Fast and furious...but how fast?

[dreilly]

What's the body worth? Is someone interested in splitting this package with me...I get the lens, partner gets the body? I wonder if the meter works. Listed as good user.
hmm.

Ritz also has a CZJ sonnar LTM for $225, with some coating wear and tight aperture. A good deal?

 

[Stephanie Brim]

What you need to do before buying a lens is the same regardless of budget: what do you really need? If you could get away with an f/2, get an f/2. If you know you'll want something faster, wait until you have the budget to get the faster lens.

I've decided on the Canon 35mm f/1.8 as my next lens because I know that I'm going to want something faster than the Voigtlander's f/2.5 or the other Canon f/2.8. I'd ideally like the f/1.2 because I know that it would get use, but CV doesn't make a version of it in screwmount. That kinda sucks, really, as it would have been ideal for low-light street photography at night.

 

[Doug]

What I would say, though, is that a fast lens is not one of those things where you have to ask yourself if you need it or not. If you are constantly running out of light, as I am, you KNOW.

Hi Roger -- Just taking the contrary view, maybe what you know at that point is that you need something MORE.... More lens speed is only one option, more film speed is another option, more steadiness via tripod is an option, as is more light added through reflectors or flashes.

Each of these options is limited in scope and practicality, and each offers a somewhat different photographic effect, and of course can be combined. If a tripod is inappropriate, and adding light isn't practical, and you're maxxed-out effectively on film speed, then through desperation perhaps you turn to f/1.0

I used to be a fan of lens speed; "Give me MORE!" But those were the SLR days where that wide aperture means a bright viewfinder and snappier focus. I avoided shooting my fast lenses wide open. One of the nice things about an RF camera, I think, is relief from that... Slower lenses focus as accurately and brightly as faster ones. And I've come more to think that wide apertures carry unwanted baggage, especially where you're forced into them by low light and not by esthetic choice of narrow DoF.

Of course often more lens speed is not an option. Such as when you already have the fast lens for that focal length and it's not enough. Or when there just are no fast lenses, as with the XPan and many others.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

It's been a long time since I've been forced into using any lens. And if the F0.95 is not fast enough, it's time to break out the Agema 570 Long-Wave infrared camera.

 

[Honu-Hugger]

Nobody much mentioned the Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5. How would that compare to the others?

I've been very pleased with the Sonnar, even in low light wide-open. What seems to be missing from this discussion is how particular lenses perform at their optimum aperture range; f/1.2 or 1.4 mean very little if the lenses do not perform well at the open aperures. Once again it is wrong to make generalizations regarding the optimum range for all lenses; my father was dismissing the 58/1.2 NOCT and a 200/2 Nikkor by assuming that they had to be stopped in the middle range for optimal performance. With these two lenses in particular this is just not the case; Nikon designed them both to perform best close to wide open. I'm sure this exists with lenses of other manufacturers, as well (a 100/2 Kinoptik is exceptional from 2.8 on). On the other hand, a 50/1.2 Nikkor is a huge hunk of glass and generally considered to be a lousy performer -- you might as well have a 50/1.4 or a 1.8 lens. (The two shots are from a 1.5 Sonnar taken the same evening).

P. S. I don't recall the exposures for either shot, but I remember the deckhand was stopped down and the paddle-wheel was wide open -- it seems as though I was using Supra 800 (?).

 

[dreilly]

Yeah, needing to stop down for any kind of quality seems to me to make the extra speed pointless, unless wide open is just acceptable, and you keep it in your pocket for that rare occasion. Those are very nice shots, Honu, especially the second. Both wide open?

 

[Bertram2]

. I'd ideally like the f/1.2 because I know that it would get use, but CV doesn't make a version of it in screwmount. That kinda sucks, really, as it would have been ideal for low-light street photography at night.

No real prob. If you got the bucks for that lens you surely can afford a bit more for a used T model, which you need anyway for this lens because it is to fat to work without an external finder and which really needs the longer base of the T for accurate focussing wide open.

Bertram

 

[varjag]

If you look at the specs on modern LTM cameras virtually every one of them has its own lens-to-film distance--close but not exactly 28.8mm (which is the Russian standard and I believe Leica, too).

Actually, the old Soviet camera repair manual that I've got states that all accessory lenses have to be collimated to the camera body after purchase. There was variation in the film-to-flange distance but it was acknowledged; the owner was supposed to visit a service center where a technician could tune the lens to his camera. In pactice however, I think this was more often neglected than not.

 

[dreilly]

Can a modern camera repairperson do this easily (and cheaply?)

 

[varjag]

Can a modern camera repairperson do this easily (and cheaply?)

Shouldn't be too hard.

I was going to try that myself this evening with two-camera method, per Mike Elek's guide: http://host.fptoday.com/melek/zeiss/repair/collimate/collimate.html

 

[kiev4a]

Somebody brought up the novel idea to using a tripod!! Obviously, if your subject is moving around, the tripod will be of limited value. But many times when the scene is static, a tripod is just the ticket. You can lower the shutter speed and stop down to get more depth of field. It would be interesting to know the percentage of photographers Z(not just rangefinder users) have ever used a tripod. I'll betcha it's pretty low..

 

[varjag]

Wayne, I've used it once, honest! 🙂

Seriously though, I tend to reserve tripod to my 6x9 Moskva: that's what I shoot landscapes with.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I bought my first tripod when I was 12, and I still have and use it. I tend to use it with Telephoto's.

Here is a shot with the Nikon and Meade 1000mm F11 and the 35-year old tripod:
(The Woodpecker is moving pretty fast, those are woodchips flying through the air)

 

[jlw]

It would be interesting to know the percentage of photographers Z(not just rangefinder users) have ever used a tripod. I'll betcha it's pretty low..

Maybe it's time for a tripod poll!

Incidentally, tripods (and other camera supports) are as subject to GAS as anything else. I own three tripods (a Slik U212 customized with Slik ballhead, for studio use; one of those little Herbert Keppler Velbons, for portable use; and a video tripod with a Bogen fluid head) along with a Tiltall monopod, which I seldom need with an RF camera but which makes me feel a lot safer when I come out of the stage door into a dark alley late at night.

I have to admit that I don't use any of them as often as I should (except for the video tripod; I almost never use a video camera OFF the tripod) although of all of them, the Velbon gets the most use because it's the handiest...