Bessa R2 - any advice

[gooseta]

Hi, I'm planning to buy a Bessa R2 to get into rangefinder photography.

1) I'm either getting it body only, with a 40mm Nokton f1.4, or a 35mm f2.5.
I will keep the 35 if I choose that option, but I will probably sell the 40 as I am not to comfortable with the focal length. The Jupiter-3 (f1.5) seems a great, affordable 50, but is it any good? Also is the Heliar 15mm as good as they say it is? I'd like to have a 35, 50, and possibly the 15 or 21.

2) Any tips on using it efficiently? Thanks

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hi, I'm planning to buy a Bessa R2 to get into rangefinder photography.

1) I'm either getting it body only, with a 40mm Nokton f1.4, or a 35mm f2.5.
I will keep the 35 if I choose that option, but I will probably sell the 40 as I am not to comfortable with the focal length. The Jupiter-3 (f1.5) seems a great, affordable 50, but is it any good? Also is the Heliar 15mm as good as they say it is? I'd like to have a 35, 50, and possibly the 15 or 21.

2) Any tips on using it efficiently? Thanks

Jupiter-3: Well, it's affordable. Cue hate mail from those who (unlike me, and unlike everyone I've actually met instead of hearing an internet opinion from) have encountered good ones.

Heliar 15mm: yes, superb. So is the 21. For 35 consider the f/1.7 Ultron and f/2,5 Color-Skopar (both excellent); for 50, the f/2.5 Color-Skopar or 50/1.5 Ultron. The f/2 Heliar is OK but in my view overpriced and not as good as the f/2.5 or f/1.5. There are however those who adore it.

Efficiently: it's dead easy to use. If you can use ANY conventional 35mm camera you can use a Bessa-R2.

Cheers,

R.

 

[gooseta]

Jupiter-3: Well, it's affordable. Cue hate mail from those who (unlike me, and unlike everyone I've actually met instead of hearing an internet opinion from) have encountered good ones.

Heliar 15mm: yes, superb. So is the 21. For 35 consider the f/1.7 Ultron and f/2,5 Color-Skopar (both excellent); for 50, the f/2.5 Color-Skopar or 50/1.5 Ultron. The f/2 Heliar is OK but in my view overpriced and not as good as the f/2.5 or f/1.5. There are however those who adore it.

Efficiently: it's dead easy to use. If you can use ANY conventional 35mm camera you can use a Bessa-R2.

Cheers,

R.

Ok, great I just found a R2 and 35 ultron for just £375!
So I am having trouble finding the 50mm f2.5 and f1.5 - only one f2.5 in the us for $720 (added 20%eu tax), is this ok or is there is an alternative 50?

 

[Peter_Jones]

I had a Bessa R2 for a while, used it with mainly a Jupiter 8 (50/2) and a Jupiter 9 (85/2), and got good results. The viewfinder is fantastic, and having a built-in meter can be very useful. The shutter is loud for a rangefinder, but certainly no louder than most 35mm SLRs. The grip/handling is comfortable and even better with the grip or rapid-winder grip.

 

[gooseta]

I had a Bessa R2 for a while, used it with mainly a Jupiter 8 (50/2) and a Jupiter 9 (85/2), and got good results. The viewfinder is fantastic, and having a built-in meter can be very useful. The shutter is loud for a rangefinder, but certainly no louder than most 35mm SLRs. The grip/handling is comfortable and even better with the grip or rapid-winder grip.

I think I may consider the Jupiter 8 as it's so darn cheap. How does it perform at f2?

 

[gooseta]

Okay here's how my cart looks

R2 + Ultron f1.7 35 �£400
Jupiter 8 - £30
15 Heliar - £310
2x Velvia RVP 100
1x Superia 200 £4
1x Superia 400 £4

EDIT : Ordered the R2, ultron, jupiter, and film. Will buy the 15mm heliar when I plan on shooting some landscapes.

 

[Peter_Jones]

I think I may consider the Jupiter 8 as it's so darn cheap. How does it perform at f2?

Wide open, some are better than others - depends how many "cleaning marks" there are. Nice "bokeh" at f/2, not sharp, but pleasant - "pastel" is the best I can describe it. F/4 and smaller they are reasonably sharp lenses with an older style of rendering. A nice lens for traditional films and shots which are difficult to date, works very well with Pan-F, and I've had nice results with Provia 100F.

The lubricant can harden, making focus annoying. Re-lubed they are a pleasure to use.

 

[sparrow6224]

Roger -- does the Ultron/Color Skopar recommendation in 35mm mean you have a low opinion of the 35/1.4? I like mine very much.

To the OP gooseta -- if you are not satisfied with the Jupiter 8 I strongly recommend the Canon 50mm f/1.8 which can be had for less than $200 in the US. It's a superb lens. You'll want full informed-sounding assurances on the cleanliness of the glass because some have heavy hazing/separation/glue? (something) issues. You can research this. If you get a clean one, you'll be in love.

A warning on that 50/1.5 -- it's very large and cuts off a good chunck of the VF frame.

A warning on the 15mm -- not for landscapes in my opinion; it's the kind of lens the closer you are the better. I'd prefer the 28mm (various, all good) or 25/4 or 21/4 for landscapes, with heaviest preference to the 25 for that purpose. Aside from that, the 21/4 is one of my favorite lenses.

 

[gooseta]

Roger -- does the Ultron/Color Skopar recommendation in 35mm mean you have a low opinion of the 35/1.4? I like mine very much.

To the OP gooseta -- if you are not satisfied with the Jupiter 8 I strongly recommend the Canon 50mm f/1.8 which can be had for less than $200 in the US. It's a superb lens. You'll want full informed-sounding assurances on the cleanliness of the glass because some have heavy hazing/separation/glue? (something) issues. You can research this. If you get a clean one, you'll be in love.

A warning on that 50/1.5 -- it's very large and cuts off a good chunck of the VF frame.

A warning on the 15mm -- not for landscapes in my opinion; it's the kind of lens the closer you are the better. I'd prefer the 28mm (various, all good) or 25/4 or 21/4 for landscapes, with heaviest preference to the 25 for that purpose. Aside from that, the 21/4 is one of my favorite lenses.

I'll look into the 21 and 25 f4s. I do like the 14mm length on my K5iis so 21 seems to be good. Are there any other lenses I should be aware of under $400?

 

[apostasiometritis]

I'll look into the 21 and 25 f4s. I do like the 14mm length on my K5iis so 21 seems to be good. Are there any other lenses I should be aware of under $400?

The best bet imo for a fast 50 is the Nokton 50 1.5, but as said above it is rather big. Not too big, but it is big.

That said, it is very damn good, by any standards. Can be had for about £300 to £350, there are some really expensive ones on ebay atm, I’d probably wait to be honest.

Otherwise, the canon 50 1.4 is a reasonably sharp fast lens.

Stay away from Jupiter 3s, unless you are willing to do some DIY if the lens proves to be a lemon. In my experience (had 4 so far), you have a 50% chance of it being a lemon.

Jupiter 8s are a lot more consistent and they are excellent lenses by any standards, even more so considering the size.

But, they will most likely backfocus by 5cm or more when close, so use discretion when close and wide open, i.e. adjust your aim.



I’d go with the 50 Nokton, it gives any Leica lens a good run, regardless of cost. The same with your Ultron, but you got that already 🙂 .

I started up with an olive Bessa R2 and a jupiter 8. That jupi was quite possibly the best handling lens I ever had (still have it). So smoooooth... it was a blast!

 

[gooseta]

A warning on the 15mm -- not for landscapes in my opinion; it's the kind of lens the closer you are the better. I'd prefer the 28mm (various, all good) or 25/4 or 21/4 for landscapes, with heaviest preference to the 25 for that purpose. Aside from that, the 21/4 is one of my favorite lenses.

What is the point of the 15mm if it isn't good at infinity?

The best bet imo for a fast 50 is the Nokton 50 1.5, but as said above it is rather big. Not too big, but it is big.

That said, it is very damn good, by any standards. Can be had for about £300 to £350, there are some really expensive ones on ebay atm, I’d probably wait to be honest.

Otherwise, the canon 50 1.4 is a reasonably sharp fast lens.

Stay away from Jupiter 3s, unless you are willing to do some DIY if the lens proves to be a lemon. In my experience (had 4 so far), you have a 50% chance of it being a lemon.

Jupiter 8s are a lot more consistent and they are excellent lenses by any standards, even more so considering the size.

But, they will most likely backfocus by 5cm or more when close, so use discretion when close and wide open, i.e. adjust your aim.



I’d go with the 50 Nokton, it gives any Leica lens a good run, regardless of cost. The same with your Ultron, but you got that already 🙂 .

I started up with an olive Bessa R2 and a jupiter 8. That jupi was quite possibly the best handling lens I ever had (still have it). So smoooooth... it was a blast!

Thanks I'll try and find a good price on the nokton

EDIT : The 21/4 seems to go for around £300 from hong kong, ,with shipping and EU tax that's about £380, good price? I think I will purchase this before I get a faster 50 as I mostly shoot in daylight

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger -- does the Ultron/Color Skopar recommendation in 35mm mean you have a low opinion of the 35/1.4? I like mine very much. . . .

Dear Stewart,

No, simply that I've never used it.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The best bet imo for a fast 50 is the Nokton 50 1.5, but as said above it is rather big. Not too big, but it is big.

That said, it is very damn good, by any standards. Can be had for about £300 to £350, there are some really expensive ones on ebay atm, I’d probably wait to be honest.

Otherwise, the canon 50 1.4 is a reasonably sharp fast lens.

Stay away from Jupiter 3s, unless you are willing to do some DIY if the lens proves to be a lemon. In my experience (had 4 so far), you have a 50% chance of it being a lemon.

Jupiter 8s are a lot more consistent and they are excellent lenses by any standards, even more so considering the size.

But, they will most likely backfocus by 5cm or more when close, so use discretion when close and wide open, i.e. adjust your aim.



I’d go with the 50 Nokton, it gives any Leica lens a good run, regardless of cost. The same with your Ultron, but you got that already 🙂 .

I started up with an olive Bessa R2 and a jupiter 8. That jupi was quite possibly the best handling lens I ever had (still have it). So smoooooth... it was a blast!

Yes, but you can still get some disasters. I had one once which made a strange, faint clicking sound when it was tilted to and fro. If you held it up to the light, you could see why. The central group was so loose it was flopping to and fro. This may have been the result of an incompetent 'repair' but it was so long ago (in the 70s, I think) that it was a fairly new lens, so it was probably just Soviet quality control.

In general, I'd agree that a Jupiter-8 can be, and often is, superb value for money, and apart from (massive) sample variation I'd say only two things against it. First, now that I'm used to modern 'quick' focusing mounts, it's slow to use, and second, it is sometimes over-praised. Is it true that if you can take good pictures at all, you should be able to take good pictures with this lens? Yes. Is it true that there are many technically superior lenses on the market (sharper, contrastier, more even illumination, less focus shift...) Yes.

As fpr the f/1.5, I must have been unlucky, because the only two I had for any length of time (on loan for a few weeks) were both awful, i.e. 100% lemons. If I'd tried two more that might have dropped to 50% lemons, as in your experience. Or of course it might have stuck at 100%...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Lss]

What is the point of the 15mm if it isn't good at infinity?

It is good at infinity. Even if it wasn't it would be a very useful lens for me. Most of the time I have it focused around the 2m mark.

 

[Roger Hicks]

What is the point of the 15mm if it isn't good at infinity?. . .

It's not that it's bad at infinity. It's just that you can't see very much, because distant subjects are tiny and totally dominated by the foreground.

Landscapes with wide-angles are a LOT more difficult than landscapes with longer lenses. We normally see in a very selective way, either details (use a longer lens) or panoramically (trim out the empty foreground and sky, which otherwise overwhelm the picture). Yes, you CAN use WA lenses for landscapes, but you'd better fill the foreground and have an interesting sky.

Cheers,

R.

 

[apostasiometritis]

Yes, but you can still get some disasters. I had one once which made a strange, faint clicking sound when it was tilted to and fro. If you held it up to the light, you could see why. The central group was so loose it was flopping to and fro. This may have been the result of an incompetent 'repair' but it was so long ago (in the 70s, I think) that it was a fairly new lens, so it was probably just Soviet quality control.

In general, I'd agree that a Jupiter-8 can be, and often is, superb value for money, and apart from (massive) sample variation I'd say only two things against it. First, now that I'm used to modern 'quick' focusing mounts, it's slow to use, and second, it is sometimes over-praised. Is it true that if you can take good pictures at all, you should be able to take good pictures with this lens? Yes. Is it true that there are many technically superior lenses on the market (sharper, contrastier, more even illumination, less focus shift...) Yes.

As fpr the f/1.5, I must have been unlucky, because the only two I had for any length of time (on loan for a few weeks) were both awful, i.e. 100% lemons. If I'd tried two more that might have dropped to 50% lemons, as in your experience. Or of course it might have stuck at 100%...

Cheers,

R.

Yeah, statistics can suck at times.

I've had lots of Jupi 8s and 4no. J3s. The J8s were roughly 90% good.

The risk is so much smaller with the 8s, the money they go for is trivial.

The black ones with the rotating body are a pleasure to look at and use when they are properly lubed. And CLAing them is really easy and wel documented.

J3s can unfortunately be very soft at 1.5, that is what I mean lemon. They will all (well, almost all) backfocus to a certain extent. They are always sharp at 2, but what's the point of a 1.5 if you cannot use it at that?

When considering Soviet lenses (and especially something like the J8), bear in mind that they were mass produced items selling for *very* reasonable cost. You can't expect Leica quality on something that cost 5-10% of a summicron. In that respect, it is a feat if you think about it.

Veering off topic here, so to get back on topic give the Canon 50 1.8 a try. I tried it for a brief period after my jupi fest and it was great. For a little bt more, you will probably be able to get a canon 50 1.4. they should be at about £250 at the moment. May want to stay clear of ebay for thse ones, ebay prices are increasingly becoming unrealistic. I've got my last 3 lenses from here and specialist shops.

 

[btgc]

Landscapes with wide-angles are a LOT more difficult than landscapes with longer lenses.

Agreed so much. Surprisingly many folks consider UWA lenses as landscape lenses "to pack more into frame" but less than that UWA landscapes pictures are made to remember.