Newbie: best lens for a R3A in low light?

00ziggi

00ziggi

Member
Local time
6:40 AM
Joined
Apr 14, 2007
Messages
11
hey everyone-
first, thanks for the amazing forum. this place is just great...

i just ordered my first RF, the R3A... i shoot a lot of low light situations, generally people in low lit interiors. i got the R3A to get back my film chops lost long ago in college. i expect to waste lots of film. http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/images/smilies/redface.gif

so what would be the best lens for low light, and considering that it'll be my only lens to learn this camera on?
thanks!
brent
 
a lens with a low aperture number. 1.2, 1.4 will probably do the trick. VC apparantly has some nice ones in their collection, and for a very reasonable price. I heard good things about the 35mm ultron, but I bet you can find lots of examples here in the gallery and on Flickr for instance.

I guess that using 1.4 aperture the image will not be as good as shooting with 5.6 or 8.0 but this is also the case with the Leica Summiluxes and they are 5 times more expensive.
 
Because you say people in low light interiors, I'm going to say Ultron 35mm f1.7. The Nokton 40mm f1.4 would be great and would match your framelines, but I think you may appreciate the wider fov.
 
I'd recommend the stunning 40/1.4, one of the best lenses in the CV lineup in terms of sharpness and tonality (and ergonimics). If you wear glasses, however, you should consider the CV Nokton 50/1.5 as you will find it challenging to see the 40mm framelines.

Enjoy your new camera.
 
Another vote for the 40/1.4. I have seen some awesome results from it. The only reason I don't have one is that it will make me look for an R3A. ;)
 
I just traded my 40 Nokton and R3A, and I would say those two are meant for each other -- a great combination. But as a glasses wearer, the 40mm framelines are a little tight for me on the camera. The CL is much more to my liking in that regard -- the 1:1 finder of the R3A is nice but I like seeing the framelines better.
 
Just dinking around to see if my preference for 35mm in this application is really meaningful or not...
35mm at f2 focused at 8 feet = 1.91 ft. dof and a 8.23 ft wide field of view.
40mm at f2 focused at 8 feet = 1.45 ft. dof and a 7.2 ft wide field of view.

6 inches deeper dof and 1 ft wider fov. Significant??? Maybe not so much.
 
The 40 nokton is brilliant but the OP may prefer the Nokton 1.5 50..
Just because the 50 frame is way easier to work with on the R3a and for people shots the 50 can give more flattering perspective. Also if one is coming from a SLR background with a 'stock' 50, it's a more familiar focal length...
 
ray_g said:
Another vote for the 40/1.4. I have seen some awesome results from it. The only reason I don't have one is that it will make me look for an R3A. ;)
Click to expand...

Aaaaak! Ray, that's just what I went and done did! (hence my moniker).

Originally bought the Nokton to get some inexpensive speed for for my Hexar RF and fell in love - mostly (boke can be a little harsh with certain kinds of background).

A friend has the R3A with the Nokton and I really like the 40mm framelines and 1:1 finder. I wear glasses and can't always see the lines, but heck the finder frames the shot without the lines so what's the problem?

Yes, that's another suggestion for the 40/1.4.
 
dazedgonebye said:
Just dinking around to see if my preference for 35mm in this application is really meaningful or not...
35mm at f2 focused at 8 feet = 1.91 ft. dof and a 8.23 ft wide field of view.
40mm at f2 focused at 8 feet = 1.45 ft. dof and a 7.2 ft wide field of view.

6 inches deeper dof and 1 ft wider fov. Significant??? Maybe not so much.
Click to expand...

Good points for the advantages of the 35. Disadvantages are that you dan't see the 35 mm field of view with the R3A viewfinder, so you can't use that wider FOV for composition.

Second, the Ultron is at best f/1.7 (Pop Photo says f/1.8), so you lose speed that you may need in low light compaed to the 40/1.4 (which is a true f/1.4 according to PP).

Thierd, the Nokton will focus about 8 inches closer than the ultron.

Finally, the Nokton is much more compact than the Ultron so unless you have big hands & need the ergonomics of a bigger lens, the Nokton is a nicer choice & is less likely to block the VF.
 
Last edited:
Huck Finn said:
Good points for the advantages of the 35. Disadvantages are that you dan't see the 35 mm field of view with the R3A viewfinder, so you can't use that wider FOV for composition.

Second, the Ultron is at best f/1.7 (Pop Photo says f/1.8), so you lose speed that you may need in low light compaed to the 40/1.4 (which is a true f/1.4 according to PP).

Thierd, the Nokton will focus about 8 inches closer than the ultron.

Finally, the Nokton is much more compact than the Ultron so unless you have big hands & need the ergonomics, the Nokton is a nicer choice & is less likely to block the VF.
Click to expand...

I use the full viewfinder of the R3A for 35mm...seems close enough. This likely won't work for eyeglass wearers.

My caculations were made at f2 for both lenses. At 8 feet away, the dof for the 40mm at f1.4 drops to 12 inches. My friends aren't that skinny. :D

Focusing closer is a nice feature, but did not seem relevant to the OP's friends indoors situation.

Seriously, I don't think he could go wrong with either lens, and as a single lens, may people find the 40mm is the way to go (I may end up there myself). I was just trying to see if my preferences were justified by the numbers.
 
I'd suggest one of the 50mm lenses too; plenty of fine choices, and a nice viewfinder view with a bit of room around the 50mm framelines.
 
Any of the fast 50s work well on the R3a, the Canon 1.2, 1.4, 1.5, the Nikkor 1.4, the CV 50/1.5, a "simple" well adjusted J-3, etc.

The 28/1.9 with minifinder is great too (the minifinder nicely overlooks the
lens). Slower than the Noktons but you gain 1-2 stops in heldheld shooting
because of the wider angle.

Everybody knows I love the 40/1.4. The 40/1.4 and 28/1.9 is a killer combo,
the two best CV lenses, IMO ...

Or the 40/1.4 and 75/2.5. Endless opportunities. The only thing I had difficulties
with on the R3a are fast teles.

Cheers,

Roland.
 
Last edited:
I currently use the R3a as my primary film camera, and I only have one lens fitting it - the Nokton 40 1.4 SC that many others in this thread are mentioning. It's a great lens considering that it's fairly cheap, and for me at least, 40mm fits almost all my needs apart from maybe wanting to go ultra-wide now and then

The lens is good at 1.4, you can check out some of my shots with the R3a+40/1.4 combination here: http://flickr.com/photos/mikkeltscherning/tags/40mm/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom