Deciding on a 35...

I’m probably not intelligent enough to understand.

Why would you use a cheap lens when you owe much better lenses? That’s like owning 10 great cars and choosing to drive a Yugo just because “hey it’s so cheap and yet, amazingly, it works. Its 4 wheels are actually round and its steering wheel indeed turns left and right ”.

Once upon a time(early 70's) I had a customer that bought a Leicaflex with a Vivitar lens. Still scratching my head over that one.

I went through a few 35s then ended up with a Summicron for a few years. About ten years or so ago I picked up a Zeiss Biogon f/2. I tested them back to back and, after seeing the negs, I dumped the Summicron like a hot potato. No contest. You'll end up loving the Biogon.

I wish I had that 21.....

I have a new Zeiss Cosina made Biogon 35 2.8. Phenomenal lens. I found a Chinese Aluminum 43mm thread vented lens hood for something like 7 bucks that works perfectly, doesn't block the viewfinder. I have a 0.85x M6TTL so the viewfinder is wide open at 35mm. It's a small compact lens, but has nice feel. You can shoot it at f2.8 and get really nice results. I love chrome cameras so I got this in chrome finish. Looks terrific. I have a 6 bit 50mm Summicron in chrome too. That's still my all time favorite rangefinder lens. 39mm filters built in lens hood. Perfect.

NB23 said:

I’m probably not intelligent enough to understand.

Why would you use a cheap lens when you owe much better lenses? That’s like owning 10 great cars and choosing to drive a Yugo just because “hey it’s so cheap and yet, amazingly, it works. Its 4 wheels are actually round and its steering wheel indeed turns left and right ”.

Click to expand...

Don't be so hard on yourself. Lack of knowledge does not necessarily equate to lack of intelligence.

Here is a 1:1 crop from the image of the sail boat shown before:

I tested the 7Artisans side by side with my Summicron Asph here:

https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=167382

And there was no difference. So I enjoy using it as it is pretty much the same optical quality, but if something happens to it, I'm only out $200 instead of $3000.
Same reason David Douglas Duncan used Nikon lenses on his Leicas while covering conflict in Vietnam and Korea. He then liked them so much that he used them to cover his time with Picasso in the south of France.

I read about the 7Artisans lenses when I was looking for a 50 but read some stuff about not lockiong properly on an M4 so stayed away from them. They're impressive things though, especially for the price.

My intelligence (or lack of) strikes again; why do you bother keeping all those expensive leica lenses, then?

Also, the way I see it, paying 200$ for insurance and using my expensive gear is a much better protection then paying for 200$ for NOT using my expensive gear. We both pay 200$ and one of us gets to play with the nice stuff.

But in the end, I may not be DDD (he obviously wasn’t dealing with good insurance companies) but when I went to Rio and all the rough tzigan favellas where anything can happen, around eastern europe, I had a choice: use cheap gear and not risk anything (as far as gear goes) or use my expensive gear and enjoy each second of it. Even today, I’d be mad at myself if my 2007-2015 negatives were shot on voigtlander lenses instead of Leica lenses. Yes, the results would be similar but there’s something very annoying in going plan-B and a plan-C in life when I live and breathe for Plan-A.

Am I a gear whore? Yes, but only high-end gear whore. What’s the point in whoring about low-end stuff? That’s like proving a point that I can jog 5 miles in army boots and that jogging shoes are for rich sissies.

Huss said:

Don't be so hard on yourself. Lack of knowledge does not necessarily equate to lack of intelligence.

Here is a 1:1 crop from the image of the sail boat shown before:

I tested the 7Artisans side by side with my Summicron Asph here:

https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=167382

And there was no difference. So I enjoy using it as it is pretty much the same optical quality, but if something happens to it, I'm only out $200 instead of $3000.
Same reason David Douglas Duncan used Nikon lenses on his Leicas while covering conflict in Vietnam and Korea. He then liked them so much that he used them to cover his time with Picasso in the south of France.

Click to expand...

Mate, chill out.

film_man said:

Mate, chill out.

Click to expand...

You’re offended perhaps? Please educate me because I’m full chilled out already.

There's nothing to educate. Someone wants to use cheap lenses, fine. You don't. Fine. That's it.