jpa66
Jan as in "Jan and Dean"
I'm trying to decide which lens to get next for my Bessa. I want to use it primarily for city landscapes/street photography. I already have a CV 35/2.5, and I want something wider. I did post a previous thread about 25mm M or ltm lenses, and did get some good opinions on those ( somewhat limited ) options.
I have been thinking about the CV 25, but I would like something a bit less "clinical" and "modern", so to speak. I'm not looking for the ultimate in "creaminess" though. Something that's sharp, but not the last word in high contrast.
I'm also trying to decide between the 25 and 28 focal lengths. I'm wondering if the 28 would be too close to the 35? Although, the 28 would give me more options.
I'd like the lens to be relatively small, and relatively inexpensive ( a dubiously vague word... ), so a Leica is probably out, and a Biogon is probably as well ( one reason, aside from it's higher cost, is that it's BIG ). I'm thinking maybe Canon or Minolta? Or CV.
Any help would is greatly appreciated. These decisions can get to be quite vexing...
JP
I have been thinking about the CV 25, but I would like something a bit less "clinical" and "modern", so to speak. I'm not looking for the ultimate in "creaminess" though. Something that's sharp, but not the last word in high contrast.
I'm also trying to decide between the 25 and 28 focal lengths. I'm wondering if the 28 would be too close to the 35? Although, the 28 would give me more options.
I'd like the lens to be relatively small, and relatively inexpensive ( a dubiously vague word... ), so a Leica is probably out, and a Biogon is probably as well ( one reason, aside from it's higher cost, is that it's BIG ). I'm thinking maybe Canon or Minolta? Or CV.
Any help would is greatly appreciated. These decisions can get to be quite vexing...
JP
tomnrides
Established
This is a trick question. If not it would depend on what the 3rd lens will be. You know you will want not just one but 2 more. you just don't admit to yourself? Choices choices choises..
I have 40, 25, angling for Zeiss 18. will work without the accessory finder, almost.
I have 40, 25, angling for Zeiss 18. will work without the accessory finder, almost.
aizan
Veteran
28 and 35 are not interchangeable, in my experience.
the new ultron isn't small, but then again, it is f2.
you'd like the size of the 25/4. there are many things you can do to get a classic look out of a modern lens, so i wouldn't take that into consideration at all.
anyhow, there's always the canon 25/3.5 ltm.
the new ultron isn't small, but then again, it is f2.
you'd like the size of the 25/4. there are many things you can do to get a classic look out of a modern lens, so i wouldn't take that into consideration at all.
anyhow, there's always the canon 25/3.5 ltm.
gliderbee
Well-known
I'd go for the 25 in this case; I have both the Ultron 28 (LTM-version) and the CV 25 (and the Ultron 35); I like them all (and indeed the 35 and 28 are not interchangable) but sometimes the size of the 28 bothers me; the CV 25 is a lovely little lens.
Stefan.
Stefan.
A Voigtlander 25 Color Skopar is almost always 'stuck' to the front of my R4A, a very fine combination. And I recall still with admiration the series of B&W photos by a former RFF member traveling the areas on either side of the French-German border with his Bessa-L and 25 Snapshot Skopar. Buildings, canals, cafes, old factories, cityscapes, landscapes... classic stuff done marvelously well in partnership with a great little lens. It can do it!
peter_n
Veteran
I love the 24/25 focal length so I'm biased in that direction, but the R4M has a solitary frameline for the 28mm lens. How sweet is that? 
bwidjaja
Warung Photo
The solitary 28mm frame line is indeed sweet. And don't forget the 28mm color skopar which is tiny and solidly built. I assume 25 and 35 is just a couple of steps away using 28mm?
jpa66
Jan as in "Jan and Dean"
So those of you with the CV 25 don't think that it's too contrasty?
jpa66
Jan as in "Jan and Dean"
The problem is that the lens after this one ( whenever that may be ) may very well be another 35mm. While I haven't used the 28mm focal length for awhile, I seem to recall always wanting something wider when I was using it. That's why I'm wondering if the the 35 is close enough to it that it isn't very much of a difference.
I think everyone's viewpoint on "wideness" is different, and likely evolving as well. It also depends on the subject and how you approach it; sometimes the wideness is subtle, and sometimes wideness IS the subject.
To me, 40 is about normal, and 35 is normal with a taste of wide. A 28 is different, not to be confused with 35 or 25, with its own look. It can be a fine wide companion for a 40 or 50. The 28mm is a pretty easy wide to use, as it often has an inclusive wideness that's still not extreme.
The 24/25 is a seriously wide lens, with more challenges in its use. Also a decent companion to a 40 normal. That 3 or 4mm shorter than a 28 really makes a difference. And 3 or 4mm shorter than this, getting to 21mm, makes a sizable difference too... as we're seeing small mm differences in focal length, it's proportional, and the difference in angle of view is accelerating.
35mm = 63°, 28mm = 75°, 25mm = 82°, 21mm = 90°, 18mm = 98°
To me, 21mm is on the edge of extremity... It can be extreme itself, and any wider is certainly an extreme wide angle. For the most part, this is a difficult lens to use effectively. It takes practice and thought to avoid having wideness overwhelm the subject matter.
I think the biggest challenge in getting used to wide angle lenses is filling the frame with useful compositional elements. With a 25, you'll need to move in closer and be more conscious of what's inside the frame edges than with a 28 or 35. Can't stand back as with a 50 or 75mm; march right into the composition... and this is what gives your wide lens pics that sense of involvement and immediacy that is so compelling.
To me, 40 is about normal, and 35 is normal with a taste of wide. A 28 is different, not to be confused with 35 or 25, with its own look. It can be a fine wide companion for a 40 or 50. The 28mm is a pretty easy wide to use, as it often has an inclusive wideness that's still not extreme.
The 24/25 is a seriously wide lens, with more challenges in its use. Also a decent companion to a 40 normal. That 3 or 4mm shorter than a 28 really makes a difference. And 3 or 4mm shorter than this, getting to 21mm, makes a sizable difference too... as we're seeing small mm differences in focal length, it's proportional, and the difference in angle of view is accelerating.
35mm = 63°, 28mm = 75°, 25mm = 82°, 21mm = 90°, 18mm = 98°
To me, 21mm is on the edge of extremity... It can be extreme itself, and any wider is certainly an extreme wide angle. For the most part, this is a difficult lens to use effectively. It takes practice and thought to avoid having wideness overwhelm the subject matter.
I think the biggest challenge in getting used to wide angle lenses is filling the frame with useful compositional elements. With a 25, you'll need to move in closer and be more conscious of what's inside the frame edges than with a 28 or 35. Can't stand back as with a 50 or 75mm; march right into the composition... and this is what gives your wide lens pics that sense of involvement and immediacy that is so compelling.
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
I'm pretty much with Doug on this.
I have the 50/2.5 I can use on either my R3A or R4A as both have 50mm framelines. I also have the 40/1.4 for the R3A for low light and I can always use it on the R4A with the 50 frameline - it will cover more than the viewfinder does, but generally I'd use the 50 or the 35 on that camera.
I think 35mm is too close to 40mm but a useful step from 50mm.
I also think that 28 mm is too close to 35mm and my experience is I find the 25mm is better for my preferred "general" WA shots.
Over quite a few years of Nikon SLR shooting I found 28mm was useful but often not quite wide enough. The conventional wisdom of the day was that 28mm was as wide as one could safely go without obvious distortion. True enough, but 25mm gives just that bit extra I often wanted and as long as you watch your verticals and horizontals the results are perfectly satisfactory.
21mm, on the other hand, can be a bit of a beast. You WILL get distortion and unless the camera is held perfectly level it is very apparent in the print. Many people use a spirit level of some kind to avoid this. If you shoot street and like the distortion then 21 may be fine but it doesn't suit me.
back alley
IMAGES
28 is a great, easy to use walk around lens.
25 gives your images an 'edge' that i much prefer over the 28, but it's not as easy to use...but it's not hard either...
25 gives your images an 'edge' that i much prefer over the 28, but it's not as easy to use...but it's not hard either...
jpa66
Jan as in "Jan and Dean"
Well, it seems like a 25mm would work best for me for what I'm looking for. Thanks to all for helping me clarify my thoughts on the matter.
peter_n
Veteran
A 25 will go very well with your 35/2.5. I use 35 and 75 as a pair and a 24 for the shots that the 35 won't stretch to. Works very well. Good luck with your 25, I think you'll like it!
tomnrides
Established
jp66; do us a favor and post minimum 1 shot with your new whatever-mm lens once settled?
thanks
thanks
Last edited:
jpa66
Jan as in "Jan and Dean"
jp66; do us a favor and post minimum 1 shot with your new whatever-mm lens once settled?
thanks
Definitely will do.
I'm selling a 25mm M mount if you are interested.
tritiated
Well-known
the 25mm is quite smooth..
Low distortion.
http://ihardlyknowher.com/theoriginalinvisible
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theoriginalinvisible/tags/voigtlandersnapshotskopar25mmf40
just got a bessa l to weld in on..
Low distortion.
http://ihardlyknowher.com/theoriginalinvisible
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theoriginalinvisible/tags/voigtlandersnapshotskopar25mmf40
just got a bessa l to weld in on..