Zeiss Distagon 2/35mm to replace all

[themoleman342]

These days I often wonder if it would be better to shift from the quantity of my collection over to some quality. I may just be trying to rationalize a purchase but I'm finding myself focusing less on the art and more on the collecting, something I never wished to do. So I hope to sort of clean house and replace the majority of 35mms that I have (I'm thinking 5 or 6) with 1.

I used to say "hey, I have a ton of these lenses of the same focal length because all of them have a different personality with a subset of strengths and weaknesses that I can use effectively." I agree with that statement still but it's sounding more hallow these days. I have so many lenses that I can't possibly live up to it. I just pick a favorite (usually the mir 24m or S-M-C Takumar 2/35 because they are versatile) and try to be happy.

The lens that I would like to buy is the Zeiss Distagon 2/35mm ZS (m42). It's this or keep what I have. Please, I'm not looking for alternatives like the Samyang 1.4/35 or something. If I sell the 5 or 6 lenses that I'm planning it should just about break even cost-wise.

What are people's thoughts on this? For comparison sake, would the Distagon be a huge improvement over the S-M-C Takumar 2/35mm?
Thanks in advance!

~Marc

[rbelyell]

i totally agree with this philosophy marc. i had so much gear and was collecting more and more, when i read the quote that youre either a collector or a photographer. it stopped me in my tracks and i sold off/am selling off much of my collection. i also switched over from slr to RF for the sake of compactness, portability and unobtrusiveness.

however, before doing so i gave serious thought to keeping my 5d (now sold) and pairing it with only a distagon 35/1.4 and the planar 85/1.4, thats it. i might eventually have added an ultra WA, but honestly i think a superior 35 and a superior 85 are all one needs. i'm convinced that it is more a matter of quality than quantity, and of really 'knowing' the equipment you do have.

for example, it makes me so happy to use my fuji x100. not only because of the amazing IQ, but because i dont have to make any decision about taking along this lens or that lens. i'm learning to make 35mm fov work in a variety of circumstances instead of sweating about lens changing or 'oh god why didnt i bring my 75'. the pure simplicity of it is a pleasure and at the same time it forces you to improve at the craft. how many lenses did cartier-bresson have?

good luck, i hope you end up doing it.
tony

[ManualFocus-G]

Marc

I'm of the same viewpoint these days. I originally started buying manual lenses because of the cost/performance ratio. I somehow ended up collecting loads of lenses (defeating the original objective, but it's been fun!), whilst only having a few top notch lenses. Nowadays, I'm selling many of the lenses I no longer really use and investing in really good top notch lenses. The Zeiss 35/2 is one I'm considering too, as is the C/Y 35/1.4 I really like the look of the latter, so I'd be interested in people's views of the 35/2 too.

BTW, I'm selling my Mir to fund a Zeiss

G

[shyl]

You are just right marc.And I'm also think 35mm is good choice to keep in hand.

[fermy]

I think most of people here with loads of lenses have been through these stages: first buying many cheap ones for fun and value, then realizing that they've got way more than they can realistically use, then trying to consolidate to several selected high quality ones. My view is that one can safely get rid of "good, but not favorite" lenses when they no longer bring the joy and desire to take them for a spin, but selling special lenses and personal favorites such as Takumar in order to fund something more expensive, is a knee jerk reaction. I have no experience with Distagon, it will probably be sharper, but it will also be different.

In short, if it's all only about photography and too many lenses getting in the way, then Takumar is high-quality enough and it will be sufficient, so you don't really need Distagon, but can safely sell the rest. I suspect though that Distagon lust is just a normal curiosity to try a more expensive toy. There is nothing wrong with that, but then you don't have to rush and sell Takumar, just wait until you have enough money to get Distagon.

[estudleon]

I agree. The collector and the user, both, are inside us. Sometimes one win over the other.

[Esox lucius]

[hoanpham]

I am agree, but some time it is a joy to have several to select between.
Like the last days, one day with Konica AR 100/2.8, then Pentax M 135/3.5, then Pentax K 35/2...
One lens per day force me to re-think - it's a kind of brain work i like.

[themoleman342]

I'd say I'm 80% in favor of switching to the Zeiss. Thanks guys!

None of the lenses I will be selling are irreplaceable so I'm not too worried about selling them. If I miss them, I can buy them back in the future. I'll probably hold onto a few of the "favs" until I get the Zeiss and really test it out. I hope the Distagon will immediately show its strengths and put them to shame. That will make me breath a great sigh of relief over the decision.

[pdccameras]

Marc,

I agree with your philosophy as well, and went through the same thing myself. I dumped a bunch of wide angles and settled on the Zeiss 21mm Distagon in Canon EF mount. I do not own a sharper lens. I did the same thing with a bunch of medium telephotos and settled on the Canon 85 f/1.2 in EF mount, etc. etc.

That was until I started prowling this forum, now I have re-stocked. The good news is that I started the re-stocking process before everyone started getting back into manual focus. Now the prices are much higher and a lot of good glass has been snapped.

Anyway my point is that if you do this long enough, you probably will decide to rebuild your collection later. In my case, my two boys are out of college and my mortgage is paid......

I don't think you will be sorry with the Zeiss 35mm. It really shines on full format, it is kind of a waste on a crop body. You also might want to consider the Leitz 35mm f/2 summicron in R mount. That is my sharpest 35.

Paul

[anscochrome]

Sounds like you have already answered your own question in a way. What is better, 20-30 $25.00-$30.00 mediocre to poor "character" lenses that I never use, or one $500.00-$700.00 excellent lens that is dependable and I use all the time? I believe that question answers itself.

So often here, I see someone finds yet another off brand "bargain character lens", posts flat looking, unsharp non processed jpegs from raw, and many heap on the cheap praise " looks like a winner". Wow, the emperor has no clothes:) IMO, a manual focus lens should be used because it is genuinely useful, not just because it is old, or a working method that goes against the modern grain. You give me a choice of a modern 35mm F 2.0 Zeiss, or an old T-Mount 35mm F 2.8 Sammigon, I know which one I would chose. And I see no reason to own 20 35mm F 2.8 Sammigon variants.

[pdccameras]

[themoleman342]

[JohnBar]

As a Nikon NPS member I am lucky not to worry about the quality end of things, instead my interest in vintage MF lenses is solely focused on the quirky character side of things.

So I am buying up lenses with beautiful soap bubble and swirly bokeh and with that unique 50s and 60s colour rendition that you just cant get with the modern stuff.

Anyway my advice is sure - slim down, but keep the best from the modern and the yesteryears.

[themoleman342]

Well, I did it. $675 shipped for a like-new copy. Original box, caps, documents, and hood included.

Oh dear. My most expensive lens purchase ever. I have a few lenses that trump the Distagon in terms of market value but I never actually paid close to market value before. It's an odd feeling.

[Ghost2501]

Congtrats!

I'm waiting for your samples now

[LucisPictor]

This is a point we all get to one day or the other.

I also think that having an excellent set of on lens of each important FL would be the most sensible thing to do.
I am still quite a long way away from it, but hey, it needs time.

The Zeiss 2/35 is a fantastic lens. Congrats!
The only thing I had to complain about was some CA at high contrast edges. Otherwise excellent!

[woodrim]

Yikes, that was quick. Funny, forum member Uhoh caught a beating not long ago for his expensive taste in lenses. We haven't seen much from him since. I fully support your cleaning of house, and I'm doing somewhat the same, but still resist the very best, most expensive glass. So what will you be selling?

[ManualFocus-G]

That's still an excellent price, good work!

[themoleman342]

[fermy]

I will also watch with interest. I like 35mm FL very much too, although I am more than happy with what I have at the moment, but of course if I see the Zeiss half price... One can dream

[JohnBar]

OOps, you've done it now

This is the start of a slippery slope.

Before long you will be dreaming of more ZF or ZE, which are well known to create a nest in your home and create extreme financial hardship.

[themoleman342]

[themoleman342]

The lens has thoroughly impressed me so far. At f2 the Zeiss is sharper in the center than the Takumar 3.5/35mm is at f3.5 (which is sharper than the Takumar 2/35mm is at f3.5). When the Zeiss is at f3.5 is makes the others just look like mud in the corners. Color and contrast are both much better. No glow at f2 (something I really hated about the Tak).

Here are a few non-PP'ed pictures with my obligatory non-Stasia model. Very easy to get a good "pop" from the image. All at f2.

[ManualFocus-G]

Oh gawd, I think you're about to make me £600.00 lighter...I just love the rendering, especially #2