M
marlinspike
Guest
Is there any rangefinder, other than Leica, that can rival modern Canon L lenses? Why "other than Leica"? Because Leica=$$$$, no other reason than that.
Richard
Richard
Any rangefinder rival modern lens?
- Thread starter marlinspike
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 11
- Views 1K
S
Stephan
Guest
Hummm... well there are a few rangefinders that can take M mount lenses, is that what you mean ?
simonankor
Registered Addict
I think any of the new rangefinders either match or come pretty darn close to Canon L glass... Certainly my (very cheap) Voigtlander gear is very good.
grabuge
Newbie
well, that's comparing apples and oranges. By design, an SLR lense is very different from a rangefinder lense (think retrofocus for example).marlinspike said:
In terms of pure optical capacity, look at tests that measure resolution AND contrast across the field, corner and center of the film, at different apertures and different distance of focus. Check flare resistance, astigmatism, decenterism, colour rendition,etc.
Only then can you provide a fair assessment of a lense.
Then compare against the price.
Today, Voigtlander achieves pure optical performances that are quite astonishing.
I'm talking descent contrast beyond the 100lp/mm limit.
Quite frankly beyond this limit, only a tripod can do justice to these lenses.
Hand shooting with a Canon L or a Voigtlander or Leica and talking high resolution
is irrelevant.
My 2 best lenses are the Pentax Limited 77mm f1.8, and the Voigtlander Heliar 50mm F3.5. Rolls after rolls, amongst the 13 lenses I own, they prove to deliver the most consistent quality of imagery.
RObert Budding
D'oh!
My Zeiss lenses from the 1950's are stunningly good. I've never compared them to Canon SLR lenses because I don't want to carry an SLR. And yes, they cost less than Leitz.
Robert
Robert
snaggs
Established
A renowned photographer here in Perth cut open some Canon lenses (yes, L lenses too) to show them the insides. Shocking, not even all surfaces were painted black. Canon L lenses arnt as well made as Voigtlander lenses.
So if your buying new, unless its russian, its better than Canon L.. Canon L is a marketing thrust.
Daniel.
So if your buying new, unless its russian, its better than Canon L.. Canon L is a marketing thrust.
Daniel.
R
rami
Guest
marlinspike said:
Just look on the Contax G lenses. Maybe it isn't "100% RF system" but lenses are just great and much cheaper than Canon L.
best regards
M
marlinspike
Guest
No no, I don't like Contax G. I suppose I should be more specific in my request
I don't want something that uses Leica lenses because Leica lenses are so expensive
By "rival" I should probably just say "rival in sharpness" I don't think there are any rangefinder lenses that will fall behind Canon L's (at least no L zooms) in contrast or saturation. I'm not too concerned with vignetting or distortion either because all I want on a RF is a 50mm lens...MAYBE (and a weak maybe) a 35mm too.
I don't want something like a Contax G, I want something that is old timey (doesn't actually have to be old...if a Leica M7 weren't so expensive, it would fit what I want well). Must take no batteries (if you remember when I bought my first RF, I wanted no batteries and a lightmeter, but the more I use this Kiev, the better I'm getting at just eyeballing the exposure, so I'm dropping the light meter requirement). Also it has to have an internal rangefinder, no external rangefinders for me.
What Canon L isn't painted black on the inside? And I don't see how hand shooting and talking L is irrelevant as long as the shutter speeds are high enough and you don't have the shakes. And BTW, Canon L, while the L name is marketing, the lenses are a lot more than "marketing thrust"
Richard
I don't want something that uses Leica lenses because Leica lenses are so expensive
By "rival" I should probably just say "rival in sharpness" I don't think there are any rangefinder lenses that will fall behind Canon L's (at least no L zooms) in contrast or saturation. I'm not too concerned with vignetting or distortion either because all I want on a RF is a 50mm lens...MAYBE (and a weak maybe) a 35mm too.
I don't want something like a Contax G, I want something that is old timey (doesn't actually have to be old...if a Leica M7 weren't so expensive, it would fit what I want well). Must take no batteries (if you remember when I bought my first RF, I wanted no batteries and a lightmeter, but the more I use this Kiev, the better I'm getting at just eyeballing the exposure, so I'm dropping the light meter requirement). Also it has to have an internal rangefinder, no external rangefinders for me.
What Canon L isn't painted black on the inside? And I don't see how hand shooting and talking L is irrelevant as long as the shutter speeds are high enough and you don't have the shakes. And BTW, Canon L, while the L name is marketing, the lenses are a lot more than "marketing thrust"
Richard
S
Stephan
Guest
How about the Hexar RF ? The hexanon 50mm is supposed to be one of the best 50mm rangefinder lenses ever, and the system isnt half as expensive as leica 🙂
back alley
IMAGES
a canon screw mount body and 50/1.8 is all you need.
if you decide later that you DO want a 35 they have sharp 35's also.
a nice p or 7 and you're set to go.
joe
if you decide later that you DO want a 35 they have sharp 35's also.
a nice p or 7 and you're set to go.
joe
MCTuomey
Veteran
Not sure if I'm responding to the question, but I have to say that my new (to me) RF lenses are at least as sharp as any of my Canon L lenses. No doubt. My RF kit includes older Leica and new CV glass.
But sharpness misses a large part of the point. I believe there are other qualities that matter more, and you can find these qualities in RF glass more than in SLR glass. There is just so much more range and variety in the "look" provided by RF glass. With the exception of the Canon 85/1.2 and the 200/1.8, there aren't any classic lenses in the EF line, IMHO. But RF classics ... there are so many, many to play with. And at such reasonable prices - just think of the Canon LTMs, for example.
I'm certain I deserve to get flamed here, esp given my relative inexperience. It just seems to me that one of the attractions of RFs is the variety of available glass.
But sharpness misses a large part of the point. I believe there are other qualities that matter more, and you can find these qualities in RF glass more than in SLR glass. There is just so much more range and variety in the "look" provided by RF glass. With the exception of the Canon 85/1.2 and the 200/1.8, there aren't any classic lenses in the EF line, IMHO. But RF classics ... there are so many, many to play with. And at such reasonable prices - just think of the Canon LTMs, for example.
I'm certain I deserve to get flamed here, esp given my relative inexperience. It just seems to me that one of the attractions of RFs is the variety of available glass.
Right on, Mike! That a camera body accepts Leica lenses doesn't mean you must put Leica lenses on it; there are a number of other attractive choices if you need to keep down the costs.
Similar threads
