Voigtlander vs. Others

[kmack]

IMHO, if you want to use lenses longer than 75mm with a 35mm system then maybe a RF is not the best tool for the job. In my opinion an RF is a camera that is best used when you want a small, hand held, light weight, and fast focusing system. Once you start putting longer lenses on a RF you are getting into an area where RF cameras do not excell. Hence the shorter rangefinder base on the Bessa does not bother me since I typically only use 50, 35 and 28mm lenses with my rangefinders (Lieca and Bessa).

 

[Bromo33333]

Hi Guys -

Thanks so much for your help! We decided to get a ZI + 35mm lens. We had gone back and forth with all the good information (plus a Kiev 4A purchased off of eBay which we really liked ) and decided on the Zeiss.

Thanks again for everyone's help and I hope to post a few photos when it comes in!

 

[Robert Budding]

Lots of choices. But my favorite is the old Contax IIa - great build, fantastic lenses, easy to laod, and cheaper than Leica. A bit heavy, though.

 

[Bromo33333]

Lots of choices. But my favorite is the old Contax IIa - great build, fantastic lenses, easy to laod, and cheaper than Leica. A bit heavy, though.

I really like the Kiev copy of the prewar Contax - though my example seems to be on the verge of seizing up at any moment!

 

[Pavel+]

I'm just starting out exploring the idea that a range-finder could be in my future. I'm one that does often feel the little differences but in my own evaluation of the Bessa, leica or ZI route, I'm right now favoring the ZI.
I'm perplexed by the statement about the zeis stuff being overpriced. That label seems perfectly justified about the Leicas lenses. The Zeis seem very reasonable by contrast. The factors for me are the viewfinders, the lens quality vs price ratio and I have to say the build quality. On the build quality front it appears that Leica is out in front but the Zeis seems to be 10% less for much less cost and almost the same in the real world feel. Is that correct or am I missing something. The Bessa seems to be substantionally furter behind at a little less than half of the cost of a Ziess.

The zeiss lenses seem nice in the fact that they are in one thirds stops. Is that a factor that is worth while or not really important?

Lastly I tend to favor telephoto lenses, or have up to now in my portraiture and every day stile of shooting. Towards that I like the idea of the .85 magnification finder or even better the Bessa's 1.0 mag viefinder.
Any ideas of the wisdom or folly in those leanings?

Thanks!

 

[Bromo33333]

I'm just starting out exploring the idea that a range-finder could be in my future. I'm one that does often feel the little differences but in my own evaluation of the Bessa, leica or ZI route, I'm right now favoring the ZI.
I'm perplexed by the statement about the zeis stuff being overpriced. That label seems perfectly justified about the Leicas lenses. The Zeis seem very reasonable by contrast. The factors for me are the viewfinders, the lens quality vs price ratio and I have to say the build quality. On the build quality front it appears that Leica is out in front but the Zeis seems to be 10% less for much less cost and almost the same in the real world feel. Is that correct or am I missing something. The Bessa seems to be substantionally furter behind at a little less than half of the cost of a Ziess.

The zeiss lenses seem nice in the fact that they are in one thirds stops. Is that a factor that is worth while or not really important?

Lastly I tend to favor telephoto lenses, or have up to now in my portraiture and every day stile of shooting. Towards that I like the idea of the .85 magnification finder or even better the Bessa's 1.0 mag viefinder.
Any ideas of the wisdom or folly in those leanings?

Thanks!

I think that the lenses are USD800-1100 for "typical" lenses and UDS2000+ for specialty ones, is what causes the label. Plus their earlier partnership with Hasselblad's V series where a lens would cost USD2000-5000+

COmpared to Leica, the ZI's are bargains, but compared with Cosina, are much more expensive.

People get completely acceptable results with the Voigtlander/Cosina rangefinders - and a body is appx $600, and a lens would be $300-400 [normal or slightly wide] making the entire outlay <$1000. That would just get you a new ZI lens.

I think you should get what you want - if you can afford it and not look back.

I just got a ZI body + a 35/2 lens and am currently going through my first roll of film - I will let everyone know how it comes out - though as i don't have a film scanner, I will have to try to scan the prints I expect to get (C-41 Kodak "HD" ISO400) if the cheapie scanner I have still works...

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

I'm perplexed by the statement about the zeis stuff being overpriced...
Thanks!

I made the overpriced comment about some of the Hassleblad System's Zeiss lenses (and Hassleblad's pricing policies) - not about Zeiss lenses in general. I still buy Zeiss lenses - but not Hassleblad Zeiss lenses.

 

[Daniel Unkefer]

I bought into the Bessa R about three years ago. I started with a Bessa-R body. I then added another (for backup), and then two L's (Why not, they are only $75 new ).

Getting most of the screwmount lenses and accessories has been -expensive-as I have the 12,21,25,35/1.9,35/2.5,50/1.5 and 75. Now I have added a 50mm f1.2 Canon for ultra-low light shooting. The lenses are great, I shoot about a hundred rolls a year, or thereabouts.

I have just ordered a Bessa-T black body from Stephen Gandy. I also considered getting a beater M2/overhaul, although I know from past experiences that Leica is a very slippery slope to climb.

I'm very happy that I went -all- Voigtlander. I have the entire R/L system (all the finders, most of the accessories). Still the best RF value out there. And I could have easily spent more than that if I went with expensive digital