Tom A
RFF Sponsor
EmilGil said:
i have tried the R4M/A and the 21/4,5, not with film yet, but for the ergonomics. Being saddled with glasses, it is important to me how the viewfinder performs with that. The R4 finder has enough eye-relief that I could see the frame-lines for the 21 with no problem! This is a first in Rangefinder history, a dedicated wide-angel camera with interchangable lenses!
The 21/4,5 is built on the old Biogon design, This is a lens that still holds is own, even in 50 year old examples as one of the best 21's made. Mr Kobayashi is a great admirer of this design and we talked about it last year. He expressedly wanted to keep the qualities of the old design, but by applying modern technology to glass and coating improve upon the performance. Less flare resistance, better contrast etc.
The 25/4 was one of the first lenses he made for the rangefinders. It is a stellar performer, particularly when you put it into context of price/performance. yes,
the lack of coupling took some time to get used to, but it was/is a lens that is one of the best street shooting lenses.
Both the 21 and the 15 will have the heavier mounts similar to the 28/3,5 VC. The early lenses were lightweight, although I have had no prolems with any of mine - and they have been used heavily over the years.
I will be in Japan in the latter part of March and I will try to lay my hands on both a 21 and the 25 as well as a R4M for some trials with them.
From a price point - add up what 21/25/28 finders cost, even from VC or even worse from Leica or Zeiss. You can buy the R4 body for less than that and that finder never falls off and rolls into the street!
Admittely the 50 finder frames of the R4 are small, not useless, but squinty. I will combine the R4 with R3M, the latter for 40/50 and 90 mm.
Tom, can you offer a comment about the 35mm framelines in the R4 cameras? Are they comparable to 50mm lines in an R2? Any comparison of that type would be appreciated, thanks.
VinceC
Veteran
My recollection is that the R4 has a 0.5 magnification ... half life-size.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
rover said:
It is a while ago since I played with the R4 (oct-06). The 35 framelines are smallish, but fully usable. There is a lot of acreage around them, which is not necessarily a bad thing. My feeling is that the R4 will be a dedicated wide-angle camera, 21/25/28 with the capacity for using the 35 and even the 50 if needed.
From my point of view it will be my wide-angle camera, backed up by either a M2/MP or the R3M as primary body. The 35/40 lens is my standard lens, but I like to have a wide along and thats where the R4 will fit nicely. It all depends on your preferences. To some users the 50 is all they need and to others the 35 is the preferred glass.
Today, i would see a "travel" pack consisting of a 12 or 15mm Ultra Wide Heliar on either the Zeiss SW or a Bessa L, The R4 for either a 21 or a 25 and a M2 for the 40.
If I know that i was going to a place where there would be landscapes or portraits involved, the R3M would come along with the 75/2 Summicron. Even with 4 bodies it would not be an oversized load.
They say that wisdom comes with age, I am not sure about that, but I know I dislike hauling heavy camera bags around these days. Usually, one body around my neck, another on my shoulder and #3 and possibly #4 in the shoulder bag. That is as much as I would take, and probably more than I would use!
For my Vancouver wanderings I always carry two bodies, mainly a 35 or my current favourite, the 40/1,4 SC Nokton and the 2nd body would have a 21 or 25 (or occasionally a 28). There a few situations that can't be covered by that and as i only shoot for my own pleasure these days - i can afford to misjudge focal lengths without serious consequences.
Last edited:
maitrestanley
Established
When I save up the cash, I'll be getting the R4M w 21 and 28 to complement my M6 w 35 and 50.
With what's available, the R4 is an obvious choice. Not having to use an auxillary viewfinder is also a definite plus.
As for the new pancaked versions of the 21 and 25 - everything must be put into perspective. Compared to other CV lenses, they are somewhat more expensive. But if you take two steps to the right and compare the lenses to, say, a Leitz equivilent, the ~$400 isn't so expensive anymore.
Lenses are also restricted to focal length and size. They are generally harder to design and more expensive 1) the wider they are and 2) the smaller they are. The fact that these two lenses are smaller than the previous ones is already good enough reason for the price hike. Let's just hope they perform similiarly to the previous generation's lenses - or even better!
With what's available, the R4 is an obvious choice. Not having to use an auxillary viewfinder is also a definite plus.
As for the new pancaked versions of the 21 and 25 - everything must be put into perspective. Compared to other CV lenses, they are somewhat more expensive. But if you take two steps to the right and compare the lenses to, say, a Leitz equivilent, the ~$400 isn't so expensive anymore.
Lenses are also restricted to focal length and size. They are generally harder to design and more expensive 1) the wider they are and 2) the smaller they are. The fact that these two lenses are smaller than the previous ones is already good enough reason for the price hike. Let's just hope they perform similiarly to the previous generation's lenses - or even better!
steamer
Well-known
Another point to remember; the 55,000 yen price is MFG suggested price.
The previous version was priced at 75,000 or 80,000 if I remember correctly, so there may be some discounting later.
The previous version was priced at 75,000 or 80,000 if I remember correctly, so there may be some discounting later.
Andy Aitken
Registered Loser
Indeed, I'm not sweating over the price 'til I see Gandy's pricing. I have both of the original versions of the 21 and 25 lenses and I think they would both benefit from being remounted in heavier barrels and the 25 from being coupled. Having said that, as Tom observed, they have held up well enough to several years of use. Both these lenses are optically so good that I seriously doubt that there is much room for improvement and I would guess that the optical layout will have been left alone.
EmilGil
Well-known
Yes, the actual retail price remains to be seen, as well as the performance.
For now, I'll stick with my old 25mm on my M6 but I'm open to suggestions once the new lenses are available and have been duly tested.
For now, I'll stick with my old 25mm on my M6 but I'm open to suggestions once the new lenses are available and have been duly tested.