mobilexile
Well-known
I've read several positive reviews of matsuiyastore. Now I'm considering purchasing from them. Can anyone suggest a good first piee of glass from their store? Thanks.
mr. matt
Member
I just got a R-D1s recently. The general consensus (through my experience) is that the SC 35/2.5 is a good lens to start with. But, in the end I went with the Ultron 28/1.9. So far it's been great.
yanidel
Well-known
I started with the CV 35 2.5 as it is very light and lets you learn shooting with the RD1 with a very light package. It is very sharp lens and I like the color rendenring on the RD1. Later on I added the 21 that is close to the standard 35mm format. Now I own a CV 28 Ultron which I find quite big and heavy and need another special bag when I carry it around.
efkbl
Established
My first and so far only lens is the CV Nokton 40mm f/1.4, because it is a cheap, compact and fast lens, three qualities that mattered to me. The 40mm FOV is really close to the 35mm framelines, so far I had no problem with framing.
I am really pleased with the results so far, focussing is really smooth and image quality is really fine to me.
I am really pleased with the results so far, focussing is really smooth and image quality is really fine to me.
georgef
Well-known
The 28 1.9 ultron is probably the most all around useful lens for it. from there, its personal style. I am waiting for the 21mm which will probably be my walk around glass.
The 40 1.4 is also a good choice, but too long for most shooting.
The 40 1.4 is also a good choice, but too long for most shooting.
mn4367
Established
Terao
Kiloran
I would go for the new Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f/1.4. 35 is a good general purpose length on the R-D1, you have framelines for it, and the lens is great value for something that fast. If value isn't that important then go for the Zeiss Biogon 35mm f/2. If you'd like something a little wider and speed isn't important the Leica Elmarit 28mm f/2.8 is a great/"cheap" way into the whole Leica mythos.
mobilexile
Well-known
Thank you all for the input / advice. Gives me much to consider.
mobilexile
Well-known
Great links, thx.
kxl
Social Documentary
It really depends on what perspective you like.
If you are more of a wide angle person, then something in the 25mm to 28mm would work best for you. If you go this route, I would suggest the Zeiss ZM 25/2.8 -- probably one of, if not the sharpest lens I have every owned.
If you like more of a "normal" perspective, then get a 35mm lens. There are MANY, MANY options here. Your choice will probably be driven primarily by 1) budget and 2) image aesthetic preference (i.e., how a lens renders or "paints" an image).
If budget is a constraint, then the CV 35/2.5 Skopar would be your best bet, followed by the CV 35/1.4 Nokton. If you can open up the wallet a bit, then the main contenders would be the ZM 35/2.0 Biogon, 35/2.5 Summarit-M or the 35/2 Summicron (several versions). Ther's also a new contender from Zeiss. I have a couple of CV's -- 35/1.4 and 35/1.2, and like them both for specific applications, but to be honest, I haven't quite decided on my "utility" 35mm lens.
If you are more of a wide angle person, then something in the 25mm to 28mm would work best for you. If you go this route, I would suggest the Zeiss ZM 25/2.8 -- probably one of, if not the sharpest lens I have every owned.
If you like more of a "normal" perspective, then get a 35mm lens. There are MANY, MANY options here. Your choice will probably be driven primarily by 1) budget and 2) image aesthetic preference (i.e., how a lens renders or "paints" an image).
If budget is a constraint, then the CV 35/2.5 Skopar would be your best bet, followed by the CV 35/1.4 Nokton. If you can open up the wallet a bit, then the main contenders would be the ZM 35/2.0 Biogon, 35/2.5 Summarit-M or the 35/2 Summicron (several versions). Ther's also a new contender from Zeiss. I have a couple of CV's -- 35/1.4 and 35/1.2, and like them both for specific applications, but to be honest, I haven't quite decided on my "utility" 35mm lens.
mobilexile
Well-known
Atavistic
Member
I'm also toying with the idea of acquiring a r-d1. My favourite, and subsequently most used, camera is the Nikon F3HP. I'm mainly into normal to wide prime lenses. Last year during my travels I carried around a Canon 350D and a 24mm f/1.4 lens as a digital alternative. While providing good exposures, the size was just too big. Always having to carry a big bag (especially when bringing a wide-angle lens as well) took some of the fun out of it.
Sadly, it doesn't look like Nikon will release a digital F3. So, after much reading the r-d1 looks like it could be the perfect digital partner to the F3HP (it seems to be roughly the same size as well). I do have a few questions though:
1. Never used a rangefinder, but love manually focusing with the F3HP. Is there a steep learning curve jumping from slrs to rangefinders?
2. In the dslr world one of my biggest complains is viewfinder sizes. The 350D is so much smaller than the F3HP's. I know rangefinders don't focus through the lens, but how "big" is it?
3. With a 2 lens setup not requiring a Leica-loan, I'm thinking about a lens for landcapes (12-16mm) and a normal wide for everything else (25-35mm). Do you have any recommendations?
Hope this wasn't too much for a first post. Thanks.
Sadly, it doesn't look like Nikon will release a digital F3. So, after much reading the r-d1 looks like it could be the perfect digital partner to the F3HP (it seems to be roughly the same size as well). I do have a few questions though:
1. Never used a rangefinder, but love manually focusing with the F3HP. Is there a steep learning curve jumping from slrs to rangefinders?
2. In the dslr world one of my biggest complains is viewfinder sizes. The 350D is so much smaller than the F3HP's. I know rangefinders don't focus through the lens, but how "big" is it?
3. With a 2 lens setup not requiring a Leica-loan, I'm thinking about a lens for landcapes (12-16mm) and a normal wide for everything else (25-35mm). Do you have any recommendations?
Hope this wasn't too much for a first post. Thanks.
efkbl
Established
I never used a rangefinder before getting my R-D1, but learning to focus was pretty quick. It takes a few shots to get used to it, especially when focussing on moving subjects, but after a few days I really began to be comfortable with it, maybe more than focussing with old SLR (split prism screen).
The viewfinder size is really large, especially compared to a DSLR. It has a 1:1 magnification, meaning that you can use both eyes when framing (if you are right eyed). It really is a big and clear finder.
I don't own a wide angle lens yet, just the nokton 40mm, which is not that tight and very close to the 35mm framelines.
The viewfinder size is really large, especially compared to a DSLR. It has a 1:1 magnification, meaning that you can use both eyes when framing (if you are right eyed). It really is a big and clear finder.
I don't own a wide angle lens yet, just the nokton 40mm, which is not that tight and very close to the 35mm framelines.
89rzweig
Member
I'm also toying with the idea of acquiring a r-d1. My favourite, and subsequently most used, camera is the Nikon F3HP. I'm mainly into normal to wide prime lenses. Last year during my travels I carried around a Canon 350D and a 24mm f/1.4 lens as a digital alternative. While providing good exposures, the size was just too big. Always having to carry a big bag (especially when bringing a wide-angle lens as well) took some of the fun out of it.
Sadly, it doesn't look like Nikon will release a digital F3. So, after much reading the r-d1 looks like it could be the perfect digital partner to the F3HP (it seems to be roughly the same size as well). I do have a few questions though:
1. Never used a rangefinder, but love manually focusing with the F3HP. Is there a steep learning curve jumping from slrs to rangefinders?
2. In the dslr world one of my biggest complains is viewfinder sizes. The 350D is so much smaller than the F3HP's. I know rangefinders don't focus through the lens, but how "big" is it?
3. With a 2 lens setup not requiring a Leica-loan, I'm thinking about a lens for landcapes (12-16mm) and a normal wide for everything else (25-35mm). Do you have any recommendations?
Hope this wasn't too much for a first post. Thanks.
Ad 1. No it isn't. I do not know the F3HP, but with rangefinder you have a bright "patch" in the middle of the viewfinder with two superimposed images. When these images coincide, the point is in focus. Basically, focus on something you want to have in focus, recompose, take picture.
Ad 2. With rangefinders you do not look through the lens, which means, that you see actually more in the viewfinder, that will be in the picture. There are bright framelines that show you, what will be in the picture and what not. It is, however, less accurate that the viewfinder in an SLR.
Ad 3. If you want an affordable ultra wide angle, than you have basically two choices: Voigtlander 12/5.6 or Voigtlander 15/4.5. The former is wider, a bit more expensive and IMHO better. None of these is ranglefinder coupled, which means you focus just by guessing distance, but it is not a big deal -- when stopped down, anything from about 1m on is in focus anyway. Both are thread mount lenses and the R-D1 is m-bayonet camera, so you have to buy LTM to M-byonet adapter for about $55. Also, there are no framlines for such wide angle lenses, which means you have to buy extra external finder for R-D1s, because it is 1.6x crop camera, the 12mm is like 18mm on film and the 15mm is like 23mm. As for 28 or 35mm, basically anything will do, there are plenty of choices from Voigtlander or Zeiss.
Do have a look at the excellent Rich Cutler's and CameraQuest web sites.
Cheers,
ampguy
Veteran
I would start with the 35/2 cron asph.
If that is not an option, then a good 35 or 40, even the Rokkor 40/2 is a great lens with this body and it does not seem like a 60 focal length but a 40 with a bit of a crop.
Keep in mind that wider than 35 even though there is now an equivalent "normal" focal length, still has a wide angle look to it.
If that is not an option, then a good 35 or 40, even the Rokkor 40/2 is a great lens with this body and it does not seem like a 60 focal length but a 40 with a bit of a crop.
Keep in mind that wider than 35 even though there is now an equivalent "normal" focal length, still has a wide angle look to it.
89rzweig
Member
Oh, very true. Even after five years of working with these 1.6 or 1.5 crop digital cameras I still didn't quite get used to it. A 35mm lens is still a moderate wide angle lens even if it has FOV like a normal lens on these digital cameras and a 50mm lens is still a normal lens and not a short telephoto. For me it's a bit like looking through a tunnel. But I always keep to say to myself, that the day will come, when there will be an affordable full frame digital camera. SLRs got pretty close to it and if the price of something like Canon 5D will go down a little in a year or two, that will be it. As for rangefinder cameras, I'm afraid I will have to wait significantly longer...