Fast or compact lenses, the RF way

[fitzihardwurshd]

At the time I think about reorganizing my lens set for the Bessa, the 75 Heliar is sold because of underemployment, not sure if the 1,5 Nok will stay, which cam with the camera. A compact wide 4/25 was added recently .

Particularly this lens made me think about which way to go in future with the RF lens set, slow or fast.

Considering weight, focussing issues and size and the extremely limited field of application for the extra stop the basic question comes up, what sense fast lenses at all can make for Rangefinder cameras (SLR lenses are another story)

I now bought me a RF because I wanted a small, light (!) and unobtrousive camera, which looks less “hostile” to those who are photographed. 30 years ago a used a Leica with a 2,8/50 lens and it served me well for that purpose.

So, leaving the “look” or “footprint” of a lens aside, which can be an influencing factor for a buy decision indeed, why should I buy a 2/28 instead of a 3,5/28, a 1,7/35 instead of a 2,8/35 or a 1,4/50 instead of a much more compact 2/50 even 2,8/50 ? Not to speak of those enormous f1,2 beasts.

To me it is mainly the size (intruding in the finder frames, more obtrousive) and the weight which let me hesitate, my RF is thought as something like a better P&S, should not need an extra bag but fit into any jacket or coat pocket if possible.

IMO all arguments speak for going the “slow way” with RF cameras. All this “available light” fuss cannot impress me, I cover it with a slower shutter time or a push dev easily and keep my DOF untouched. I have noticed tho that this is not a very popular opinion, the majority prefers fast lenses I think. I wonder why. My RF experience is limited , before I buy anything I would like to ask : Do I probably miss anything important ?

Fitzi

 

[back alley]

i just paid for a 28/3.5 so i am ok with a slower lens.
i also like a faster one for times when i might need it.

speed needs are more determined by where and what you shoot.
indoors or out. in the winters here i am usually shooting in less than bright light for much of the season as i seem to be at work when the light is shining.
i like bar portraits too so a faster lens helps.
but if you shoot outdoors and good light most of the time then, yes, slower, lighter lenses is a wise and economical (both money and heft) way to go.

joe

 

[jaapv]

I think you are quite right, the better holdability of a RF allows you to shoot at far slower speeds anyway. Personally I have but one fast lens, the Summilux 75, but more for the DOF than the speed, and the rest is either 2.8 or 4.0

 

[nico]

Touchè Fitzi,
one of the reason why I approched RF is the possibility to have fast lenses at rreasonable price. In my poor experience this is due (I'm a newbie) to the use of very slow Srl zooms that were frustating me every time I was trying to shot a photo in low light situation without wanting to use a flash. Last year looking at the photos my father shot to me and my brother (with a Voigtlander Vitoret) in the seventies I noticed that he never used a flash always shooting in available light. So I started looking for RF with a fast lens. Now that I have a big lens (BessaR+Nok50) I understand what you're saying about compctness so well that the next lens I'll buy will be the skopar 28 f3.5 which is the smallest CV lens. It's not fast but for fastness I already have the Nok.50.
In the end, I don't think you missed something but I think you got more experience and knowledge than me to understand before what I understood just in these days.
Bye.
Nico

 

[nico]

Joe,
you got the skopar! don't forget to post some shot ...
Bye
Nico

 

[back alley]

Joe,
you got the skopar! don't forget to post some shot ...
Bye
Nico

will do!

i'm sure it's a fine lens though.

joe

 

[ampguy]

huh?

huh?

you cannot get the same narrow DOF as a faster lens at all distances.

If you don't plan to use the lens indoors, or without flash or without super high film speeds, then 2.8 might be fine. 3.5 and slower is ok for outdoors. When manufacturer's have to choose a default setting (battery or meter dies, etc.), they use 2.8 since it can be used indoors or out.

At the time I think about reorganizing my lens set for the Bessa, the 75 Heliar is sold because of underemployment, not sure if the 1,5 Nok will stay, which cam with the camera. A compact wide 4/25 was added recently .

Particularly this lens made me think about which way to go in future with the RF lens set, slow or fast.

Considering weight, focussing issues and size and the extremely limited field of application for the extra stop the basic question comes up, what sense fast lenses at all can make for Rangefinder cameras (SLR lenses are another story)

I now bought me a RF because I wanted a small, light (!) and unobtrousive camera, which looks less “hostile” to those who are photographed. 30 years ago a used a Leica with a 2,8/50 lens and it served me well for that purpose.

So, leaving the “look” or “footprint” of a lens aside, which can be an influencing factor for a buy decision indeed, why should I buy a 2/28 instead of a 3,5/28, a 1,7/35 instead of a 2,8/35 or a 1,4/50 instead of a much more compact 2/50 even 2,8/50 ? Not to speak of those enormous f1,2 beasts.

To me it is mainly the size (intruding in the finder frames, more obtrousive) and the weight which let me hesitate, my RF is thought as something like a better P&S, should not need an extra bag but fit into any jacket or coat pocket if possible.

IMO all arguments speak for going the “slow way” with RF cameras. All this “available light” fuss cannot impress me, I cover it with a slower shutter time or a push dev easily and keep my DOF untouched. I have noticed tho that this is not a very popular opinion, the majority prefers fast lenses I think. I wonder why. My RF experience is limited , before I buy anything I would like to ask : Do I probably miss anything important ?

Fitzi

 

[StuartR]

I don't think most lenses make a big difference in the perceived size of your camera. The only lenses that really make the camera look much larger are lenses like the 75 summilux, 50/1 Noctilux, 35/1.2, and 135mm lenses. Anything with a filter size over 55mm and/or longer than four inches will make the camera look bigger. Short of that I think you are over-analyzing it. For example, the Leica 50/1.4 and 35/1.4 ASPH lenses are pretty well balanced to the size of the cameras...they don't make them look any bigger or smaller, just normal sized. On the other hand the 35/2 pre-asph or 40/2 don't really make the camera appear much smaller because when you are looking at a camera straight on, the length does not really matter. So when someone is pointing a camera at you, the Tele-Elmarit and the 35/2 look pretty much the same size since they have the same size filter ring. A noctilux or 75 summilux on the other hand look huge.

 

[BudGreen]

When I bought my M7, the first two lenses I bought were a Noctilux and Elmar f2.8/50. One was obviously optimized for speed and one for compactness. For me an RF camera excels in both cases. I have a much easier time focusing in low light with the RF than with my old SLR, and with the Elmar, it's compact enough to be my everyday walk-around camera. I would have a hard time picking one over the other.

 

[kmack]

Small, light weight then speed takes the hindmost. My experience has shown me that a stop or two faster would not make a significent difference. Your mileage may vary.

 

[zuikologist]

I always seem to feel the need for speed - 35/1.7 Ultron is my favourite lens, having graduated from Oly SP and Canonet which both have fast lenses.

Larger lenses intruding into the VF area can be distracting though, especially if a hood is attached.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

Fitzi,

You won't miss the extra speed unless you find yourself shooting a great deal indoors. Even then, you can shoot 400, 800, or 1600 film to compensate for your lens' slower speed.

Different people have different tolerances for what is personally comfortably 'compact'. Some have settled on 1.4/1.5, others, like myself have settled for 2.0 for the vast majority of my lenses.

2.0 seems to me to have the largest number of fast lenses with good compromise on both size and speed. For instance, in 50mm (Cron IV tabbed), in 40mm (cron-c/rokkor-m), in 35mm (all crons pre and asph are compact).

Indeed, to make your Leica system about as 'pocketable' as it is likely to get, you might consider any of the pre-asph 35/crons (although the asph-cron is rather compact as well, albeit bigger than the pre-asphs by a hair). The 35/1.4 pre-asph lux is also compact. And, quite possibly the most compact are the 40mm rokkor-m and the 40mm summicron-c as the smallest lens.

In short, it all depends on the majority of your day-to-day needs (indoor dark or outdoor), and whether 2.0 is fast enough for you at ISO 400, for instance.

I'll go with the easy answer and suggest you get one optimized for size (like a 35 or 40 cron). And another lens optimized for speed, like a 50 cron IV tabbed, 35/1.4 pre-asph, or a Canon 50/1.5 LTM (which might possibly be the most compact fast 50 that is not collapsible).

good luck

 

[StuartR]

One more note -- speed is not only about how much light there is...it is also one of the best tools for regulating depth of field. In particular, the only way to limit depth of field with wide angles is with speed. Lenses like a 35/1.4, 28/1.9 or 28/2 can give a rather unique look for 35mm cameras -- the wide angle with shallow depth of field.

 

[Dougg]

With an SLR a fast lens has utility in making focusing faster, surer, and actually shooting wide open is not so relevant. But the RF situation is different; it's only shooting at those wide apertures that justifies having them! So, thinking of usage, you might switch as a test to an SLR with a fast lens of the same focal length you're considering, and see how important it is... Or perhaps more simply, use the lenses you have, wide open, to see if they open as wide as you need!

Also worth considering is that fast normal and wider lenses for RF cameras are more compact in general than the same speed and focal length SLR lens. Without sacrificing image quality, Fast + Compact = Good

I tend to like a moderate speed, and willing to give up a little compactness. For instance, while I liked the quality (both of the results and the build) of the Voigtlander 28mm Skopar f/3.5, I sold it and bought the most compact 28mm F/2. I had found the f/3.5 was too limiting for my use.

 

[fitzihardwurshd]

speed needs are more determined by where and what you shoot.
indoors or out. in the winters here i am usually shooting in less than bright light for much of the season as i seem to be at work when the light is shining.
i like bar portraits too so a faster lens helps.
but if you shoot outdoors and good light most of the time then, yes, slower, lighter lenses is a wise and economical (both money and heft) way to go.

joe

speed needs are more determined by where and what you shoot.
indoors or out. in the winters here i am usually shooting in less than bright light for much of the season as i seem to be at work when the light is shining.
i like bar portraits too so a faster lens helps.
joe

Joe,
that's been exactly my point: Isn't that "speed" from 1 or 1,5 stops plus of such a limited field of use that it isn't much more than an speed illusion ? Fine if I WANT that super narrow DOF, but what if do NOT want it, or if it is even contraproductive ?

I mean the price of DOF you pay with faster lenses is very different from the price of a bit more grain or, within the limits valid for moving objects , from a slower shutter time.

I've been out quite often with the 50 Nokton at night and it did not take much time to learn that the 1,5 stops plus are good for nothing, excepted you got any object in the foreground you can focus on, and if you accept to get all the rest OOF.

Otherwise you have to take a mono- or tripod as well as the owner of a slow lens has to take it. That is what I mean with limited field of use.

I'd say "speed" is simply the wrong word in this context. If at all the fast lenses are good for anything it is IMO for narrow DOF, but not for low light. Even in this case tho the much more compact f2 lens does that good enuff, who really needs the super narrow DOF of a f1,4 lens , not to speak of the f1,2 or f1,0 monsters ? Who uses f1,0 and for what to do what could not be done with a F2 lens ???

A fellow pro photog once told my 98% of all fast lenses would be bought because they look more impressive, and the more I look at my Nok I am afraid I stepped exactly into this kinda prestige trap ?

Best,
Fitzi

 

[fitzihardwurshd]

One more note -- speed is not only about how much light there is...it is also one of the best tools for regulating depth of field. In particular, the only way to limit depth of field with wide angles is with speed. Lenses like a 35/1.4, 28/1.9 or 28/2 can give a rather unique look for 35mm cameras -- the wide angle with shallow depth of field.

I tend to agree a this point, wides can have an enervating large DOF if you want to isolate anything! 🙂
Question tho is how often do I need a narrow DOF with a wide lens, which is thought for including environmental details ? I personally rather take a longer focal length then for this type of photo..
Fitzi

 

[StuartR]

Obviously different people have different needs and if you don't need the speed don't bother with it. I use my lenses wide open a lot because I like shallow depth of field, slow film, and I know that I shoot better pictures at 1/15th or 1/30th than I do at 1/8th or 1/4th.

 

[StuartR]

For example -- this photo was taken with a 35mm f/1.4 lens at f/1.4. I think it looks better than it would have at f/4 or f/5.6 because the slightly blurred background gives it a sense of three-dimensionality, softens the bare bulbs and draws the viewers eye to the man.

 

[fitzihardwurshd]

2.0 seems to me to have the largest number of fast lenses with good compromise on both size and speed.

Tom,
that is my impression too. Watchin' a J8 or f2 Cron and a 1,5 Nokton or 1,4 Lux side by side the difference of weight and size seem to be grotesque related to the additional speed. The most annoying thing is that the larger lens eats the lower right part of the frame, that is where my tolerance is at the edge.

Fitzi

 

[StuartR]

And here is another photo possible only because of a high speed lens. This one is a 50mm f/1.4 at 1.4. It allowed me a wide field of view, enough to get the subject completely in focus, but to include a large area of background. But to have that background rendered softly and graphically rather than clearly. Again, it is all about preference and molding the photo to what you want. You can always stop down a fast lens, but you can never open up a slow lens past its widest stop.