Lens selection help

[Deliberate1]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Friends, I am riding on the horns of a dilemma as I attempt to figure out a Leica lens to replace on of the Zeiss lenses that I have been using. 

I have the 006. My only Leica lens is the 70mm. I have the Zeiss 120mm and 35mm. I have been exceedingly pleased with the performance of both with the C adapter which has done yeoman's work. The optics are flawless and the AF on the 35mm is very satisfactory without drama. I probably use the 35mm more than the 120mm - and probably the same amount as the 70mm. But here are the limitations that prompt me towards the native lenses. 

First off all, they are both slower than their Leica siblings. The 120mm is f4 and the 35mm is f3.5. With the limited low light capacity of the 006, having that extra leg room would be welcome. 

Secondly, the 120mm is manual focus. While much of my work is on a tripod. it would be nice to have the option of AF in those dynamic situations. 

Third, the Zeiss lenses are not weather sealed. Again, I do no studio work. It is all outside. Weather resistant lenses would give me a bit of piece of mind.

Finally. I have but one adapter. It can be awkward in the field to swap it between lenses. With just one active Zeiss lens, I could avoid that inconvenience. I also think that the repeated swapping between the two may improve the integrity of the adapter and its longevity.

All in I am more inclined to go for the 120mm because it has AF, weather sealing and how ever many stops there are between 2.5 and 4.

Appreciate any thoughts.

David

 

[leicapages]

Not sure I understand the question. I thought you said the 120 mm is manual focus and, yet, you would eventually prefer that one as it has autofocus (last line)?

I think your choice of 35 vs 120 should be primarily based on the fact whether you predominantly use wilde angle or not. I do agree, however, that swapping adaptors all the time (with multiple lenses) is not the most conventient thing to do. Other than that, I get the impression that you are looking for reasons to "convince" yourself that buying native S lenses is the way to go

One the bug bites..

 

Pascal

Edited September 15, 2016 by leicapages

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[tom0511]

I would say you benefit much more from AF and lens speed in case of the 120mm lens vs the 35mm.

 

 

If you however use 120mm only very seldom and 35mm very often I would go for the 35mm. For interieurs and people groups f2.5 is an advantage.

 

 

[alan.y]

Since you say you use the 35 more often, I'd start by waiting for a cheap Leica 35 to come up, and replacing the Contax 35 with it. The Leica 35 is among the most portable and least expensive S lenses. The Contax I understand is quite bulky. The Leica 35 to me is a no brainer.

 

Then you could keep the Contax 120 and adapter, and replace them too if you found yourself using that focal length often enough.

[Deliberate1]

Other than that, I get the impression that you are looking for reasons to "convince" yourself that buying native S lenses is the way to go

One the bug bites..

Pascal

Perish the thought, Dr. Pascal....

[albertknappmd]

Sounds like you want a used 35mm.... However, why not consider the 24mm? It is extraordianry.

Albert     

[mgrayson3]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Because a used 35 can be had for under $3,000. The 24 is difficult to find under $8,000.

 

Matt

Edited September 15, 2016 by mgrayson3

[Deliberate1]

Because a used 35 can be had for under $3,000. The 24 is difficult to find under $8,000.

 

Matt

True that.

D

[erlingmm]

Friends, I am riding on the horns of a dilemma as I attempt to figure out a Leica lens to replace on of the Zeiss lenses that I have been using. 

I have the 006. My only Leica lens is the 70mm. I have the Zeiss 120mm and 35mm. I have been exceedingly pleased with the performance of both with the C adapter which has done yeoman's work. The optics are flawless and the AF on the 35mm is very satisfactory without drama. I probably use the 35mm more than the 120mm - and probably the same amount as the 70mm. But here are the limitations that prompt me towards the native lenses. 

First off all, they are both slower than their Leica siblings. The 120mm is f4 and the 35mm is f3.5. With the limited low light capacity of the 006, having that extra leg room would be welcome. 

Secondly, the 120mm is manual focus. While much of my work is on a tripod. it would be nice to have the option of AF in those dynamic situations. 

Third, the Zeiss lenses are not weather sealed. Again, I do no studio work. It is all outside. Weather resistant lenses would give me a bit of piece of mind.

Finally. I have but one adapter. It can be awkward in the field to swap it between lenses. With just one active Zeiss lens, I could avoid that inconvenience. I also think that the repeated swapping between the two may improve the integrity of the adapter and its longevity.

All in I am more inclined to go for the 120mm because it has AF, weather sealing and how ever many stops there are between 2.5 and 4.

Appreciate any thoughts.

David

 

 

120 is very versatile, with macro. It may hunt a bit in AF because of the macro, but is extremely sharp. My other favorite is the 24, especially for landscape, but it is rarely available used.

[Jeff S]

If you go with the S120, best to keep your Zeiss 120 until Leica resolves AF issues (and service/loaner delays), which are more frequent with the S120 (according to Leica Miami as well as informal forum feedback). It will be interesting to see what Leica provides at Photokina to address S users (hints already from Neil D).

 

Jeff

[LorenzoLandini]

May I suggest to take a close look at the S30 lens? Similarly to the 35, it can be had for around $3,000 and get you closer to the FOV of the 24mm without being that expensive and bulky. It takes same filters of the 70. it is a superb lens, sharp, with good contrast and excellent rendition.  

 

Coupled with the 70 and the 120 would give you a good broad range. 

 

cheers, 

Lorenzo

[Deliberate1]

May I suggest to take a close look at the S30 lens? Similarly to the 35, it can be had for around $3,000 and get you closer to the FOV of the 24mm without being that expensive and bulky. It takes same filters of the 70. it is a superb lens, sharp, with good contrast and excellent rendition.  

 

Coupled with the 70 and the 120 would give you a good broad range. 

 

cheers, 

Lorenzo

Lorenzo, I will check out that option. Assuming you have experience with this lens, have you notice significant distortion issues? I do take, on occasion, architectural shots, and like to see that parallel lines remain parallel.

David

[Jeff S]

S30 versus S35, from David Farkas...  http://www.reddotforum.com/content/2011/11/a-quick-test-leica-elmarit-s-30mm-f-2-8-asph-vs-summarit-s-35mm-f-2-5-asph/

 

He notes minimal distortion from both.

 

Jeff

[LorenzoLandini]

David,

 

I often use the 30mm for "cityscapes" and architecture images and I am very happy with the lack of distortion. 

 

From a technical perspective, the MTF charts show a bit more distortion for the 30mm than the 35mm. However, there are both negligible according to the MTF charts and even more negligible from a practical perspective. The whole MTF charts are actually very similar. The 35 appears to have a bit more field of curvature that could suggest the 35mm is a bit more prone to focus shift, but is overall negligible. 

 

At the end, I chose the 30mm because has similar, if not superior, performances to the 35mm (and better performance than the 24mm) while having a field of view closer to the 24mm. And it was more cost effective than the 24mm. In other words, it was a pretty good compromise between FOV, cost and quality of the glass. 

 

Cheers, 

Lorenzo 

[Manolo Laguillo]

I would go for the 30 instead of the 35. It's the difference between a 24 and a 28 in FF.

You can always crop that image made with the 30, but the opposite (from 35 to 30) is only possible via stitching.

I would keep the 35 Zeiss, both as a backup and as a complement to the 30.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Manolo Laguillo

[djmay]

I have not used the 35 but I am delighted with the 30. As others have stated, a small crop would give the same angle of view as a 35. This is a shot with a 30.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Deliberate1]

Handsome image, DJ. Are those nice parallel lines out of camera or from post-processing, and is it full frame or cropped? 

Am I right that most 'keystone" distortion is most pronounced at frame edges? If so, that would militate in favor of those who suggest the 30 vs. 35, as distortion could be cropped out so long as the composition permits.

David 

[djmay]

Handsome image, DJ. Are those nice parallel lines out of camera or from post-processing, and is it full frame or cropped? 

Am I right that most 'keystone" distortion is most pronounced at frame edges? If so, that would militate in favor of those who suggest the 30 vs. 35, as distortion could be cropped out so long as the composition permits.

David 

 

David,

 

This is out of the camera. I leveled everything on the tripod and composed full frame. I am old school; I almost always use the full frame except when I have something different in mind, such as a panorama.

 

I have read that there is distortion in this lens, however, I have not noticed it. Look at the bridge pillar vertical line in the lower left hand corner.

 

Jesse

 

The 30 works well stitching also. Below is a four-frame stitch.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited September 18, 2016 by djmay

[darylgo]

The Zeiss 120mm is superb, you will get an increase in sharpness from the Leica 120mm but the 35mm Leica will give you more compared to the Zeiss. My limited testing showed the Zeiss 35mm colors were more subtle while the Leica had more contrast. Native lenses are my preference as I get tired of adapters and the constant lens cap juggling.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[alan.y]

I notice the barrel distortion of Elmarit-S 30 (see below) but not really that of the Summarit-S 35. In either case it's easily corrected of course.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!