Who's shooting with Zeiss Ikon ZM

[cotdt]

3.5 is slow. I want a 2.8 at least, and I want to shoot it wide open.

get any SLR system and you can get 35/1.4 lenses, or 24/1.8 or 28/1.8 or whatever. if you want something fast, it will be bigger regardless of whether it is SLR or rangefinder lens. that said, my nikkor 50/1.2 is surprisingly small.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

you'll still be hanging the camera around your neck so practically it makes no difference the tiny size advantage of a rangefinder over an SLR. you still can't put them in your pocket because of the protruding lens.

Actually, it is more likely to be in a hip bag.

And, the size IS an advantage, with the 15mm and 21mm fitting in a single lens compartment with lots of room to spare.

If size & weight are no issue, I'll gladly take my Pentax 6x7, but for long walks or trips where I want top quality, a rangefinder will be (in the huge majority of cases) better and lighter than a SLR.

And it does fit in the pocket of my mountain jackets...

 

[cotdt]

OK fine, so rangefinder systems are slightly smaller, just slightly. And really only when it comes to ultra-wides. I'll give you that. But the purpose of ultra-wides is macro, not to fit in a big scene. A 28mm is enough for most such purposes.

Rather, the purpose of an ultra-wide is composition. You usually have a near object and it's background, so close focus ability is essential and rangefinders are just bad at that. For example, the Distagon 35/2 can focus to less than 0.3m on an SLR, but on a rangefinder I think the closest is 0.7m. Huge difference. For me, this is a big issue.

 

[elekm]

So as we can see from these posts, each system has its advantages and disadvantages.

For work using deep-colored lens filters, including true infrared filters, it's hard to beat a rangefinder. Focusing and composing through a red or green filter isn't always easy, and focusing through an opaque filter is impossible, especially for the autofocus cameras.

If I was doing closeups, I would want to use an SLR. Same goes for those shots that require very precise framing, and then I would want a viewfinder with 95% or greater coverage.

For unobtrusive shooting, I would use a rangefinder and one with a quiet shutter, which probably would be either a Leica, a Retina IIIS, the Zeiss Ikon or a prewar or postwar (black dial) Contax. Maybe a TLR, depending on whether a single lens would be sufficient, would work too.

If I was shooting a sports event, I'd probably want a motor-driven SLR and might add auto-focus to the list.

With film cameras being a huge bargain, you can own more than one camera system and then choose the camera to fit the situation. Use the right tool for the job. This doesn't mean that you can't use a TLR or rangefinder with auxiliary lenses for closeup work, or you can't shoot infrared with an SLR. It just means that some cameras excel at certain tasks and come up short in others.

 

[Andrey]

get any SLR system and you can get 35/1.4 lenses, or 24/1.8 or 28/1.8 or whatever.

35/1.4 is huge with canon. The quality is good, but it's huge.
I've tried canon 28/1.8. Most low contrast and soft lens I've ever used. Worse than the kit lens, and that's considering that I've picked the best out of 8 copies. Plus it's not small by any means.

if you want something fast, it will be bigger regardless of whether it is SLR or rangefinder lens. that said, my nikkor 50/1.2 is surprisingly small.

It won't be bigger, even if it's faster. It won't be retrofocus, like SLR glass, so that's one thing. The other thing I'm hoping for is that the quality will be higher.

 

[Don Dudenbostel]

Two years ago my wife gave me a new ZM for my birthday. I've used Leica M's profesionally now for 40 years and used them hard. Untill recently with my MP's and current lenses I never had any real issues with Leica. I must say that I'm somewhat disappointed in the current quality controll of thenew Leicas and lenses. I won't go into detail but I've had 4 lenses with problems and one of my new a la carte MP's have shutter problems within 14 months. I also have the ZM and a set of Zeiss lenses plus a Bessa R2 and a few CV lenses for personal travel. The ZM has functioned perfectly as have the lenses. To me the Zeiss glass is a clear choice from quality of image and quality seems to be just as good if not better than the current bread of leica glass. Don't be fooled by the weight of the ZM. It's magnesium alluminum and very light which is nice when carrying a bag of gear. I never take the meter off AE and have had no exposure issues at all. The wind is smooth and the RF/VF is the finest ever IMO. Frame lines are bright and clear and uncluttered and the focus patch is a dream. I find it easier to focus under dim light vs my .85X MP's. I feel the RF is more accurate than the .85x Leica MP RF. I personally like the hinged back vs the removable bottom and flap of the leica. What do you do with the bottom plate of the Leica when you load it? I usually hold it in my mouth to keep from dropping it particularly if I'm on the run. The Zeiss glass is first rate. Very pleasing rendition and sharp as a razor. IMO I feel the rendering is much more natural then the new asph Leica glass. They have modern sharpness with classic tonality. My only wish that I would like to see in the ZM is a winder like the Leicavit. On all three of my MP's I use Leicavits. I use a 75 summilux a good bit too and wish there was a selectable 75mm frame. Considering all factors and disregarding price I would purchase ZM bodies and Zeiss glass over leica now.

The Bessa is a fine camera and can do great work. Quality isn't bad and the price is right. The optics are stunning and can hold their own in quality of image and build. The Bessa body is an easy way in the system but the one downfall is the short RF. RF accuracy isn't as good with fast glass wide open.

A good kit would be a ZM body with 28 or 35mm Zeiss glass and 50 Planar and a 1st generation Leica 90mm 2.8 Elmarit. I've used Elmarits for the time that I've use Leicas and had early 90 summicrons and the current asph apo plus a few elmars. The Elmarit is a better performer close than the current asph apo summicron and performs quite well at all distances. They can be had now for under $400 in nice shape. If I needed fast glass I would choose CV lenses. I have a 35mm f1.2 Nokton and the 50 Nokton. Both are superb. The 35 is up there with the 35 asph summilux and has less flare and the Nokton 50 is close to my asph summilux 50. I purchased the 50 Nokton to hold me while the asph summilux 50 was in the shop due to mount problems and assembly problems from the factory. I liked the Nokton so well I kept it and have thought of selling the asph summilux. The Nokton is that good. There's also a very nice 35 1.4 CV out now that looks great. My R2 is a travel camera when I don't want to feel like I'm on assignment. I carry it with the 35 f2.5 PII and 75 2.5 and love the kit.

 

[Rob Skeoch]

Hi Don,

Thanks for your input. What type of work do you do professionally with rangefinders?
-rob

 

[cotdt]

It won't be bigger, even if it's faster. It won't be retrofocus, like SLR glass, so that's one thing. The other thing I'm hoping for is that the quality will be higher.

most rangefinder wide angles are also retrofocus, although there are some exceptions. you would have to look into the optical design for each lens. the reason is that for anything under 24mm, you can get very noticeable vignetting unless it's retrofocus.

in large format view cameras there are true non-retrofocus ultrawides, but they have heavy vignetting unless you use the center filter.

 

[Don Dudenbostel]

Hi Don,

Thanks for your input. What type of work do you do professionally with rangefinders?
-rob

I do documentary work with the Rf. I don't limit myself to one format but work from 35mm to 8x10 depending on the shot.

Here's a small sample of images spanning 40 years. I just haven't had a chance to get a website up bu am planning to this summer.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7168285@N04/#photo521770167

 

[cotdt]

That's some amazing work, Don!

 

[Don Dudenbostel]

Thanks. The moonshiner was just busted for the final time two weeks ago. He was a convicted fellon caught with a pistol, still on probation and selling moonshine in 100 gallon and 500 gallon quantities to a federal agent. Big trouble!

 

[Andrey]

Two years ago my wife gave me a new ZM for my birthday.

Awesome reply Don.

Thank you so much.

It's nice to hear from someone with so much experience with both systems.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

most rangefinder wide angles are also retrofocus, although there are some exceptions. you would have to look into the optical design for each lens. the reason is that for anything under 24mm, you can get very noticeable vignetting unless it's retrofocus.

in large format view cameras there are true non-retrofocus ultrawides, but they have heavy vignetting unless you use the center filter.

By heavy vignetting, do you mean the normal cosine 4th illumination fall-off?

 

[cotdt]

By heavy vignetting, do you mean the normal cosine 4th illumination fall-off?

yes, in addition to the lens' natural vignetting. fortunately the companies publish lens vignetting data and people can see for themselves. if there is no cos^4 vignetting, likely it's a retrofocus design as most wide angle rangefinder lenses (below 24mm) are.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

yes, in addition to the lens' natural vignetting. fortunately the companies publish lens vignetting data and people can see for themselves. if there is no cos^4 vignetting, likely it's a retrofocus design as most wide angle rangefinder lenses (below 24mm) are.

The Zeiss Biogons are not retro focus designs. IMHO that's an excellent reason to buy one of the 21mm ZM Biogons.

I own a MF Mamiya 7 43mm f4.5 Biogon copy and it is a superb WA lens.

Mamiya 7 43mm f4.5 Wide Angle Lens (copy of the 10 element Zeiss Biogon)

http://www.kenrockwell.com/mamiya/43.htm

Here is a quote from Ken Rockwell:

“Falloff of Illumination
Like all other view-camera lenses, the 43mm has some minor light falloff.
People who only use SLR lenses may not be used to this. Falloff is the tiny price we pay for superior sharpness and complete freedom from distortion. Falloff easily can be corrected with a center filter. Unsharpness and distortion cannot.
The 43mm does not require any center filters, unless you are photographing blank walls AND want the whole wall to be the same shade.
The falloff of the 43mm is invisible for photographs of real subjects worth photographing.”

 

[cotdt]

I've read that the Biogon 21mm is indeed a retrofocus design, based on its light falloff chart, but not as retrofocus as the Distagon.

I do know that the Leica 21mm Elmarit is retrofocus though, because they said so themselves.

 

[Andrey]

most rangefinder wide angles are also retrofocus, although there are some exceptions. you would have to look into the optical design for each lens. the reason is that for anything under 24mm, you can get very noticeable vignetting unless it's retrofocus.

in large format view cameras there are true non-retrofocus ultrawides, but they have heavy vignetting unless you use the center filter.

Technially, they might be still retrofocus. But the lens designers do have more room to play around with and they do place the last lens elements closer to the film.

I don't know my optics at that level, but I do believe it helps the quality of the lens quite a bit.

At the very least, they did manage to keep the 12mm and 15mm heliars free of distortion.

 

[Andrey]

I've read that the Biogon 21mm is indeed a retrofocus design, based on its light falloff chart, but not as retrofocus as the Distagon.

I thought retrofocus is a binary property. No?

 

[Andrey]

In terms of hologons, I believe they're non-retrofocus. Is that correct?

 

[cotdt]

In terms of hologons, I believe they're non-retrofocus. Is that correct?

that's true, and also why they have strong vignetting. non-retrofocus designs can be corrected more, and are smaller. but they have just as many lens elements as the retrofocus designs, and in practice often the modern retrofocus designs have better performance. just look at the 35/2 biogon versus distagon. the distagon is retrofocus yet vastly outperforms the biogon wide open (far more contrast), though by f/4 both lenses are razor sharp corner to corner. i beleive the 35/2 biogon is non-retrofocus, but one can never be sure unless it's stated somewhere.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

I've read that the Biogon 21mm is indeed a retrofocus design, based on its light falloff chart, but not as retrofocus as the Distagon.

My 18mm SLR Distagon is indeed a retrofocus design and suffers from their typical optical problems (distortion and lack of sharpness).

Currently, there are two ZM 21mm Biogons (f 4.5 and f2.8) and neither of them is a retrofocus optical design. BTW, light fall off is not a reliable design indicator.

I do know that the Leica 21mm Elmarit is retrofocus though, because they said so themselves.

ok.

 

[coigach]

I do documentary work with the Rf. I don't limit myself to one format but work from 35mm to 8x10 depending on the shot.

Here's a small sample of images spanning 40 years. I just haven't had a chance to get a website up bu am planning to this summer.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7168285@N04/#photo521770167

Had a look at the images you posted on your link. Amazing work, very very good. Looking forward to seeing that website when it's up and running...!

Cheers,
Gavin

 

[Alex Bishop-Thorpe]

Two years ago my wife gave me a new ZM for my birthday...

Thank you for your incredible input on this topic, it's nice to get a simple overview of a system from a user's perspective rather than the usual armchair arguments over the little things like loading style and viewfinder magnification.
Fantastic photos too

 

[Don Dudenbostel]

Fleath:

There's really no perfect system and the idea of best is relative to the application and ones ideas of what is comfortable to the hands, mind and eye. The primary reason I use RF cameras for 35mm is the conditions I shoot under. I often work under very low light with high flare conditions. Often I find myself shooting at 1.2-2 and a 1/4 to 1/30 of a second with 400 to 1600 iso film. Mirror vibration could be a problem with an slr. Light is often bare bulbs in or near the subject or some other light source in the frame. It's important for my lenses to handle ther flare prone conditions werk. This is why I like Zeiss vs leica. My experience shows that most Leica glass, old and new, is more flare prone than the new Zeiss and some of the CV. All are very sharp but flare can kill a photo. Shooting at max aperture and very slow speeds low vibration and a very accurate RF is a must.

I wouldn't tell someone to buy an RF unless they just wanted one or worked under conditions where it would excell. In general I would tell someone to get something like a Nikon slr or canon slr. The versatility of RF cameras are no where near what the slr's are. Lens selection and high speed motors, remote triggers and accessories of all kinds. Slr lenses are superb now by any standard. I use both vintage Nikons and modern Canons. My personal preference is Nikon F2's for slr's but in my digital work I use Canons and love them plus have a large collection of the super speed lenses for them. In the canon glass the 35 1.4, 24 1.4, 50 1.2, 85 1.2, 135 2 and 200 1.8 are absolutely killer glass. There's nothing on the market to compete in speed with a number of them and nothing better optically for many.

There's simply no perfect system. It all depends on what you expect and how you will use it.

 

[Alex Bishop-Thorpe]

Fleath:

There's really no perfect system and the idea of best is relative to the application and ones ideas of what is comfortable to the hands, mind and eye. The primary reason I use RF cameras for 35mm is the conditions I shoot under. I often work under very low light with high flare conditions. Often I find myself shooting at 1.2-2 and a 1/4 to 1/30 of a second with 400 to 1600 iso film. Mirror vibration could be a problem with an slr. Light is often bare bulbs in or near the subject or some other light source in the frame. It's important for my lenses to handle ther flare prone conditions werk. This is why I like Zeiss vs leica. My experience shows that most Leica glass, old and new, is more flare prone than the new Zeiss and some of the CV. All are very sharp but flare can kill a photo. Shooting at max aperture and very slow speeds low vibration and a very accurate RF is a must.

I wouldn't tell someone to buy an RF unless they just wanted one or worked under conditions where it would excell. In general I would tell someone to get something like a Nikon slr or canon slr. The versatility of RF cameras are no where near what the slr's are. Lens selection and high speed motors, remote triggers and accessories of all kinds. Slr lenses are superb now by any standard. I use both vintage Nikons and modern Canons. My personal preference is Nikon F2's for slr's but in my digital work I use Canons and love them plus have a large collection of the super speed lenses for them. In the canon glass the 35 1.4, 24 1.4, 50 1.2, 85 1.2, 135 2 and 200 1.8 are absolutely killer glass. There's nothing on the market to compete in speed with a number of them and nothing better optically for many.

There's simply no perfect system. It all depends on what you expect and how you will use it.

I'm in a similar position. I use modern Canon SLR's when I need autofocus and automation, and older Nikon SLR's when I want something with manual exposure and metal lenses that I can drag around in the snow or desert confidently. Haven't disapointed me so far, but I'm looking for something small, lightweight and with no mirror slap to use around the city I just moved into, just for natural light. My FM2n is small but still awkward to lug around a city, and I enjoyed the rangefinder experience with my Canonet before it met an untimely end. I've been looking at a Bessa R2A recently. Like you said there isnt any perfect system, but with all the gear available today at such prices there's really no reason you can't have several systems to compliment eachother. Plus it's terribly fun.