wgerrard
Veteran
I've pretty much asked this before, but, what the heck, here I go again.
I'll be in London next month, a city I know reasonably well. I won't be shooting the standard tourist shots. I will walk, as the song goes, until my feet get sore.
And, I'm in a silly quandary about what kit to take.
I can take a Bessa R4M with a Color/Skopar 21/4, Ultron 28/1.9, and a Zeiss 50/2 Planar.
Or, an Oly OM-2N with a Zuiko 35/2, Zuiko 50/1.4, and Zuiko 135/2.8.
(In theory, I could take an M3 and a Summicron 50/2 collapsible and Elmar 90/4 collapsible, but the lenses have been at Sherry Krauter's awaiting CLA for about a month.)
Obviously, this boils down to the usefulness of the 135, although the Bessa kit wins on lightness, barely.
If I wimp out and buy a CV 35/1.2, that would resolve the issue, but that's an expensive decision aid.
Thoughts from London visitors and residents?
I'll be in London next month, a city I know reasonably well. I won't be shooting the standard tourist shots. I will walk, as the song goes, until my feet get sore.
And, I'm in a silly quandary about what kit to take.
I can take a Bessa R4M with a Color/Skopar 21/4, Ultron 28/1.9, and a Zeiss 50/2 Planar.
Or, an Oly OM-2N with a Zuiko 35/2, Zuiko 50/1.4, and Zuiko 135/2.8.
(In theory, I could take an M3 and a Summicron 50/2 collapsible and Elmar 90/4 collapsible, but the lenses have been at Sherry Krauter's awaiting CLA for about a month.)
Obviously, this boils down to the usefulness of the 135, although the Bessa kit wins on lightness, barely.
If I wimp out and buy a CV 35/1.2, that would resolve the issue, but that's an expensive decision aid.
Thoughts from London visitors and residents?
alwinvrm
Member
Oly: 35 , 50 seems not a nice practical combination they are too close for my taste. The 135 may be useful if you take that kind of shot. Hard to judge but to me it is too tele for portraits and too wide for shooting in a theatre from a distance. So I would not take the oly.
M3 has useless minimum focal length of 50 , so I would not take it.
Bessa R4 with the 21, 28, 50 seems still the most practically useful spread of focal lengths, although you miss a prortrait lens, that is if you would miss that. Standard lens 28 and the 21 if you want to go really wide, and the 50 as your most tele. I would go for that.
M3 has useless minimum focal length of 50 , so I would not take it.
Bessa R4 with the 21, 28, 50 seems still the most practically useful spread of focal lengths, although you miss a prortrait lens, that is if you would miss that. Standard lens 28 and the 21 if you want to go really wide, and the 50 as your most tele. I would go for that.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Is the 135 useful for you? For me it isn't. Do you expect to take portraits?
Why would that resolve the issue? On the Bessa you've got a fast 28. Taking both a 28 and a 35 makes little sense. How does having another wideangle make the SLR obsolete?
I don't think advice from a resident will be more valuable than from anyone else. Your problem seems to be that you can't decide whether you need a 135 lens. You just have to know your own shooting style. Since you say you know the city reasonably well, a resident is unlikely to be able to help you there.
I'd take the Bessa, simply because I'm more comfortable with the set of focal lengths.
wgerrard
Veteran
Thanks, Alvin. Cogent thoughts.
The M3 is out of the picture. It's developed what seems to be prism separation and is going back to the seller for a refund.
I tend to agree that the Oly 35 and 50 are too close to haul both along on the trip. I don't like to carry stuff. No portraits are in the offling. The 135 has seen little use and is there because it was cheap and when I'm using the Bessa I invariably see one shot that requires a long lens.
I find the Bessa a very comfortable camera to carry around all day (I use a Gordy strap rather than hang it around my neck) with any of those 3 lenses. And, it's already been to London, so maybe I owe it a return trip.
The M3 is out of the picture. It's developed what seems to be prism separation and is going back to the seller for a refund.
I tend to agree that the Oly 35 and 50 are too close to haul both along on the trip. I don't like to carry stuff. No portraits are in the offling. The 135 has seen little use and is there because it was cheap and when I'm using the Bessa I invariably see one shot that requires a long lens.
I find the Bessa a very comfortable camera to carry around all day (I use a Gordy strap rather than hang it around my neck) with any of those 3 lenses. And, it's already been to London, so maybe I owe it a return trip.
wgerrard
Veteran
rxmd:
You''ve seen my comment above on the 135.
As for the 35/1.2: I'd leave the 28 and 50 behind and travel with the 21 and the 35, simply because I'd be psyched about the new 35. It's GAS, not logic.
You''ve seen my comment above on the 135.
As for the 35/1.2: I'd leave the 28 and 50 behind and travel with the 21 and the 35, simply because I'd be psyched about the new 35. It's GAS, not logic.
FrankS
Registered User
You could buy a Zuiko 28mm lens for your OM1. Check RFF classifieds, as I have one on offer.
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
OLY ALL THE WAY>>>>>
szekiat
Well-known
from living there for 5yrs, i find 35/40 the best FL for street stuff. 50s a bit too close and 28 a bit too wide to have dof seperation.
wgerrard
Veteran
It's sorely tempting, Helen. I really like that Oly. The only difference in size is in the lenses; the body is almost exactly the size of the Bessa.
I'll probably really decide after I pack and before I leave for the airport. Last time I went off to London I was in the car and came back in to change things around. Like I said, it ain't logic.
I'll probably really decide after I pack and before I leave for the airport. Last time I went off to London I was in the car and came back in to change things around. Like I said, it ain't logic.
wgerrard
Veteran
Thanks. That's very helpful.
Of course, that pushes me in the direction of getting the CV 35/1.2, 'cause i could pair it with the 21mm, not having a 21 for the Oly. My creditors thank you.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Well you could get a 21/2 for the Oly as well.
wgerrard
Veteran
Certainly is a contrast in prices between the f2 and f2.8 Oly lenses. I wonder how much of that is rooted in reality versus gear lust.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Hey, gear lust is a driving force in the photography world nowadays.
And an Olympus 21/f2 costs about the same as a Nokton 35/f1.2.
ruby.monkey
Veteran
It's London. Whatever camera and lens you like best, you can always find interesting subjects to match.
Windscale
Well-known
Definitely Oly. I have tried some the latest Voigt/Cosina lenses. I found them sharp and too contrasty, lacking shadow details and the old creamy effect. They may be OK with lowcontrast films. But I think the older Zuiko lenses are much more suitable.