40/1.4 on R2A

[-doomed-]

I am contemplating this lense for my R2a and wondering if it will be an issue with focusing it wide open since there arent frames for it in the camera, or will i be fine and just use the 35 frames on it ?

Or should i consider something different like the 35/1.4 , i want a fast enough lense. i do alot of stuff at night or in very low light situations where the 1.4 would be to my advantage.

Plus im looking to get one lense for this body.

I like the 40/1.4 but i dont want to get a lense that will be a pain to use on my particular camera body.

 

[thomasw_]

I didn't like the 40/1,4 because I found the framing annoying. Others like approximating the 40 with the 35 brightlines; I didn't like the bits I would cut off due to the inaccuracy of the framing.
As well, I can't stand the auxiliary VFs, they make the compact and discrete form of a M body irrelevant; in a word, they are lame. I would urge you to look at obtaining a CV 35/1,4. Some say it is a Dog on Digital, but I have seen some very nice results from it on film. So be careful in digesting all the negative remarks, especially those related to focus shifting; they do not always pertain to a film user. Ask Dave from Toronto about this lens; he shoots it with digital and film.

 

[-doomed-]

well it wouldnt be going on a digital , i cant afford either of the digital RF's out there .

Ill look into that 35/1.4 instead
or possibly even the 50 1.5
I dont feel the 35/2.5 is fast enough for when id need it to be.
I basically just want the one lense i can use for damn near anything on this camera body

 

[imush]

I use the 40/f1.4 it on R2M, and found it very easy to adapt and estimate from either 35 or 50 frame. The frame box is not so exact anyway.

It is a great lens, and as usual I can't resist showing some pictures. Here... All of them taken with R2M. I assure you even though many are not so well-framed, it is so not because of the viewfinder but my poor composition skills.

That said, when I bought it the 35/f1.4 was not yet available, so I would look into it now.

 

[-doomed-]

ah well theres one for and one going for the 35 , i guess il see what happens either way thanks for the advice , im glad this forum is so helpful

 

[steverett]

I use my 40/1.4 on my M3 with the 50mm framelines. The M3 leaves enough room around the framelines that I can picture what the 40mm field of view will be. And instead of accidentally cutting the edges, I usually err on the side of including extra on the edges, which are easily cropped out.
Attached are the 40mm and 50mm framelines superimposed (taken from R3M promo image) to give you an idea:

 

[-doomed-]

i guess i could get away with it and use the 50 frames , ill guess well see which one i buy now.

 

[steverett]

Try checking out the "M-Mount" group on flickr; they require all the photos to be precisely tagged, so it makes comparisons easy, even among different versions. I'd give you a link, but flickr is blocked at my job.

 

[kshapero]

I use the 40/f1.4 it on R2M, and found it very easy to adapt and estimate from either 35 or 50 frame. The frame box is not so exact anyway.

It is a great lens, and as usual I can't resist showing some pictures. Here... All of them taken with R2M. I assure you even though many are not so well-framed, it is so not because of the viewfinder but my poor composition skills.

That said, when I bought it the 35/f1.4 was not yet available, so I would look into it now.

nice photos, I was also in Tannersville this summer.

 

[-doomed-]

So i ended up buying a leitz 50/1.5 ive read about it being soft but after looking at the images in the gallery and on flickr ive decided that i like what it does , if that changes in the future i can always sell it and get something different.

Im setting aside money for the CV 35/1.4 anyway.

 

[-doomed-]

Just got the lietz 50/1.5 today, it is a heavy lense but it sure is nice