Finding Zen in Non Native Medium Format Photography with Fast Manual Small Lenses

I’ve been on a path to find ideal lenses since my grandfather started giving me lenses and cameras as a youngster. When I was in my early 20s it was easy. The typical question is simply - what lenses does my camera manufacturer offer. That was Contax with their Zeiss lens line up - at the time. I had a my trusty 50/1.4, and the 35 & 85, both 2.8s. Fine lenses, albeit a tad boring if I’m being honest. But their feel, sharpness, build quality lasted through the ages, and there was little else to want or buy.

When I went digital, the primary concern and objective, for me, was to use my great Zeiss lenses. Back then there was one guy making an adapter for Canons, and while Contax was literally first digital full frame 35mm camera available, it soon faded and even folded (tragic loss), and Canon emerged as a leader in that category - especially being price competitive and very available. Immediately, I was seeing the beauty of the lens in digital, while I expected only to use a digital camera for comps akin to use of Polaroids, I found the images were quite usable for real world use. I think it was 12MP back then. The Contax was 6MP, but wow, super clean and capable 6MP especially compared to the 7MP I was getting from my Sony tiny digital pocket camera. It’s definitely not always about megapixels, but sensor size, processing and clean output.

Zeiss ZM 35/1.4 Distagon on Fuji GFX 100S

Today, the hunt is not so different except missing the old look of analog. But, what part. For many I see it simply means digital is boring and not so cool. That’s short sighted, in my opinion, nor do I feel it’s accurate. Digital may lack but dialing in, like a proper espresso is more than possible. Simply bypassing digital, to analog prints has it’s place, especially in bragging rights. But, is there a real difference in image quality, like in using different paints from different companies? Obviously, some will continue to argue, ad infinitum. But, I think there is more to it in terms of “look and feel” and it starts with lenses - in my opinion. And, for some, it’s all about lenses.

35mm focal length is something I find very valuable in shooting, allowing for a bit more information of the scene, the environment - whether when shooting portraits, or nearly anything when shooting a subject within a scene. Whereas once you get into a 50mm you can more easily isolate a subject from it’s environment, and certainly all the more so with an 85 and longer. So, to me, a 35mm lens (on 35mm format, aka “full frame”) means, inherently, to include more of the surroundings - which equates to greater storytelling, by its very nature because there is always some relationship of subject to the surrounding stage/scene and other actors, etc. All the more so with a 28mm, and once we get into 25mm, I feel like we’re really talking about a photographing a scene, for the most part. Not much subject isolation that can be done with dramatic effect as a necessary variable. Artistic choice but either drama or burying a lot of info into a scene if you’re trying to use a 25mm and isolate any subject, other than architecture, of course. With that said, I have shot portraits with a 25mm lens. But, it’s very different.

With M mount 35mm lenses on the Fuji GFX medium format system we’re really talking about 28mm lens, but . . . 35mm characteristics. It’s almost it’s own class or genre of a look. You get some severe, or dramatic distortion, if subjects are too close to the sides, typically. But, mainly you get depth of field look like a fast 35, heightened by the medium format larger sensor. Sometimes this can be exaggerated, for better or worse. But, it’s certainly not an APSC sensor look, nor the common Leica shooting setup and look of 28mm at f8, with nearly everything generally in focus. There is a greater separation of subject from surroundings, with dramatic focus fall off where it’s out of focus - especially when distance to subject is about a meter, fairly close to minimal focusing distance.

I really love the Voigtlander Nokton 35. It’s small, compact, easy to focus, soft with a some strong filed curvature that can be fascinating, even a bit warped, yet quite sharp. Very sharp, in my estimation. But, after not using the Zeiss ZM for some time, I was really shocked to see that it was dramatically sharper and higher resolving that the Voigtlander. Crispier micro contrast, and far more detail, biting detail. Sometimes, maybe too much.

Once I got the new third rendition of the classic Voigtlander 35/1.2 I was happy to essentially keep it on. I love lenses, and resolution, I can be wowed by as marvel at the details. I love the Fuji GFX 100S that allows me to crop as my heart desires, even though, for me, crops are nearly always minimal. But, even the ability to crop to an XPan or same but vertical, from same image, is a kind of crazy. I can go on about benefits of high resolution this but the point here is more that this lens delivers.

In one image early test of the lens, first day, coming straight from the store with it, I had photographed a car from a reasonable distance. It wasn’t appropriate or whatever in the circumstance to get closer. But, later, I did find that a heavy crop was where the image’s strength really was - cropping close to see the dog and driver in the frame of the window, not the car from a distance. From a distance it’s a scene with a car as the main subject, and then an inner subject. Fine, but no strength. Once I saw the characters, the position and so on, it was a different story, one I preferred, that I felt had greater value in storytelling, tensions, relationships of characters, and composition, light & shadow, what’s in focus relative to background, and so on. This lens produces very fine detail, and yet an old school rendering that is super pleasing and a perfect example of a lens for rendering as opposed to the film stock or sensor.

Further, in some shots, I can’t tell the difference. Once closed down, they are both quite sharp, and pleasing. In shot above of gentlemen, Tewfiq, another photographer in Washington Square Park, who is a wonderful shooter, I could not really tell. I’m pretty sure it’s the Voigtlander wide open. but its fine details stand out enough to make me wonder. With the Zeiss ZM model, when you look at an image at 100% the amount of detail and crispy sharp micro contrast stands out, with rare exception. Nonetheless, there are cases where it’s confusing because the backlight, thus some softness generated by the light rays bouncing around, yet great sharpness on the skin. Upon closer examination, I can absolutely tell the difference.

In the shots of Paulie B, in perfect lighting, the difference is stand out obvious. Both were wide open, at 1.4 and 1.2 respectively. The Zeiss offers a gritty super high detail micro landscape much akin to the Otus 55. Just outstanding. Maybe too much information, but that can also be dialed out in processing, should it be overwhelming and truly unflattering.

In the image of Paulie B taken with the Voigtlander, details are there, but so is simultaneous softness, in a pleasing way.

Both are great, and I’m very happy with both. I could use either in nearly all circumstances. I love crazy high resolving detail, maybe because I come from shooting 4x5 and larger medium format. Even with Medium Format, I never shot 6x4.5cm as it seemed a waste of film, time & expense when I could be shooting 6x6, or better yet, 6x9, a favorite. But, I mostly shot 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 (8.25cm x 10.795cm) on the Polaroid 600SE, the GOOSE, as it’s known - just massive. I used to shoot that with Polaroid’s positive negative film which gave an example Polaroid instant image, which to me was simply to gauge exposure, and cute keepsake. But, the real meat was that negative which was glorious. That’s the greatest loss with Polaroid’s demise. Bottom line, I love details. Always have. If you don’t, that’s great. It’s just my style.

Zeiss ZM 35/1.4 Distagon shot of Paulie B at 100% crop

Zeiss ZM 35/1.4 Distagon corrected for vertical

But, these lenses on a smaller sensor, whether 24x36mm or even APSC or Super 35, will still be awesome, rich and wonderful. But, they also have great capability that can take them into the next generation, or, as we know from this, handle state of the art latest top level sensors such as the 100MP Fuji and Hasselblad HD2.

There are many 35mm lenses out there and many considerations, with many being quite capable. These are a bit more special, in my estimation, from my experience with richer character, and ability to produce incredible imagery of all sorts. The Voigtlander offers a bit more old school look wide open, with less contrast, and more affected by flaring - which can be a great artistic tool.

Both are, relatively, small. Tiny in comparison to options from Sony, Fuji, Canon, Nikon, etc. Even the ZM35 compared to other Zeiss 35/1.4 models is significant. That means it’s easier to use, easier to travel with, won't break my back and forearms, which are suffering at my age from years of abuse, motorcycle and car accidents, and carrying heavy gear for many hours. It’s important to be more strategic. Yet, if AF is the only way you operate, these are non-starters if you are unwilling to budge or that uncomfortable. For me, I need manual focus and I feel I am more in control and can thus be more exact, and with such lenses, exactness is important.

I also love the Zeiss focus tab, as it rests in the crevice of my finger, and it’s location, say at 6 o’clock, is a certain focus distance, and rocking it back to minimum focusing distance can be done, and is done, without a glance - even before I look through the viewfinder. I can prefocus to a large degree before subject is even in my frame.

But, since focus fall off is so dramatic and so steep one really does need to ensure focus is on. And, as noted, the gritty texture in the EVF makes that easy. The sharpness of the lens helps the EVF show me in a way other lenses don’t. The Zeiss ZM 50/1.5 Sonnar is challenging in this way, as it is the opposite, I find.

And, I have other 35mm lenses including the Zeiss Milvus 35, which is also very sharp, very contrasty but otherwise very very different in imagery, feel, use, etc. and I don’t really use for street work. For food photography, that is something I grab every time. But, hard to make a case for street work with it unless I wanted a professional polish commercial look. Nothing wrong with that, just different characteristics.

Happy Shooting and I hope encourage others to try other lenses on great cameras by seeing what they are capable of producing, at least in this type of street work, whether with street scenes, or portraits, dramatic and old school, or modern with color and rendering pop, and heaps of resolving capability.