50mm on an R4M - anyone using this focal length?

J

jpa66

Jan as in "Jan and Dean"
Local time
12:32 PM
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
804
Location
Chicago
View My Gallery
I'm breaking down and want to get a 50mm lens for my R4M.

This question is for those who have ( or have used ) the R4x with a 50mm. I know that the viewfinder is very small, but I'd like to know how challenging it is to use in real world situations. I don't want ( ie.: can't afford ) another body right now, but foresee a time in the next year or two where I will have a second rangefinder body that can handle the longer focal lengths.

If anyone has any experience with a 50mm on this camera, I'd appreciate any insights.

Thanks,
Jan
 
It works fine; it's not as easy to focus as on the R3A of course, but it's perfecty doable.

Besides, what do you risk ? If you will buy another body later, the lens is not lost, is it 🙂 ?
 
I have used Jupiter 3 (50mm f1.5) on an R4M with not much problem. I have used it wide open at close distance too. Of course, R2x or R3x would be much better, but I only had R4M, so no problem.
 
I have used and use the 50 mm with the R4M. Not a big problem - a bit small frame - but it also allows you a lot of "outside" viewing. You can plan an image by watching the outside of the frame and watch stuff get together. In a sense it feels like you are using a short tele on a R2/M2. The sharpness is determined by the focussing patch any way.
Admittedly, I tend to use slower 50's on the R4's - 50f2.8/f3.5 - though I have tried it with the 50f1.4 and even the 50f1.1. It is all a matter of being careful when focussing.
 
I use the Nokton 50/1.5 and the Zeiss Planar 50/2 on the R4M. As Tom said, the frame is a bit small. I would not want to go smaller. When I think about it, though, the only trouble I've had has been focusing at night under street light. That, I think, is down to the small frame.
 
I have not gotten sharp portrait results at f/2.8 or f/4 with my color skopar 50/2.5 on my R4A. Under brighter conditions where I have been able to use smaller f-stops, the results are quite sharp. Am I the problem under the more challenging conditions? Is it the rangefinder effective length? Is it my copy of the lens? I don't know, but overall, as I rarely use the lens at close focus in low light, I am happy with the lens and intend to keep it.
 
KenR said:
I have not gotten sharp portrait results at f/2.8 or f/4 with my color skopar 50/2.5 on my R4A. Under brighter conditions where I have been able to use smaller f-stops, the results are quite sharp. Am I the problem under the more challenging conditions? Is it the rangefinder effective length? Is it my copy of the lens? I don't know, but overall, as I rarely use the lens at close focus in low light, I am happy with the lens and intend to keep it.
Click to expand...

That's very strange... Something's probably happening with your lens, camera or eyes... One thing is that the frame you see is small, but focusing is done with the same patch for any lens... I get sharp images at 1.4 with my 40 all the time, and even with my 90 wide open at 2: framing is not easy, but focusing is... And I'm talking about close distances for portraits, not only far focusing...

Cheers,

Juan
 
The patch is the same size, but the image is smaller than it might be in another camera. That's where I have problems.
 
I use a 50mm Nokton 1.5 and it's okay. It's a little tight but I like a lot of room to around my frame. However I much prefer the 35mm lines, and the 28mm lines.
 
Oh I forgot to say the R4A is a true unsung hero in the world of rangefinders!!! I LOVE that camera. If Leica users weren't so snobby and came to their senses they'd snatch them all up!
 
sper said:
Oh I forgot to say the R4A is a true unsung hero in the world of rangefinders!!! I LOVE that camera. If Leica users weren't so snobby and came to their senses they'd snatch them all up!
Click to expand...

Well that's a bit harsh - maybe even inverted snobbery?
If there was a Bessa 3.5A with different framelines I'd probably live very happily with that one body. If Leica made the MP with a 24 or 25 frameline instead of stopping at 28mm and discarded the 135 FL, I'd likely get one and be very happy with that one body. But I use my 25mm FL a lot and if I go over 75mm I dig out my old Nikkormat SLR for 85mm/135mm/200mm. That happens rarely - so I have the R3A and the R4A which covers all the bases I generally need - but with two bodies to carry. I'd prefer one on most occasions. I can use the 50mm lens on either - and do.
 
Thanks for all the insights, gentlemen. I knew that you could use a 50 on the camera, and it appears that it's definitely do-able.

Looks like I'll be parting with more money soon thanks to RFF...
 
sper said:
Oh I forgot to say the R4A is a true unsung hero in the world of rangefinders!!! I LOVE that camera. If Leica users weren't so snobby and came to their senses they'd snatch them all up!
Click to expand...

In my book - the R4 is one of the "milestone" cameras, up there with the Leica II 1930 (coupled rangefinder), the M3 (bayonet lens-mount) and the Nikon F (accessories and build). The fact that Cosina could stick a 21 finder that is usable in a Rf body is an amazing feat - and at a cost that rivals that of the finder for a 21 from Leica!!!!
 
I think someone posted not long ago that 19mm lens seems to be about he same as R4's full VF view. Since I dont have it - cant test myself to make sure.
 
I've just spent the morning street shooting with my R4A and newly aquired 50mm Sonnar optimized for f1.5

I have the roll of film (Rollei 100) in my hand and I'm about to head off to the darkroom to develop it.

I'll get back later with an opinion after I've scanned the results as I figure the Sonnar will have really put the R4A's capabilities in this area to the test! 😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom