Fast or compact lenses, the RF way

[Socke]

Usualy I'm more a f8 and be there type of guy, especialy with rangefinders to cover up my focusing errors. I try open apertures and play with DoF more often since I get more comfortable with acurate focusing but here is an example from last year with a 135 Sonnar at f4.

Not too good to see at this size, but I focused on Amas earring, or one of us moved to much between focusing and shutter release 🙂

 

[nightfly]

Been watching this thread for awhile and here's my take. I think we've sorta veered from the original posters question, which was basically is the cost/weight of super fast lenses worth if for a rangefinder?

I think if you are using a fast lense for super narrow depth of field for still life/non moving objects than there are better tools than a rangefinder. For me, to get these effects I'd jump up to medium format wide open with maybe a close up adapter. If you want narrow depth of field, try a Rolleicord/flex with a Rolleinar close up lens. You will get that super narrow depth of field and creamy bokeh. For the nearly the same price as a super fast rangefinder lense you can get a nice lower end medium format TLR.

To me, the small lenses and quick or hyper focusing of a rangefinder are where they excel. So a wide lens at mid aperture is the ticket. Say a CV 28 3.5 for street shooting just works great. Bigger apertures aren't really going to buy you that narrow depth of field in a wide lense and you probably don't want it. Faster might be nice sometimes but not at the cost of weight and unwieldyness.

For a little more versitility in a still small lens, something like a Summicron 35 is pretty much the ticket. Still wide enough for street work and a little narrower depth of field to get a little creative. One day maybe I'll buy a pre-Asph Summilux but if I never do, I won't be too sad.

Getting into the 50's it starts to make sense to me at least to go a little faster because they are reasonably priced and the narrowed depth of field begins to really show.

That's my take at least. For about a thousand bucks you can have a really nice 28/35/50 combo that makes some compromises with speed but gives you a small, light camera that can pretty much do what you want.

Carry on.

 

[ampguy]

Excellent example

Excellent example

Although the 2nd one has more of the flower in focus, the first one is truly "better" imho, as the doorway and table are completely obliterated allowing the eye to focus on the main subject, the flower.

Ok, here are two shots taken on an old Canon 50mm f/1.2L one was taken at f/1.2, and the other at f/2.5. They are both nice, but they ARE different. The 1.2 shot has an ethereal quality that is not present in the f/2.5 shot. Again, it's just a tool, and to imply that people who use it issues with their manhood is ridiculous. Of course, I am sure that there are people who buy the fastest biggest lenses to fulfill some void in their life, but the majority of people who use them either need or like the effect that they give. Is it that hard to understand? Different people have different preferences, it is as simple as that. Anyway, here are the two photos:
f/1.2

f/2.5

 

[StuartR]

I think if you are using a fast lense for super narrow depth of field for still life/non moving objects than there are better tools than a rangefinder.

Please note that my first two examples were both of people and both in situations where there was movement going on at the time (the man throwing the crab into the basket and the woman laughing). The last example of the two flower shots was just to show how f stop can dramitically change the character of an image and that it is nice to have that option if you want it. I guess that my point would be that fast lenses ARE compact for rangefinders, so why not use them? Compare for example the size of a the 35mm f/1.4 or 35mm f/1.4 ASPH to the Canon 35mm f/1.4L or the Leica R 35mm f/1.4. Both the rangefinder lenses look tiny. Let's not even metion the 85mm f/1.2L or really any of the 85mm f/1.4 lenses compared to any lens for a rangefinder. With only minor exceptions (the 50/1 and 75/1.4), fast rangefinder lenses are not really that big by most standards. The 50/1.4 is hardly bigger than the 50mm summicron. The 35/1.4 ASPH is not much larger than the 35/2 ASPH, and the old 35/1.4 and 35/2 were also about the same size...

forgive me if I am being persistant. I am really tired, and that makes me stubborn...

 

[fitzihardwurshd]

Eyes, for instance.

When your processing target is a scanner, and grain to be avoided,
ISO 1600 is not an option. 1/15, 400 ASA, f1.4 is.

You might ask with the same logic why anybody would want to use
something else than a J-3 since price/performance of Russian
lenses is unbeatable.

Spoerl is not exactly known for his photographs; his novels are school literature in Germany. His perspective (and yours obviously) of the humble and honest 60s might have a German bias.

HCB used a 50/1.5 before the 60s.

Roland.

Roland, what eyes , for heavens sake ?? You mean a good eye makes it possible to get a correctly focussed photo with a DOF of 12cm on a moving head ??? 😱 That is a fairy tale suited for those who haven't ever tried it. From 20 attempts 19 will fail. If you are lucky. Some have shot miles of 35mm film and did not get it up 'til today !!😀

Grain must not be avoided at any price. Size, weight, price, light falloff and softness owards the corners, a bunch of serious compromises. The holiest lens of all holy lenses , the Leitz 1.0, has a light falloff of three (!) stops towards the edges, and it is really soft wide open, to say the least. Many have discovered this too late 😉

The "Russian question" does not belong here, that is misleading. Think in Elmars and Luxes, or Skopars and Noktons, we do not speak about cheap stuff here. This question comes later, when you HAVE desided the compact way.😀

And please don't try to talk Spoerl out of competence, tho he was a writer more than a photog his opinion is not less worth to think about. A german bias ?? What shall this mean ? That in those lucky days we did not know what was going on out in the real world ? Tho they all used our products ?
And WTF cares what HCB used ? Shall this tell me that fast lenses make sense? He had no clue of technical issues and sharpness for him had been a bourgeois concept anyway. He was only half joking when he said this to Newton. He just used what Leitz sent him for free.

So far nothin' that could convince me , Roland , sorryto say so !😉

Fitzi
12cm sind einfach zu kurz.:angel:

 

[fitzihardwurshd]

Aside from the DoF issue, there is also the matter of being able to stop motion. If you're shooting a moving subject, say a person participating in an animated conversation, you often need @ least 1/60th sec. to stop that motion.

Yes, but with a DOF of 12 cm in this case you are kicked in the a... again, aren't you ?😉 There are some tricks, like following the face wih the camera to keep the eyes within the DOF, but that is not working for 19 from 20 attempts.
For my head you would need 70cm anyway when I am seriously involved in a discussion ! 😀

Fitzi

 

[ampguy]

use a 40mm

use a 40mm

check out dofmaster.com or other online calculators, you get more DOF with wide angle, and with longer distances to subject.

Yes, but with a DOF of 12 cm in this case you are kicked in the a... again, aren't you ?😉 There are some tricks, like following the face wih the camera to keep the eyes within the DOF, but that is not working for 19 from 20 attempts.
For my head you would need 70cm anyway when I am seriously involved in a discussion ! 😀

Fitzi

 

[varjag]

And WTF cares what HCB used ? Shall this tell me that fast lenses make sense? He had no clue of technical issues and sharpness for him had been a bourgeois concept anyway. He was only half joking when he said this to Newton. He just used what Leitz sent him for free.

Now, do you really think that HCB had no understanding of DOF? Do you think that sharpness is really a primary (or even major) issue of photography? 🙂

And really Fitzi, I feel you're trying to push down your point onto others with a bit much of vigour, verging towards arrogance. Not everyone who has different set of needs or priorities than you or your "pro friend" is a clueless hack.

 

[fitzihardwurshd]

I
I am a bit sensitive when it comes to arguments that sound to me like "the good old days were better than today", and when I feel that
I am being put in a drawer only because I use RFs.
Roland.

Roland,
actually I am far away from any nostaligic attitiude. Beein part of the good old days I have not forgotten how bad they have been partly. I don't want them back.
On the other hand I see that some truth were already found a long time ago , and they are not less true today than they were in those days they were discovered.

I do have a very critical view on what the camera industry (and all other industries) have invented to keep their biz running, and what they want to sell us always with the promise of better results, nicer results and more fun.

In a forum like this, where a bunch of old farts meet to talk about stoneold film cameras based on concept which died already 40 years ago in the storm of technical "progress" , in this forum here I would expect that some very critical thoughts about "Is-Fast-a-Fetish?" is not seen as heresy.

A bit I feel like having opened a can of worms tho , especially when reading varjags answer.🙄

Best,
Fitzi

 

[varjag]

A bit I feel like having opened a can of worms tho , especially when reading varjags answer.🙄

Well, you knew that before mentioning that people who buy fast lenses are either don't know what they do or just compensate for short dicks, didn't you? 🙂

 

[fitzihardwurshd]

And really Fitzi, I feel you're trying to push down your point onto others with a bit much of vigour, verging towards arrogance. Not everyone who has different set of needs or priorities than you or your "pro friend" is a clueless hack.

Well, that is what you feel, who cares, it does not contribute to the discussion and my original question, it is just the silly attempt to make it personal now.

What I feel is that the question itself makes you somehow upset , maybe you got an house full of super fast lenses, and not having any serviceable arguments you try now to talk me into a position of arrogance just because you do not like my questions and opinions. That is mean, I won't deal with such kinda accusations.

And btw, you don't need to write my pro friend with quotation marks, she is a pro indeed, and, believe it or not, she could tell you a lot about how to improve your photos.

If there is any shoe which as fitting for you personally, , wear it ! Don't try to set fire on my thread though just because you don't like it.

Fitzi

 

[varjag]

Fitzi, I currently don't own a lens faster than f/1.8, but I often seen the need for something fast, and you've seen plenty of arguments for them here already, from me and some other members. You can find them if you scroll up.

I used quotation marks because I quoted you. Maybe this friend of yours can tell me something new about photography, or maybe not: you don't know much about me, my background or my photography.

And please don't try to shut me up: moderators will do that if they find me in violation of forum rules. You don't "own" a conversation posted in public discussion group. Feel free to use that ignore button if you can't face criticism.

 

[jonasv]

fitzihardwurshd, no need for that attitude... You've insulted everyone who owns fast rangefinder lenses for being ignorant, and when someone calls you on that they are taking it 'personal'? Please... Quoting one professional photographer means nothing, I know countless pros and they all have different opinions and needs. Generalising is silly...

For your use, you may indeed not need fast lenses, but others do. There are quite a number of arguments for that. Shallow DOF (relatively shallow DOF for wide-angles, shallow DOF for portraits and other shots for which you have some time to compose, ...), better quality (perhaps not true for all lenses, but as a general rule, a f/1.4 lens will be better at f/2 than an f/2 lens, etc), low-light (you'd be hard pressed pushing 800 ISO colour film two stops, pushing slide film isn't much fun either), the need for higher shutter speeds to stop motion, ...

 

[furcafe]

12cm is plenty of DoF. If you know your equipment & practice enough (& lay off too much coffee or booze 😉 ), it shouldn't take 20 shots to get 1 in focus.

Yes, but with a DOF of 12 cm in this case you are kicked in the a... again, aren't you ?😉 There are some tricks, like following the face wih the camera to keep the eyes within the DOF, but that is not working for 19 from 20 attempts.
For my head you would need 70cm anyway when I am seriously involved in a discussion ! 😀

Fitzi

 

[Socke]

There are quite a number of arguments for that. Shallow DOF (relatively shallow DOF for wide-angles, shallow DOF for portraits and other shots for which you have some time to compose, ...), better quality (perhaps not true for all lenses, but as a general rule, a f/1.4 lens will be better at f/2 than an f/2 lens, etc), low-light (you'd be hard pressed pushing 800 ISO colour film two stops, pushing slide film isn't much fun either), the need for higher shutter speeds to stop motion, ...

The shallow DoF is mostly a problem for me, since I don't shoot professional models and still have to improve my technique what I focused on will not be there anmore when I release the shutter 🙂

Low light is a problem, but then the shallow DoF creates other problems. Shooting three persons at f.4 with 35 doesn't leave much room for error.

The general rule that f1.4 lenses are better than f2 than f2.8 and so forth is somewhat of a myth IMHO.

Even slower lenses built to a budget aren't that much better than faster lenses aimed at a market with more money to spent.
The only experience I have here is the Canon 50 seriens in EF (EOS) mount. The 50/1 is extremely expensive and I know only one who ownes it, compared to the 50/1.4 it is not as sharp and has less contrast at every aperture they share. The 50/1.8 is built on a cheap plastic tube with plastic mount etc.pp. but at f8 you won't see a difference between it and the f1.4 on prints up to 8x12, at least I can't see it.
You get three and half 50/1.8 for the price of a 1.4 and the f1 is probably the most expensive normal lens for current SLRs.

Is a Summilux realy better than a 'cron? Or in the SLR world where I own more lenses, a Planar 50/1.4 better than a Planar 50/1.7 a Distagon 35/1.4 better than a Distagon 35/2.8?
I haven't had a chance to compare a Planar 85/1.4 against a Sonnar 85/2.8, same with the 135 where I have the Sonnar again. With the 35 and 50 I sold the faster versions to fund the longer lenses.

My father and grandfather where great Tessar fans, when I bought my first camera, a Rollei 35, I had the choice between Tessar and Sonnar and was strongly adviced to take the Tessar. Not only by my relatives but by two professional photographers who did product shots for the german car industry.

And if I ever buy amother lens for my Contax SLRs it will be the 45/2.8 Tessar 🙂

 

[fitzihardwurshd]

Roland ,

that's exactly what bothers me with that "progress". And it sums up what I meant with technical effort and compromises. Both are enormous compared to a lens one stop slower.

Stretching the limits of lens design to extreme focal length and/or speed causes the same extremes at effort and result. Nobody would ever accept a light falloff of 2 or 3 fstops towards the edges, at a Noctilux or a CV 4,5/15 we accept it, because we have to.

The question was exactly about this stretching prob, especially related to the RF lenses, where weight and size matter and too much of it contravenes the whole idea of a a Rangefinder camera and so many of us use them anyway.

Tho I myself followed blindly the common sense of nice-to-have and bought a Nokton, some reactions show me that this is somehow a non-issue , the slow way really isn't popular at all, I rather feel like a subversive element here.

Why ? I mean this question of sense and nonsense of overstretched limits is worth at least a thought for everybody who has not lost the track completely in his permanent GAS attacks ?

For a SLR btw I'd always chose the faster version, as long as the optical quality is not affected too bad, from one single reason: Only to get a bright screen !

Regards,

Fitzi
Einigen habe ich wohl auf den Schwanz getreten ? 😛

 

[fitzihardwurshd]

The shallow DoF is mostly a problem for me, since I don't shoot professional models and still have to improve my technique what I focused on will not be there anmore when I release the shutter 🙂

Low light is a problem, but then the shallow DoF creates other problems. Shooting three persons at f.4 with 35 doesn't leave much room for error.

🙂

Phew, at least one other photog who can't keep moving objects within some cm DOF. I thought I am the only one who is too dumb for it !😀

Regards,
Fitzi