Maybe there are, but I'm not one of them. I prefer to shoot my Nikkor 50/1.2 when the light goes down. However, with a top shutter speed of 1/8000 on my Nikon F6 and Nikon D700 and a single ND4 filter, its certainly doable to shoot at f1.2 in bright sun.
Anyway, my comment (the one you quoted) was about weight. To me rangefinders mean light and compact. If I want to stick a honking big 1.2 lens on a camera, I'd prefer the camera to be an SLR. That's just me. Others may do as they please.
SteveM(PA)
Poser
Ha! I keep forgetting shutters can go beyond 1/2000
Jon, I'm not trying to be flip or belabor anything...I'm honestly open to new ideas. So in that spirit, can you tell me why it is, for you, that if you are going out for the purposes of shooting (let's say digital) f1.2, you'd prefer an SLR? Your rig would indeed be a bit bigger, right?
While I'll occasionally pop a Summicron on and truly appreciate the lightness and compactness of the rig, what I'm essentially looking for is the most compact proposition for shooting 1.2 at a 50mm equiv. I think I have that with CV/R-D1... well, short of a Leica...
Ha! I keep forgetting shutters can go beyond 1/2000
Jon, I'm not trying to be flip or belabor anything...I'm honestly open to new ideas. So in that spirit, can you tell me why it is, for you, that if you are going out for the purposes of shooting (let's say digital) f1.2, you'd prefer an SLR? Your rig would indeed be a bit bigger, right?
While I'll occasionally pop a Summicron on and truly appreciate the lightness and compactness of the rig, what I'm essentially looking for is the most compact proposition for shooting 1.2 at a 50mm equiv. I think I have that with CV/R-D1... well, short of a Leica...
Steve, I see where you're coming from now.
IMO compact (i.e. light weight) and f1.2 don't go together, but RF should be compact and light weight. So to me, an f1.2 lens on an RF misses the point of RF.
I built up my M-mount RF kit (Zeiss Ikon x2, ZM 21/4.5, CV 28/3.5, CV 35/1.4, ZM 50/2) specifically to be as light as possible as a replacement for the film SLR kit I used to carry while traveling. That SLR kit just got too heavy to carry around all day every day for weeks at a time, and I ended up doing my back in during a trip to Thailand because of it. I spent three days in my hotel room in Chiang Mai recovering
Every now and then I miss not having a lens longer than 50mm, but not often. I also wish the ZM Planar 50/2 was a little more compact, but it is extremely light for a 50mm lens (under 200 grams) so its forgiven.
On an SLR, I don't care how big a lens is, as SLR bodies are usually heavy to start with. But I won't lug a heavy SLR kit around for days at a time.
I guess I could use (for example) a Nokton 50/1.1 on a ZI body instead of my Nikkor 50/1.2 on my F6, but I already have the F6 and Nikkor and am very happy with it. With the Nikon split screen for MF installed, the F6 is actually extremely easy to manual focus even in low light. Plus you can use focus confirmation.
So there you go. My M-mount RF kit fills a specific roll, and my SLRs do the rest.
boy_lah
Discovering RF
Steve, I see where you're coming from now.
IMO compact (i.e. light weight) and f1.2 don't go together, but RF should be compact and light weight. So to me, an f1.2 lens on an RF misses the point of RF.
My feeling exactly. For me RF is about having the camera with
me all the time so it needs to be light/compact. I typically have my RF in my work bag and carry it to and from work in case i catch some good light.
When i'm going some where/doing a specific job and know i will need a camera, then i bring my SLR which is heavy but far more versatile. Different tools for different jobs i guess.
I forgot to add, although I miss the look of the CV 35/1.2, I much prefer the size of the the CV 35/1.4. The speed difference between 1.2 vs 1.4 is insignificant for my shooting style
Last edited:
PetarDima
Well-known
ouch! That can seriously change my M5+CV35mmf1.2 concept ... what's the situation with M4P
Can you see 100% of 35mm frame lines???Renzsu
Well-known
ouch! That can seriously change my M5+CV35mmf1.2 concept ... what's the situation with M4P
Not sure about the M4P, but the shot I posted above is through the M6 viewfinder, with the hood mounted.. without the hood it's a bit smaller. I'm not sure where people are getting that 1/3rd number, they're overreacting or just blindly repeating what they heard somewhere else.
kshapero
South Florida Man
M with the CV 35/1.2 and third party hood
And my M with my daytime lens CV35/2.5
And my M with my daytime lens CV35/2.5
Rogrund
Antti Sivén
M with the CV 35/1.2 and third party hood
Akiva, I'm just curious here. Doesn't that hood cause vignetting? Beautiful combination, by the way.
kshapero
South Florida Man
Just tried it (got it for $4) no problem so far.
RFluhver
Well-known
I care
If I'm gonna lug that much weight around, I'd prefer it be an SLR. But that's just me
Exactly! Too many posters are too set in their ways in an effort to justify their unjustifiable investment.
The problem with this here forum is that there's too much talk about gear and not about what you do with that gear. In other words: show us your talent man!
Krosya
Konicaze
What you say makes no sence to me at all! What unjustifiable investment? CV 35/1.2 is not that expensive, while CV 35/1.4 is not that much cheaper. So, what are you talking about?
As far as what people do whith that gear? - I guess you missed this thread , right? :
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72649
I think there is enough talent there to prove why people go with CV 35/1.2 lens. You'd have to be blind to not see that!
RFluhver
Well-known
ROTFL.... you make me laugh.