Lens dilemma

[fred_c1]

<p>...and use the change for a 75/1.8 Heliar.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>I like Fred's idea.</p>

<p>The Leica/Zeiss argument has been around for ages. The common answer has been to pick Zeiss if you're a 'sharpness' guy, and Leica if you're a 'vibe' guy. They're a lot more similar now, which just further stresses that it's just a personal preference between the two.</p>

<p>Generally unless you're taking about the pants-wetting 50 1.4 Leica, it's all good.</p>

[nee_sung]

<p>I have used these 50mm lenses:<br>

70's + 90's versions of 'cron<br>

F/1.5 Summarit<br>

Pre-war and post-war (50's single coat) 50 Elmar<br>

Noctilux F/1.0<br>

'Lux Asph<br>

40mm C 'cron<br>

45mm Planar on Contax G2 plus almost all the other focal lengths for the G2, except the 21mm<br>

My experience is actually the Planar was sharper, to my eyes, but I sold the whole G2 set and stayed in Leica. I just like the Leica look better.<br>

My comments (cannot call it advice) is that you owe it to yourself to try the 'cron, because you're trying the Leica system. If you don't like it, you can always sell it, with either minimal or no loss. You can then try the Zeiss. Heck, you should try them all and then settle for one.<br>

You will, eventually, try all the brands, anyway. Trust me. And no advice here or anywhere else can clear away that nagging feeling that you've missed out on something it you don't.</p>

[seth_honeyman]

<p>The used boards have the 35MM f2 Planar for sale at around $700 to $800. That makes it a huge bargain in Leica terms. The Zeiss lenses tend to be a bit warmer than the Leica lenses, perhaps not quite the build quality, but are very sharp and produce a very pleasant image. In any event, whichever you get, you will be impressed by the image quality.</p>

[Gus Lazzari]

<p>Seth, I think the Zeiss 35mm f/2 Planar is only a "<a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/contax/g-system.htm">G</a>" lens.<br /> For the Leica M-mount it's a Zeiss 35mm "Biogon" <strong>f/2.8 or f/2</strong>.</p>

<p>By far, the choice of materials is <strong>best</strong> with virtually all of the Leica lenses.<br /> (Maybe not the finish, but the metals are harder and lubricants are better)</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>From a practical point of view, if you are a hundred or more clicks a day professional, get a Leica lens. If you want high quality but shoot only a hundred or less images a week or two, the field for you I think is wider. You may not need the superior craftmanship (if that is true in some cases) 20 years from now.</p>

<p>I appreciate it when a die hard Leica person like Mr. Puts states that the 35mm Zeiss f2 for M is as good and indeed in many respects better than the 35mm Asph f2 Summicron, and the 50mm comparison (f2 lenses) is a toss up, and when the inexpensive 12mm Heliar VC lens is surprisingly very fine and recommendable (he was referring in all cases to theiruse on an M8 or M8.2, prior to the arrival of the full field M9).</p>

[ray .]

<i>"

If you want high quality but shoot only a hundred or less images a week or two, the field for you I think is

wider."</i>

<p>OK Arthur, I'd like to know your source for that. May or may not be true, but I've certainly never heard

such a thing. Granted, VC cameras are a bit more flimsy than Leica, but I've never heard of any particular problems with the more recent VC or Zeiss lenses.

[Gus Lazzari]

<p>Ray and Arthur:<br /> Surprisingly, I've encountered this relatively new crop of M-mount Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses, that have in fact had their issues. (It hasn't taken 20 years)<br /> Like I've mentioned in other discussions:</p>

<ol>

<li>The screws must be carefully removed with special techniques. (They're soft and can easily be marred or heads stripped)</li>

<li>The lubricants are failing <strong>early</strong>, showing up as mushy focus feel and at times binding. (One internal helical thickens and another stays loose)</li>

<li>Added to the bad lube defect, the barrel tracts that hold the lens from spinning, <strong>flex</strong>. (Binding is the result)</li>

</ol>

<p>Sorry fans of these mostly Japanese made lenses; but as they say, "it is what it is"</p>

[chris_mearns]

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=375598">Eric Friedemann</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Feb 14, 2011; 09:23 a.m.</p>

 

<p>As you have four options, the choice you face is not a "dilemma"- a problem with two possible solutions.</p>

<p>I can't let this beautiful post go unnoticed. Help in the precise use of language is an adornment to any thread. In England we'd describe this remark as 'smart arse'. But in a good way. <br>

My question: what do you call the choice where there are four options?<br>

Stick with the 35- 50 range you like. So 28 - 35. If you're new to rangefinders, keep it simple, the first ten years are quite difficult. </p>

 

 

 

[nee_sung]

<p>Here's the definition from the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, 6th Edition 2007:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>1 In Rhetoric, a form of argument involving an opponent in choice between two (or more) alternatives, both equally unfavourable.<br />2 A choice between two (or several) alternatives which are equally unfavourable; a position of doubt or perplexity; a difficult situation or problem.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Oxford Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1994, is a bit more strict:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>1. In Rhetoric. A form of argument involving an adversary in the choice of two (or, loosely, more) alternatives, either of which is (or appears) equally unfavourable to him. (The alternatives are commonly spoken of as the ‘horns’ of the dilemma.)<br />2. Hence, in popular use: A choice between two (or, loosely, several) alternatives, which are or appear equally unfavourable; a position of doubt or perplexity, a ‘fix’.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So it would seem that "dilemma" has, by usage over time, come to mean two or more choices (the Oxford Dictionary is 13 years older). Rather the mis-use (if we can call it that) seems to come from the fact that none of the choices are unfavourable, whereas in a dilemma all the choices are supposed to be unfavourable. I rather suspect that even this restriction will eventually be removed by popular usage.</p>

[rod_rhoads]

<p>Since budget does seem to be important, why not try adapters and some tried and true lenses which you may already own or which are quite reasonable when it comes to W/A shooting. The DOF will cover you in most landscape shooting and even some portrait shots. For example , I am an old Canon user who switched to Canon FD in 1870 after also owning Canonflexes and Canon RF equipment. I bought some of Canon's adapters way back in order to use FD mount lenses on my RF cameras (39mm) and to use other lenses on my FD equipment. (Canon Lens Mount Converter B, Canon Lens Mount Converter P, Canon Lens mount converter N and also an E adapter which I unfortunately gave away a long time back. P-Pentax M42,E=Exacta,N=Nikon, B=M39 to FD. I recently purchased an old blue Fed 2 recently and , with the B converter, mounted my FD 17mm lens to the camera- I added a Mamiya Press 50mm viewfinder (mistake as I ripped the shoe mount off trying to get it off later) However, got some decent shots of landscapes easily-used hand meter-Recently I added the N converter atop the B converter and mounted a 55mm Micro-Nikkor F3.5 to the Fed. Took it out yesterday and shot some pics-will develop soon I hope. Here is the outfit:</p><div></div>

[bob_eskridge2]

<p>Ray, Thanks for including the shots with the 1939 Elmar! Shows that I am not missing much when I use mine!</p>

[nee_sung]

<blockquote>

<p>Ray, Thanks for including the shots with the 1939 Elmar! Shows that I am not missing much when I use mine!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I sold the 1954 Elmar and kept the 1937 one.</p>

[andre_bosmans]

<p>Fully agree with Alex - take the Summicron Asph 35/2. Just lovely lens and the lens I use most on my M8.2. </p>