compact, fast 50mm lenses for R-D1?

uhoh7 said:
5988339451_e74b4a44c1_z.jpg
Click to expand...

I don't think I'll ever get used to outfits that are that ugly.
 
ark8012 said:
Is it possible to use a collapsible lens on R-D1?
Click to expand...

Some yes, some no. There's even sample variation among copies of the same lens (and presumably between camera bodies).

I have a 1960s Elmar 50/2.8 in M mount that collapses cleanly on my R-D1s; my chrome 1990s Elmar-M scrapes slightly on the way in. Though there are people here who had no problems with the latest Elmar-M.

I'm told that the 50/3.5 Elmars do not collapse safely.
The Canon 50/3.5 and 50/2 do.
My 1937 Summar collapses too far, I think.
My 1955 Summicron collapses fine.

::Ari
 
BMacW said:
Why do you want a 50 on your 1.5x RD1?

I would get a VC 35 f1.4 , it's about 50 eqv on the RD1, fast, compact and readily available
Click to expand...



I want a 50mm lens for portrait photos. I think I like a 50mm more than a 35mm when I took a photo of my baby. :D
 
Phil_F_NM said:
Smallest size with fastest aperture ever made was the ELCAN 50mm f/2 for the KE-7a Leica (Basically an M4 with a short Summicron.) It's the same size as the current Summarit and a serious drool-worthy rare lens.

If you can find one, it's a very cool optic. Most people have only heard of them and seen photos. I've never been near one to the best of my knowledge. If you can afford it, just buy it.

I want one quite badly but I'll have to continue to live vicariously through the photos and writeups of folks who do have one of the handful of lenses made.

Other than that, the recommendations for the 40mm lenses are good. If you want to stick with a 50mm, you can't really go wrong with the CV 50mm Color Skopar. It's quite small and a good shooter but 1/2 stop slower than a 'Cron.
That's what holding still is for though.

Phil Forrest
Click to expand...


Elcan!! I wish I can afford it, but.... :D
 
uhoh7 said:
Wonderful camera, but if you want something really compact a GXR with the M module or a nex 5n are much smaller and lighter. The GXR is better with the M wides, but the 5n has optional EVF which is spectacular.

Their sensors are very good.

That said, the CV 35 or 40/1.4 is nice and small and not too expensive, while the CL 40 is perhaps a bit sharper--also the early tabed v4 summicron 50s are really small:

5988339451_e74b4a44c1_z.jpg
Click to expand...


I was considering a GXR with the M module, I decided to get a R-D1 to fell true rangefinder camera. I am a relatively new to rf system, so R-D1 will help me to practice in rf life.
 
Ninjin, Krötenblender, and Ari

Thank you for all info. about those collapsible lenses.
But I think I will stick to 40/50mm fast lenses.
 
I have and use the following on both M4-2 and Ricoh GXR:

Color-Skopar 50/2.5 - A delightful and very compact 50mm, the one stop less speed isn't that much a detraction as it images very similarly to the superb Zeiss Planar 50/2 and cost me only $350 new. A portrait tele on APS-C.

Nokton 40/1.4 - probably my most used lens. Very compact but a little heavy, very fast. I love this focal length on APS-C. Bokeh is a little rough wide open but beautiful just a half to a stop down. F/2 and smaller it's hard to tell from the next lens...

M-Rokkor 40/2 (CLE) - I love 40s. :) I've had the Summicron-C and first gen version of this too, chose this one for the multicoating and easy to find Filter size. Imaging wise all three of these are close to identical as you can get, and the Nokton is hard to tell apart. I got a second 40 as I like this focal length on both formats enough that it lets me have it on both bodies simultaneously. This lens is substantially lighter than the Nokton.

Color-Skopar 35/2.5 - this is a superb and tiny lens, normal on APS-C format. To my eye, this lens outperforms the Zeiss and Leica offerings that cost multiples of its price, it's smaller than all of them, and unless you really really must have f/2 or faster it's the one to get.

I originally bought the 50 as a portrait lens for the GXR but I use it more on the M, and bought the 35 for the M as it has the right frame lines for this focal length. I bought the Nokton (and the Skopar 21) for the GXR as these are my two favorite focal lengths on APS-C. Since they all interchange with both bodies and my upcoming M9, life's a party. :)

Can't go wrong with any of them, and all the faster 50s or 35s are much more expensive, larger and heavier.
 
Godfrey said:
Color-Skopar 35/2.5 - this is a superb and tiny lens, normal on APS-C format. To my eye, this lens outperforms the Zeiss and Leica offerings that cost multiples of its price, it's smaller than all of them, and unless you really really must have f/2 or faster it's the one to get.
Click to expand...

I've seen this a few times lately. In my experience, the C-Biogon and Summarit outperform the Color-Skopar (as they should since they cost 2-4 times as much). But because people are stating the opposite, I aquired another color skopar to try again. I would love for it to outperform my c-biogon since I love the ergonomics better... but I won't hold my breath.

Have you used the c-biogon and summarit (or are you just going by internet rumors / reviews)?
 
jsrockit said:
I've seen this a few times lately. In my experience, the C-Biogon and Summarit outperform the Color-Skopar (as they should since they cost 2-4 times as much). But because people are stating the opposite, I aquired another color skopar to try again. I would love for it to outperform my c-biogon since I love the ergonomics better... but I won't hold my breath.

Have you used the c-biogon and summarit (or are you just going by internet rumors / reviews)?
Click to expand...

Yes I have, but only on the M4-2 and GXR-M so far. The M9's larger, no AA filter sensor may show up more differences than film or the GXR-M's APS-C format indicate.

All of them have different rendering qualities anyway. I happen to like the Color-Skopar's rendering a lot, but that doesn't mean I dislike the Zeiss and Leica lenses either.

The rendering qualities of these lenses are much more important to me than their absolute performance in contrast and resolution. All of them are good lenses, perhaps I'm lucky in that I like the way the Skopars render—saves a bunch of money. ;-)
 
+1 on the Nokton 40 1.4
+1 on bokeh improvement down 1 stop -- possibly also 1/2 stop but I haven't checked this
+1 on Rokkor 40 over Leica 40 for cost and filter size reasons
If you like 50 on a full frame, 40 on a 1.5x sensor gives you 60, and if we believe that real FL of Nokton is slightly longer than 40, you get the equivalent of a 65mm FOV on the RD1
 
pagpow said:
+1 on the Nokton 40 1.4
+1 on bokeh improvement down 1 stop -- possibly also 1/2 stop but I haven't checked this
+1 on Rokkor 40 over Leica 40 for cost and filter size reasons
If you like 50 on a full frame, 40 on a 1.5x sensor gives you 60, and if we believe that real FL of Nokton is slightly longer than 40, you get the equivalent of a 65mm FOV on the RD1
Click to expand...

Since I've compared the Nokton 40 and M-Rokkor directly on both 35mm film and APS-C digital, I'd say that the actual focal length is likely slightly short rather than slightly long. The FoV on the GXR-M is very close to what I see with a Micro-Nikkor 55mm lens on a Nikon F3.
 
Here are how some of the above referenced lenses look upon an RD1s.
To keep everything (sort of) equal when comparing, I have removed an factory included or option hoods that I have.

lenes_on_an_rd1.jpg

cv 50/25 color skopar

lenes_on_an_rd1-2.jpg

lenes_on_an_rd1-3.jpg

cv 50/2.0 col.

lenes_on_an_rd1-4.jpg

lenes_on_an_rd1-5.jpg

leica 50/2.0 col


lenes_on_an_rd1-6.jpg

cv 50/1.5

lenes_on_an_rd1-7.jpg

J8 50/2.0

lenes_on_an_rd1-8.jpg

I61 55/2.8 (not fast, but a nice lens anyway)

lenes_on_an_rd1-9.jpg

minolta 40/2.0 m-rokkor (if you have an rd1, you should get one of these)

lenes_on_an_rd1-10.jpg

cv 35/2.5 color skopar v2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom