Sonnar2
Well-known
With 50mm and shorter I prefer RFs for focussing. About 2/3's of my shots are with these focal lengths. I always used SLRs in the 80's, 90's for my shooting until my first RF (2000) which was a Canon P, followed by a Bessa R. I found shooting with this two cameras the way I use to work far more convenient than with classic SLRs.
With fast 85's, I'm indifferent. I haven't a problem focussing a 75/1.5 Biotar with my Exakta VX (bright prism finder, large split-image). It's my oldest SLR camera. With the bright screens of my early Pentax SLR I focus all of the M42 fast telephotos excellently. The Pentax MX finder is quite dark whereas my LX is bright and clear, excellent for the 85/1.8. The Olympus OM4 isn't as good as the LX with the 85/2 (moreover the speed display is a pure pain). The Zeiss 85/1.4 is a joy to use with my Contax 139 as well as the Yashica(Cosina) FX3 -2000 but needs constant refocussing in use with either bodies.
With the RF's I can focus my Nikkor 85/2 with my Bessa-R as good as with any Canon's with longer baselength. The split-image of the Bessa is simply clearer. The Canon 85/1.8 works on any of my LTM cameras but its even slower to focus as the Nikon because of it single helicoil. Even heavier, the 85/1.5. It shows slight front-focussing too. Cam calibration is an issue with any RF. If it's off your pictures aren't in focus at a certain distance. Pure pain with Russian lenses on German or Japanase cameras except you find a person to recalibrate the lense. This isn't a issue with any SLRs. When you see the screen is bright and sharp, the picture will be sharp as well. When the light gets dark with SLRs, you need both a highspeed lens (f/1.4) plus a bright screen for focussing. You wouldn't see nothing with a f/2.8 lens. With a RF, a slower lens is even more secure because of the baselength issue. But only if your film is fast enough. With very low light, it can happen that you didn't see the RF patch either. Happened to me a couple of times with the 50/0.95. Then, there is no advantage to a SLR with 50/1.2 in real terms. Taking pictures at a varieté, a Canon A-1 w. AL 50/1.2 is far easier to handle than a Canon 7 w. 50/0.95. This makes you see instantly where the progress was between 1962 and 1982!
I had some problems focussing the Nikkor 105/2.5 correctly. It was LTM. Slower lenses (like 100-105/3.5) aren't a problem, but here IMHO the advantage of SLR began. Even more with 135. Even the 135/3.5 is a pain on RFs (focussing accuracy, composition and handling). But I don't use this focal langth very often anyway, except with my 135/2.8 Zeiss lens on Rolleiflex SL35. These cameras have also bright finders (similar to the Spotmatics). With 180mm or faster, there is just one choice: SLR.
The second choice for SLR is close focus and macro work. My LTM cameras focus down to 1m, which isn't very close, even for portraits (i.e. kids) with 50mm. My Olympus PEN-FT focusses down to 0,35m with a 40mm halfframe (equivalent to 58mm full format).
cheers Frank
With fast 85's, I'm indifferent. I haven't a problem focussing a 75/1.5 Biotar with my Exakta VX (bright prism finder, large split-image). It's my oldest SLR camera. With the bright screens of my early Pentax SLR I focus all of the M42 fast telephotos excellently. The Pentax MX finder is quite dark whereas my LX is bright and clear, excellent for the 85/1.8. The Olympus OM4 isn't as good as the LX with the 85/2 (moreover the speed display is a pure pain). The Zeiss 85/1.4 is a joy to use with my Contax 139 as well as the Yashica(Cosina) FX3 -2000 but needs constant refocussing in use with either bodies.
With the RF's I can focus my Nikkor 85/2 with my Bessa-R as good as with any Canon's with longer baselength. The split-image of the Bessa is simply clearer. The Canon 85/1.8 works on any of my LTM cameras but its even slower to focus as the Nikon because of it single helicoil. Even heavier, the 85/1.5. It shows slight front-focussing too. Cam calibration is an issue with any RF. If it's off your pictures aren't in focus at a certain distance. Pure pain with Russian lenses on German or Japanase cameras except you find a person to recalibrate the lense. This isn't a issue with any SLRs. When you see the screen is bright and sharp, the picture will be sharp as well. When the light gets dark with SLRs, you need both a highspeed lens (f/1.4) plus a bright screen for focussing. You wouldn't see nothing with a f/2.8 lens. With a RF, a slower lens is even more secure because of the baselength issue. But only if your film is fast enough. With very low light, it can happen that you didn't see the RF patch either. Happened to me a couple of times with the 50/0.95. Then, there is no advantage to a SLR with 50/1.2 in real terms. Taking pictures at a varieté, a Canon A-1 w. AL 50/1.2 is far easier to handle than a Canon 7 w. 50/0.95. This makes you see instantly where the progress was between 1962 and 1982!
I had some problems focussing the Nikkor 105/2.5 correctly. It was LTM. Slower lenses (like 100-105/3.5) aren't a problem, but here IMHO the advantage of SLR began. Even more with 135. Even the 135/3.5 is a pain on RFs (focussing accuracy, composition and handling). But I don't use this focal langth very often anyway, except with my 135/2.8 Zeiss lens on Rolleiflex SL35. These cameras have also bright finders (similar to the Spotmatics). With 180mm or faster, there is just one choice: SLR.
The second choice for SLR is close focus and macro work. My LTM cameras focus down to 1m, which isn't very close, even for portraits (i.e. kids) with 50mm. My Olympus PEN-FT focusses down to 0,35m with a 40mm halfframe (equivalent to 58mm full format).
cheers Frank