinder is portable and in the streets I guess it has the advantage of not looking like a "serious" camera. For many years I had one Leica with one lens. I exhibited quite a bit with that combo. Yes, you do slow down with film and rangefinder but that can be an advantage. Also you do not have masses of controls as you do with dslr's so it is ready to use all the time without fiddling. You might checkout Voigtlander cameras. I use a Bessa R4 and have long been married to an old Leica M4 which is as tough as boot leather.
Good luck and above all, have fun and then post your work for us.

[lucasjld]

Thanks again for all your replies. I can't answer one by one, but all posts have been really helpful.

I was going to buy the camera from the UK (friend coming), but another friend of mine will be going to the States, so I might consider the Voigtlander.

The Bessa R4 has a .50x VF, the R3 has a 1x and the R2 a .70x, right?

I was reading that the .50x VF has a hard time focusing a 50mm 1.5 and the 1x VF has a hard time with wide angle lens. So I should stick with the R2M (works without batteries) that has a .70, working fine with 28mm and 50mm.