Jump to content

24-90 is great but the weight...... Zeiss?


Big John

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Another funny post ... and I do mean 'ironic', not peculiar. I'm the peculiar one on this ... :)

 

My favorite Leica 35mm lens is the 1972 Summilux 35mm f/1.4 v2. It has so many aberrations wide open it's astounding, yet it produces incredibly lovely images. Stopped down to f/5.6, it is razor sharp everywhere. Produced years before digital cameras were even seriously thought of, it's a typical Walter Mandler design and so, so nice. I'm sure the new Summicron M 35mm f/2 ASPH is absurdly wonderful in a Peter Karbe kind of way, but Walter and I get along well.

 

When I want something a bit sharper wide open and just as small, I fit the Voigtländer Nokton 40mm f/1.4. It's amazingly good and pretty darn cheap; I haven't figured out the best lens profile to work with it yet, but even un-profiled it works very well. The Summicron-R 35/2 type II is also a wonderful lens if you want something in the middle on price and quality, and a better ergonomic fit.

 

Fun stuff. 

 

 

I am buying my Leica SL next month!

 

As I know the future new SL's primes will have a long, long way to arrive on the shelves, I've decided to buy too... the newest 2016 M-Summicron 35/2.

 

I read on the ReidReviews that the newest generation of Summicrons - issued in the beggining of 2016 - are much, much better than the former generations, specially when used on mirrorless cameras like the SL and the Sony a7R II. Its bokeh was improved too.

 

The reason is because they were calibrated for the digital cameras.

 

I think Leica will do it with all of its M-Lenses over the years.

 

I read too from an experienced Leica's user that even the older M-Summicron 35mm are sharper than the M-Summilux 35mm.

 

We - only SL Owners - must think that in some years will have smaller SL Primes with superb performance/autofocus and what is need now is a bridge until there.

 

In my opinion, after a long time thinking about, the 2016 Summicron 32/2 is PERFECT!

 

- It is a complete new and modern Leica Generation for better results on mirrorless cameras.

- Smaller and sharper than the M-Summicron 35/1.4.

- The Manual focus is easier and more accurate than with the M-Summicron 35. 

- Have a good price comparing with the very expensive M-Summicron 35.

- You will have the very best Leica Experience: A Leica Camera with a Leica Lens.

- And because its portability, even when the amazing SL 35/2 arrive next year, I am sure, you will not sold this 2016 M-Summicron.

 

 

By mistake I wrote, M- Summicron 35/1.4, when the right is M-Summilux 35/1.4!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of a prime lens, you could also try a smaller zoom.

From Zeiss I like the Contax Vario-Sonnar 3.4/35-70. It is very small and offers excellent IQ. IQ is not as perfect as the 24-90, but still very well usable (even excellent). Weight is only about 480g.

With an adapter it is a bit longer, but still a light unobtrusive lens.

New they were quite expensive, but now second-hand it costs nothing compared to a L or Z lens.

It is also macro capable, often a nice feature, while the ZM, CV or M lenses are not close focusing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This might be a silly question...

 

Do any users walk around with the 90-280 or is it primarily used as a tripod mounted or stay in one place lense?

 

It is not a silly question, if you walk a lot. But if you need the flexibility of a zoom lens and you aim for high quality, then you must take the extra weight. The 90-280 is the best zoom lens I've ever seen in three aspects: Image quality, infinity as well as close ups(!), astonishing quick AF (single mode) and build quality. I doubt you can get a lens like it smaller and significantly lighter. I carry it with me if needed in a mindshift Backpack.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another idea: Instead of a 35mm prime, a 17-35 zoom is quite useful.

They are not that small. But the Nikon AF-S 2.8/17-35 is a nice lens. In some tests it scored IQ equal to the R 19mm V2, which is more than good enough for many applications.

It could help to bridge the time until the SL 16-35 arrives (which is only f/3.5-4.5, but probably optically even better) (end of year probably)   Only drawback, you need to use it manually - but not really such a big issue with a UWA lens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All three of the Zeiss lenses - Biogon-C 35/2.8, Biogon 35/2, and Distagon 35/1.4 are highly spoken of.

 

 

This might be a silly question...

Do any users walk around with the 90-280 or is it primarily used as a tripod mounted or stay in one place lense?

 

I'd use it at a sports event as a walk-around.  Same as a 70-200 on a Canon or Nikon, really.  Pretty easy to hand hold or you could rest it on a monopod.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the same thoughts as you regarding the 24-90. I accept its weight for the AF capability, which is sometimes necessary.  But, I've also purchased several MF lenses and am quite happy with them. The size is not an issue for me.

 

FWIW I have a Zeiss 50mm F2 planar and a Zeiss 35mm F2 biogon, along with some Leica lenses . I would recommend the Zeiss lenses as excellent alternatives, particularly from the standpoint of price if that is an issue. Colors are terrific. Very nice pop to the photos.  (Since I have now purchased a Leica 35 1.4 FLE I am selling my Zeiss 35mm so if you are interested send me a note).  

 

Some shots with the Zeiss 35 f2 follow.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...