35 f/2.5 Color Skopar Good Enough for Low Light?

[urbanite]

Hey All,

I recently purchased an R-D1 and while I wait for it to ship I'm considering my lens options. This is my first foray into photography (I like the idea of a rangefinder over an SLR but didn't want to deal with film, which set some hard limits camera-choice-wise) and so I don't really have a good idea just how fast of a lens I need.

I live in an urban setting and have an inkling this will mostly be an at night carry along camera (so think available light from street lights or neon signs in bars) although I will probably do some daytime shots and nature photos as well. My question is, is f/2.5 fast enough to effectively use at night? I don't really know how fast I would need for that on an R-D1. At 2.5 would I need to use ISO 1600 pretty much always at slow shutter speeds? I'm not particularly looking to take a tripod with me at this point either.

The reason I like the 35 skopar is it seems like a good, compact all rounder in my price range (I'd like to keep it to $500 max but would go a little higher if I had to). I was recommended the Nokton 40 1.4 by the person I bought the camera from for low light. The extra stops should help but I'd like to try to get some decent depth of field indoors sometimes too so would I I end up not using those extra stops in that case anyway and just up the ISO? I've also been looking at the Ultron 28 1.9, Ultron 35 1.7 and the Nokton 35 1.2 although those are starting to get much bigger than the 35 skopar (The Ultron 1.9 is probably the biggest I would want, I'm looking for an unobtrusive, carry-along type situation which is what drew me to the 35 skopar in the first place).

I understand it looks like I'm looking for a lens that does everything which I'm sure doesn't exist. Really I could just use some guidance on if the 35 2.5 will be "fast enough" for an outright beginner who will find himself in low light conditions somewhat often and if not, what is a good alternative that is still relatively compact and not too much more expensive. As far as focal lengths, for my first lens I'd like to keep it in the 35 to 50 mm range after the crop factor as that seems like a good starting point for my predicted usage but other suggestions are welcome.

I've looked around the forums a bit and while I've found helpful threads like this ( http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64188 ) none of them have really answered what's "good enough" vs what's "ideal" at least in terms that settled my decision yet.

Thanks for the help!

 

[B-9]

Short answer, No.

My lens of choice when I owned a RD-1 was the 28/2.8 E49 Elmarit but I mostly shoot in good light. The few times I took the Epson out in the cold winter snow, I was pushing 1600 to its limits at 2.8 with barely hand hold able speeds. A lot of those shots came out soft from camera shake.

The 40 Nokton is a great recommendation, it's compact, cheap (sold mine for 250$), and best of all it's a stellar performer especially on a crop sensor.

Skip the skopar.

 

[brennanphotoguy]

I think you'd be better off with the 28/1.9 or the 40/1.4 even if the 40mm might be a little on the long side for a daily lens on a crop sensor. I don't think 2.5 is fast enough at night.

 

[Bille]

what is a good alternative that is still relatively compact and not too much more expensive.

Used Nokton 35/1.4

The 2.5 is a daylight lens.

 

[LukasB]

Used Nokton 35/1.4

The 2.5 is a daylight lens.

If my opinion is useful at all, I also highly recommend this lens. For use on digital I would say get the Multi-coated version, not the Single-Coat.

 

[jsrockit]

I'd get a different camera for night shooting hand held.

 

[froyd]

Indoor, in the evening In my house I'm usually at LV5. I usually shoot ISO400 film, so that means I'm usually set at 1/15 f2.8 (I have a 1.4 lens, but I favor DOF with semi-static subjects over speed). My pictures usually turn out to be slightly soft due to the lower shutter speed, but I like the look.

With the Epson, you could set the sensitivity 2 stops faster than my 400 and could conceivably be shooting at 1/60 indoor. Pretty good in my book.

For outdoor scenes, it kinda depends how you want them drawn. If you want the dark areas to be black, you probaly can drop to 1/30 or 1/15 and be fine, but if you want to dig into the shadows more (and blow any highlights, like street lamps and illuminated shop windows), then you'll need a faster lens or live with the IQ drop pushing the ISO past 1600.

Here's an interesting post with nightime street shots on an Epson: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/33652441

 

[Ko.Fe.]

40 is too narrow for crop sensor IMO. Ultron 35 1.7 ASPH is great lens and doesn't have as much focus shift on digital as Nokton 35 1.4 does.
Or 28 1.9/2 lenses.

As for ISO 1600 and low light, it really depends what is low light.
At home? Street light in the evening before sun goes down or at night?
I only need f1.5 for streets after sun is gone.

I'm using 35 2.5 indoors at home and at ISO 1600. The only problem with ISO1600 I have - it is 400 film pushed to 1600 or it is on digital camera where ISO 1600 is not as good as it is on R-D1.

 

[David Hughes]

Exactly, it depend on what you call low light and how steady your hands are for slow shutter speeds.

Some of us can, and I could once upon a time, take hand held shots at a half second shutter speed. I've managed it with the traditional f/3.5 lens and Leica and Kodak's catalogues in the 30's always showed a candle lit portrait. And film was a lot slower then.

Regards, David

 

[emraphoto]

The VC 35mm f2.5 is all the lens I needed for a very long time. Low light, great light and anywhere else. I shot an RD-1 with the VC 35 and never really found myself wanting for more.

With that said, it depends on you needs more than anything else. I have never counted super sharp high on the priority list. If the reverse is true for you, then obviously speed is the need.

 

[Larry H-L]

I agree with others about the 35mm f1.4 Nokton on the RD-1. The lens is fast and has an interesting signature, and balances really well on the RD-1.

I also have the Skopar 2.5 and the Ultron 1.7, both are good lenses, but with the f2.5, you will be into slow shutter speeds at night. The Ultron would be my second choice... it is a bit bigger than the Nokton, though it has nicer, more neutral OOF areas.

 

[urbanite]

Thanks everyone!

Looks like I'll most likely be picking up one of the Nokton 1.4s or an Ultron. I'll have to think a little more about focal lengths and whether I want to tighten up or loosen up compared to the Skopar.

I have read about the very "distinctive" bokeh of the Nokton when wide open. Is that a love it or hate it quality of the lens? And if I'm shooting up close, how much would an aspherical Ultron benefit me over the Nokton?

 

[Daryl J.]

Close up, the Ulton's blurred area is more buttery smooth, the Nokton more rubber band vibratory.

I use a Nokton and love it. But, just like any lens, it's not for every use. Busy backgrounds are challenges for most lenses so keep that in mind.

 

[froyd]

Thanks everyone!

Looks like I'll most likely be picking up one of the Nokton 1.4s or an Ultron. I'll have to think a little more about focal lengths and whether I want to tighten up or loosen up compared to the Skopar.

I have read about the very "distinctive" bokeh of the Nokton when wide open. Is that a love it or hate it quality of the lens? And if I'm shooting up close, how much would an aspherical Ultron benefit me over the Nokton?

Whenever this choice comes up on RFF I trot out my oft repeated advice to consider the lens' ergonomics beside the IQ. Also, with the Ultron, be mindful that the older version only focuses to 0.9m. In my book, the ergonomics of the Nokton are hard to beat.

 

[f16sunshine]

A fuji XE1 and 35mm f1.4 would be a better option for low light.
If you search second hand, you could find it about the same price for the combo as Nokton 35mm for the rd1.

I used the RD1 and color skopar 35 from 2007-2012. It's a very nice combo.
The RD1 is just not a super low light machine. You can pull nice RAW files even to 1600iso but need good light to do so.
The camera really mushes out at 1600 unless you can give a strong exposure.


_EPS4351 by Adnan, on Flickr

 

[kermaier]

The R-D1 at ISO 1600 is too noisy in color for my taste, but it's lovely in black and white -- looks like pushed Tri-X.
I loved using a 40mm lens on the R-D1, as that focal length almost perfectly matches the 35mm frame lines in the viewfinder (the 35mm frame lines actually enclose a smaller area than the field of view of a 35mm lens, so you err on the side of getting more in the shot than you bargained for, rather than less).
My favorite lens on the R-D1 is the Minolta M-Rokkor 40mm f/2, which is very compact and fast enough for my needs (very good wide open). I've also owned the Nokton 40/1.4, and it's also a stellar lens -- sharp, contrasty, easy to focus accurately.

 

[24mgdriver]

Get the nomton 35/40 F1.4 or the old canon lens 50mm F1.2 if the range is not to close. F2.5 is nothing for low light and 1600 iso not really a good option with the Epson. You can have a silent Hand 🙂 but if you have objects in motion on low light this wo t help you.

Take the great 35/ F1.2 CV first version, this is a low light killer. Have fun !

Michael

 

[johannielscom]

As others have shown, the combination you are looking to get works rather well in black & white. Personally, I like strong contrast in b&w. But if you want to go color, you'd be better off with a Sony or a Fujifilm body, which can easily hack it at 2500 ISO or more and get credible color too. Due to more modern sensors.

On the modern Sony or Fujifilm lenses make a difference when it comes to how they make your image look, not so much about how much light they pass anymore.

 

[kpembo]

I used to own an R-D1s. I used an Avenon 28/3.5, the LTM version of the Ultron 28/1.9, the LTM version of the Skopar 35/2.5, the LTM version of the Ultron 35/1.7, and the Nokton 35/1.4. I still own all the lenses except the Nokton 35/1.4. In actual use, I ended up using the Nokton at f/2 to get a quality image and still preferred the Ultron 35/1.7 at f/2 anyway. I found that I used the Avenon 28/3.5 with the R-D1s more than any of the lenses due to compactness, and was able to get many shots in low light due to the ability to focus in low light (advantage of rangefinder) and good hand "holdability" of the R-D1s design. I think that you will find the lens size of the Skopar 35/2.5 will be more important to you if you are planning to carry the camera in your pockets. I miss the R-D1s, but missed my wide angles behaving as wide angle lenses like they do on film.