Bessa R2 questions/thoughts

[streetshoot]

Hey guys this is my first post on Range finder forum and I'm really excited to hear some feedback and knowledge from you guys!
I've been shooting and self developing film photography on a Cannonet for the past 6 moths and its turned over a whole new rock for me in the film world and I want to delve deeper and upgrade to a new Rangefinder.

I've decided to go with a Bessa R2, and am in search for the best lens that would go with my style of shooting which is primarily street photography and quick on the go shots while I travel around so I'm mainly looking for a 35mm but will consider similar size lenses but want something with an 2.8 or faster. Unfortunately I'm a broke college student! so my maximum would be around $300 and do not mind buying off ebay.

I'm still learning and some what confused about the lens capability on the Bessa R2, so correct me if I'm wrong. I understand the original Bessa was a screw mount that only accepted LTM lenses but the Bessa R2 has capability for both M mount lenses and LTM lenses if you find the correct adapter. I'm only planning on buying one street photo lens originally but would like to purchase more in the future.

I was searching for a list for all the capable lenses for the Bessa R2 and Bessa R but wasn't having any luck. I was considering the original Bessa at first because you don't need an adapter for the LTM lenses but the more I though about it I would rather just have specific lenses that I can accumulate over time and have a better well made camera. But I'd loveto hear any and all opinions.

I really appreciate anyone who responds to this and can shed some light or knowledge through self experience or just whatever you guys think! I've researched quite a bit but want more opinions and want to get the most out of what I buy!

Best regards-

Jack

 

[lxmike]

where are you based, welcome to the forum b the way, why l ask is that there is a bessar on ebay uk at the moment at a good price, )no connection to the sellar by the way).

 

[jim_jm]

Jack -

If you haven't seen it yet, this page has a direct head-to-head comparison of the two bodies:
https://cameraquest.com/voigtchart.htm

I see two big advantages of the R2 over the R:
- The R2 is a M-mount body. You can use all M-mount lenses, and all screw-mount lenses with an adapter attached. The R body is limited to screw-mount lenses only
- The R2 is a much better build with more metal

Here's a list of many M-mount lenses: https://cameraquest.com/mlenses.htm
and another on screw-mount lenses: https://cameraquest.com/ltmlens.htm

For your budget, I'd seriously look at the VC Color Skopar 35/2.5, which was made in both screw-mount and M-mount. I've never used it, but I heard lots of great comments about it. There are also lots of older screw-mount Canon and Nikon lenses which may be close to your price range, but they'll be more likely to have issues with haze, dried lubricants, etc. which may need servicing. Leica 35mm lenses will probably be out of your pricing unless you find a great deal.

 

[Swift1]

Welcome to the forum.
I can't really comment on the R vs R2 question, I have an R and like it a lot but have never used an R2.
Based on what you posted about lenses, sounds like the CV Skopar 35/2.5 would be perfect for you.

 

[streetshoot]

Okay okay cool thank you guys that's definitely helped and I'm sure I have it narrowed down to the R2, now the questions is im considering between the voigtlander 1.7 ultron with an adapter because it's a ltm or the cv skopar that is being recommended by everyone, there roughly around the same price and the 1.7 has the speed advantage but the skopar might be nicer glass

 

[ChrisPlatt]

The R2 is a much better build with more metal

Perhaps slightly better IMO...

After selling my Bessa R to finance an R2 I found I preferred the R.
So I sold the R2 and got another R. Expensive lesson learned! :bang:

I used a screwmount CV Skopar 35/2.5 on both with same excellent results.

Chris

 

[rumbliegeos]

I replaced a Leica IIIf (which does not have a meter or built-in framelines) with a Bessa R2 in the last year, and I like it very much. I agree with the comments above that a CV 35/2.5 is probably the best lens for starting out with street shooting with the camera. However, if anyone chimes in and suggests a Summaron 3.5 with an adaptor, which would also be in your price range, know that the ergonomics of using that lens are not ideal for street shooting. It is not easy to adjust the aperture quickly, especially if you have large hands. I actually like its image characteristics better than the CV 35mm, but I am probably in the minority in that. I finally settled on a Zeiss 35mm 2.8, but that is beyond your price range.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I used to have R, two Skopar 35 versions and Summaron 35 3.5.
All were in use for street photography.

R due to plastic body didn't live up to my expectations for street camera. It worn out after year and it wasn't nice. I recommend R2 as better body.

Skopars 35 have killing contrast. Good for color, not so good for bw. It is highly contrasty and absolutely neutral (no character) lens. I never liked P version in LTM. It is tabless and you never know where focus is. Plus, easy to shift aperture ring and it was getting shifted. PII for M mount has same shifty aperture ring, OK focusing with tab and not as flare resistant as P. Adding of cheap hood resolved the flare issue.
I recommend LTM C (Classic) version of this lens. It is fine lens after all on prints and sexy!

Summaron 35 3.5 also have several versions. I skipped most compact one in LTM mount. Most if not all of them in earlier LTM have no filter thread. I'm not going on the street without filter on my lens. Screw-on filter is trashing the lens.
Later Summaron 35 3.5 LTM/M E39 are better in terms of design, but they are terribly overpriced for such slow lens.
Honestly, I didn't find this lens to be worth of Leitz reputation in terms of rendering. It is old lens character and this is it. I was mocked for posting 35 3.5 images to 35 2.8 thread and it was for the reason. E. Puts is wrong about this lens to be equal with 2.8 version after 5.6.

Ultron 35 ASPH LTM and M are superior to Skopar for rendering. Aspherical element for sharp, smooth and 3D results and well balanced contrast. The only reason I have sold LTM - tabless means useless for me on the sreet or for any place where people are moving.

 

[Gerry M]

I have & use an R2 with CV 35/2.5 ltm with adapter. Also Summaron 35/3.5 M and Rokkor M 40/2. All are great lenses with the R2 body. I say select your price range and any of these should make you happy. Best of luck with your search.

 

[charjohncarter]

I also have the R and it has been great, so much so that I hardly ever touch my IIIf. One thing that I would consider is the R2A. I'm not very familiar with this camera but it has one feature that I would love to have. That is: you can set your f-stop on any lens and then set the shutter speed to 'A' and you will get automatic shutter speed with correct exposure. Therefore, if you so choose ('A') no matching with the onboard meter. Or if you want you can manually choose a shutter speed.

 

[Terry Christian]

I have a Bessa R2 myself. It is the poor man's Leica M6.

You won't find a listing of compatible lenses for the R2 because -- good news! -- you can use any Leica-mount (LTM or M) lens ever made on it!

You see, the early Leicas, sometimes called Barnacks, were LTM (Leica thread mount). When Leica introduced the M mount models in the mid-1950s, they made them so that you could use LTM lenses on M bodies with a simple adapter. Fast forward about fifty years to when Cosina bought the rights to the Voigtlander name. To ensure maximum compatibility, they made their lenses in both LTM and M mounts. So as long as your camera is M mount, the sky's the limit!

I agree the Color-Skopar 35/2.5 is probably your cheapest bet for modern 35mm lenses, but if you open your search up to 50mm lenses, you'll find a treasure trove of cheap vintage lenses you can use, like all the FSU (Former Soviet Union) 50/2.8 Industars and all the LTM lenses made by Canon, Nikon, Minolta, and others.

 

[mikeg]

I have an olive green R2 and love it. It just feels right to me and the olive green colour looks great.

I also use a Color Skopar 35/2.5 Classic. Again as others have said, this is a fantastic lens, incredibly sharp with great contrast. I mainly use it for B&W and love the look I get especially with an orange filter and my stash of Neopan 400.

 

[nobbylon]

The R2 and a 35 Ultron combo was my first R/F experience. Nothing to fault with either. The Ultron is easily as good as a 35 Summicron v4 and in a comparison test I did some years ago it was chosen over the v4 and a pre aspheric summilux by the members here. It does however only focus to 1m. It can be modified.

 

[SamShio]

Olive Drab R2 here, enjoy it very much. Have a Canon 35mm 2.8 ltm which does a good job and also not that large.

 

[streetshoot]

The R2 and a 35 Ultron combo was my first R/F experience. Nothing to fault with either. The Ultron is easily as good as a 35 Summicron v4 and in a comparison test I did some years ago it was chosen over the v4 and a pre aspheric summilux by the members here. It does however only focus to 1m. It can be modified.

Interesting, and why is that? How easy is it to modify also. I'm more interested in the Ultron than the Color Skopar because of the faster aperture of course and also I hear the Skopar isn't the best when it comes to black and white... which is what I usually shoot.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

I'm more interested in the Ultron than the Color Skopar because of the faster aperture...

The difference is negligible IMO. Based on my experience I predict you will take few photos between f/2.5 and f/1.7

I hear the Skopar isn't the best when it comes to black and white... which is what I usually shoot.

That has not been my experience. I shoot primarily BW with mine.

There are numerous photo threads on RFF featuring photos made with the 35/2.5 Skopar.
Suggest you check them out before making your decision.

Chris

 

[sojournerphoto]

I've had both ultron and colour skopar. I'd choose the skopar, primarily because it's smaller. I suspect it's slightly sharper too, but that is not important. Both draw nicely, even though they're not the same.

I'll some pictures if I can find them.

 

[traveler_101]

I have both and a Bessa R. Ultron (LTM version) is a great lens, though it is a bit larger than the classic RF lenses - should be no problem with the R or R2. Skopar 2.5 is very compact, fast enough and sharp enough, though arguably too contrasty for some types of shooting. It also has the great advantage of having a very short throw. You can focus it very quickly - good for street shooting.

 

[BillBingham2]

A bit off track would be a Bessa L and 25/4 Snap-Shoot lens and finder. I found it addictive as a reasonably rugged reasonably priced camera with a Brightline finder, easy to focus lens (even without a rangefinder!) and a built in meter that was, handy.

The only negative thing I can say about the Bessa L was that it would not take the winder that the T would (in reality, no big deal).

Very light weight kit, in black with a thin strap went just about everywhere I did for a bit. It was my go-to kit for family till I got hooked on Nikon rangefinders.

B2 (;->

 

[jim_jm]

If you really want a faster 35mm lens, consider the Nokton 35/1.4 also. I have the MC version which is usually attached to my M2. You should be able to find a clean used example for under $500, maybe less than $400. For it's speed, it's pretty small and easy to handle.

Some have complained about distortion with this lens, but I don't shoot brick walls and it's never been a problem for me. I like it for all types of walk-around shooting and landscapes, and having the low-light capability is a big plus.

I really like this lens for B/W shooting: