Decisions, decisions (newbie here)

alien8 · 10-15-2007

Well, I just took the plunge and bought my first rangefinder (aside from an old yashica that was passed down to me from my dad when I was a kid, and that I barely used). I bought an m6, (200162478344 on ebay if you're interested).

Anyway, the point of this post is to ask for help in figuring out how best to fit this new camera with a lens. I think I can only afford one high quality lens to start off with and I am leaning towards 35mm. I've been leaning towards a v4 summicron (a good lens, but less expensive than the current asphs?). But I am not sure if this is the best way to go. Whatever I buy, I would like it to be a final purchase, as opposed to something I would upgrade from later on.

Thanks,
Sean

cmedin · 10-15-2007

Make sure you can try out the different focal lengths first. I thought going wide angle (25mm) would be awesome only to find out I can't stand much wider than 50mm.

cmogi10 · 10-15-2007

First of all, congrats, I'm in love with my Black M6TTL so you made a good choice.

As far as lenses go, everyone likes different things. My favorite combination is the 35 and 75 lengths. Some people like wider, I don't. 25 seems really populer and CV makes a fair priced one and Zeiss makes a fantastic one.

You can't really go wrong with the 35cron though, the ver 4 is a real populer lens. Another one to look at is the 35mm zeiss biogon, I'm currently loving that lens.

FrankS · 10-15-2007

If you're looking for 35mm focal length, there is no better buy IMO (I said IMO) than the CV35f2.5 if speed is not an issue, or the CV40f1.4 (which is just about 35mm) if speed is an issue. Also right up there is the Jupiter 12 35mmf2.8 for $75, or the vintage Canon 35mm f2.8. If you've got lots of $ then the Zeiss 35mm f2 is well thought of. The Hexanon 35mm f2 is also great but difficult to find. I think I've named all the alternatives.

cmogi10 · 10-15-2007

You never mentioned how you feel the V4 cron fits into that lineup?

alien8 · 10-15-2007

Hmm, thanks for the recommendations. I am sure that I want to start with a 35. I have actually done a lot of photography over the years, but with SLRs and not rangefinders. I will keep my eyes peeled. I've heard great things about the v4 cron, so that's why I was initially leaning towards that lens, plus the fact that it's smaller than the zeiss biogon.

FrankS · 10-15-2007

I take that money is not an issue?

x-ray · 10-15-2007

I owned and used the v4 for a number of years and found it to be fine optically but sold it when I won a 35 asph summicron. I also have the Biogon and would rather shoot the Biogon over any of the 35's that i've owned. Optically and mechanically it excells over the v4.

alien8 · 10-15-2007

Actually money is an issue. I was hoping to get a good deal on a v4. We'll see how that pans out

If it really is the case that a biogon excels over a v4 then I suppose I should rethink my choice. I read good things about the biogon, but I also know that the v4 is touted as the "bokeh king" (not that bokeh is first consideration). Whatever lens I get, I know I will likely shoot wide open quite often, so wide open performance is a consideration.

cmogi10 · 10-15-2007

Did I mention I absolutely LOVE the Biogon?

x-ray · 10-15-2007

Wide open the Biogon is better then my asph summicron and much better then the v4. Used bargain price for a v4 will run more than the Biogon new. The OOF at f2 is no better than the Biogon. The Zeiss lenses have superb creamy smooth tones and OOF with modern day sharpness without harshness. Flare controll in the Biogon is the best i've seen. The v4 legend is more Leica myth then fact when compared to other lenses in the same FL. Don't get me wrong, the v4 is a fine lens but not better or even equal to the Biogon. Size is the only thing the v4 has in its favor.

thomasw_ · 10-15-2007

another plug for the zm 35/2. one thing don didn't mention above, but has elsewhere on this very topic, is the fact that the biogon is very resistant to flare even without the hood. thus as the 35 cron requires a hood to resist flare, the actual size of these lenses in practice is such that the size comparison looks good for the biogon.

it is my favourite 35. i'd be remiss if i'd mention how great the zm 50/2 and 25 are as well.

John Elder · 10-15-2007

My first M lens was a 4th version cron which I still have. It is a great lens. What suprised me was how well the 40 Summicron compares to the 35cron iv.
Really, I can't detect a meaningful difference. I shot the 35mm lens for the first 2 years I shot with a rangefinder exclusively. If I were you I'd try a 40 cron, best bang for the buck and if you don't like it , you sell it for at least what you paid for it. And its small like the cron iv.

Sofa King · 10-15-2007

Don't be so sure you won't want a 50. I was accustomed to shooting pretty much exclusively with a 28 on the SLR I used before I purchased my M6. I ended up buying only an M6 with a Zeiss 35/2 (which is an excellent lens, by the way) and I'm starting to wish that I had bought a 50 instead. I suggest you buy the body and then either borrow or rent a lens from both focal lengths just to be sure. I wish I had done so.

alien8 · 10-16-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Elder

My first M lens was a 4th version cron which I still have. It is a great lens. What suprised me was how well the 40 Summicron compares to the 35cron iv.
Really, I can't detect a meaningful difference. I shot the 35mm lens for the first 2 years I shot with a rangefinder exclusively. If I were you I'd try a 40 cron, best bang for the buck and if you don't like it , you sell it for at least what you paid for it. And its small like the cron iv.

I think the only issue I have with the 40 approach (apart from the view being less wide than the 35) is that the camera doesn't have frame lines for it, and I'd prefer not to have to deal with an external finder, which I think would slow me down white a bit. Cheers.

oscroft · 10-16-2007

Quote:

If you're looking for 35mm focal length, there is no better buy IMO (I said IMO) than the CV35f2.5

I agree - a superb lens.

Quote:

Also right up there is the Jupiter 12 35mmf2.8 for $75

That's a surprisingly good lens too, but on an M6 its rear element will block the meter cell.

.JL. · 10-16-2007

I have used the v4 35 summicron for several years, and it's still my main lens. I trust x-ray's opinion that the zm 35/2 is both optically and mechanically superior, and was tempted to make the switch many times. The reasons not to do so are size, weight, and that I am too familiar with the controls of the v4. At this point, I don't want to worry about getting used to the 1/3 click stop aperture ring for my main focal length. If I am starting the M-system today, yes I would likely go for the Biogon.

photos with v4

kalokeri · 10-16-2007

If you are thinking of a final purchase and money does matter, I would be careful to consider a v4 ´cron. They seem to be a little bit expensive neither this or that side of the Atlantic.

I haven´t used a Biogon myself but everybody who did ( and maybe even did not ) praises this lens. For the price it has it seems to be a real bargain.

So - to cut a long story short - I suggest to consider a Biogon, too.

Thomas

Rhoyle · 10-16-2007

Whatever lens you get, you're going to be amazed at how much better wide-angle photography is with a rangfinder over SLR. Use and enjoy!

alien8 · 10-16-2007

Okay, I think these posts have helped to clarify my thinking a little. It's a choice between laying out fairly big $$ for the biogon or saving some and getting the pancake II, which would probably allow me to get another voigtlander in a different focal length, or just save for something later. I've had trouble finding any complete reviews of the pancake II. Mr. Putts doesn't seem to have reviewed it for example.

EmilGil · 10-16-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by alien8

I think the only issue I have with the 40 approach (apart from the view being less wide than the 35) is that the camera doesn't have frame lines for it, and I'd prefer not to have to deal with an external finder, which I think would slow me down white a bit. Cheers.

Don't bother with that, when I checked the 35mm framelines match my 40mm just about perfect on distances over a few (2-3) meters. The framelines are very conservative and you'll end up with a lot more on the negative than you expected if you use the 35mm. The only "problem" is that you'll have to bring out a file and take a millimeter off a flange on the 40mm lens mount to make the 35mm frames show up.

I started with a 50/2, bought a 90/2.8 and a 25/4, sold the 50, bought a 40/2 and then another, older 50/2 DR. Which do I use the most? 40mm by far, probably 90% of the time. I'm actually considering selling one or two of the other lenses (but I can't decide which ones).

IMHO, the 40/2 is one of the most underrated M-mount lenses. I've also read that it has a signature very close to the 35/2 IV ("king of bokeh") but since I don't own one I haven't compared.

x-ray · 10-16-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by .JL.

I have used the v4 35 summicron for several years, and it's still my main lens. I trust x-ray's opinion that the zm 35/2 is both optically and mechanically superior, and was tempted to make the switch many times. The reasons not to do so are size, weight, and that I am too familiar with the controls of the v4. At this point, I don't want to worry about getting used to the 1/3 click stop aperture ring for my main focal length. If I am starting the M-system today, yes I would likely go for the Biogon.

photos with v4

When I say the Biogon is better it's nothing that would knock you over. the differences are slight and to most peoples shooting there is virtually no difference. If you're shooting at f2 all the time and enlarging to 20 inches and a darn good photographer then you may see the difference. If you have a v4 and like it then stay with it. IMO I didn't like the ergonomics of the v4 and had focusing mount problems but optically it mafe fine images. Do I see a difference, only slight differences at widest apertures in very large prints.

tbarker13 · 10-16-2007

The CV II is a great little lens, expecially when you consider the price. At this time, the 35 is the focal length I use as walk-around lens. And I really like compact lenses.
So for me, it's either the CV II or the pre-asp summicon IV, which I am currently using.
I had a biogon for a while and it was certainly a nice lens. But all things considered - image quality, size and weight) the summicron just fits me better.

But if money is an issue, I think you are onto something with the idea of CV lenses. You could pick up three different focal lengths in CV glass and be quite happy with the image quality.

Michiel Fokkema · 10-16-2007

Hi,

According to Erwin Puts the ZM is wide open as good as the Summicron v4.
http://www.imx.nl/photo/zeiss/the_ne...enses_2_t.html
How do you guys know the ZM is better than the asph. Summicron?

Cheers,

Michiel Fokkema

ocean7 · 10-16-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by alien8

Okay, I think these posts have helped to clarify my thinking a little. It's a choice between laying out fairly big $$ for the biogon or saving some and getting the pancake II, which would probably allow me to get another voigtlander in a different focal length, or just save for something later. I've had trouble finding any complete reviews of the pancake II. Mr. Putts doesn't seem to have reviewed it for example.

That was my dilema too (saving and getting several CV lenses OR spend more and get a Zeiss) until I find an excellent Planar 50/2 on eBay at MatsuiyaStore last weekend.

If I did not spend the money on the Planar I would have purchased Voigtlander lenses. Btw as you are in Montreal check Camtec Photo on Notre-Dame. They have the CV 35/2 PII in stock and it's cheaper than to get it from the USA.

I have not tried this lens but it gets excellent reviews here and on photo.net, all I can say from handling it at Camtec is that build quality is excellent... and boy this lens is tiny!