kshapero
South Florida Man
I am using the CV Ultron 35mm (factor at 52.5mm) f1.7 as my main lens. Very pleased. I noticed that the 35mm framelines show about 90% of what I actually end up with as the finished shot. BTW do the 35mm framelines, for example, correspond to the 52.5mm factor? I assume so but have no way to check instantly as the only full frame camera I have is my ZI film camera.
Jim Watts
Still trying to See.
The 35mm frames are corrected to the 53mm equivalent, but they are only nominal as there is a safety factor of x0.85 at infinity to allow for the increase in focal length as you focus closer. This factor is a bit too generous if you like a tight crop, but can be allowed for with experience. Quite a number of users prefer to use a 40mm lens with the 35mm framelines, which eliminates this 'safety factor' and is a pretty accurate match for for the framelines. All the built in frames in the R-D1 have the same 'safety factor'
I have a 35mm & 40mm and tend to alternate between the two,
I have a 35mm & 40mm and tend to alternate between the two,
kshapero
South Florida Man
Thanks, good explanation.Jim Watts said:
filmat
Member
Well, I know Voigtlander lens are quite appreciated by many and offer very good performance for the money. In fact my very first lens with my first rangefinder camera (the R-D1) was an Ultron.
Still, I could not quite fell in love with it due to the average vignetting and degradation (uneven performance at the corners). It does not make the lens bad, it is still very good, but when I tried a Konica UC-Hexanon 35, I got hooked to its quality, even performance accross the image and under different conditions, extremely compact size and great finish. So i finally sold the ultron and bought one new UC-Hexanon from ebay.
So far tried many lens but still return to my Konica. I feel that the Voigtlander in general have great sharpness (especially at the center) but overall darker images with vignetting (Based on the Ultron 35/1.7, 25/4 and 15). Old Canon lens (tried the 50/1.4) have low contrast, very good in certain situations to give a special mood to the image. Tried also a Summilux 35/1.4, great leica technical quality and rendering but too expensive.
Now I have the Canon 50/1.4 (used mostly for portraits, equivalent to 76.5), a Voigtlander 25/4 used sometimes. But 90% of my shots are done with the UC-Hexanon. Again great quality, size and very good focal - sometimes a bit tight because it forces me to almost center the camera on people on the street if they are near while the Voigtlander with its equivalent 38mm is easier to use under such conditions. Still with the 6MP of the R-D1, we can not aggressively crop so it remains a good compromise.
Philippe
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pmat/
Still, I could not quite fell in love with it due to the average vignetting and degradation (uneven performance at the corners). It does not make the lens bad, it is still very good, but when I tried a Konica UC-Hexanon 35, I got hooked to its quality, even performance accross the image and under different conditions, extremely compact size and great finish. So i finally sold the ultron and bought one new UC-Hexanon from ebay.
So far tried many lens but still return to my Konica. I feel that the Voigtlander in general have great sharpness (especially at the center) but overall darker images with vignetting (Based on the Ultron 35/1.7, 25/4 and 15). Old Canon lens (tried the 50/1.4) have low contrast, very good in certain situations to give a special mood to the image. Tried also a Summilux 35/1.4, great leica technical quality and rendering but too expensive.
Now I have the Canon 50/1.4 (used mostly for portraits, equivalent to 76.5), a Voigtlander 25/4 used sometimes. But 90% of my shots are done with the UC-Hexanon. Again great quality, size and very good focal - sometimes a bit tight because it forces me to almost center the camera on people on the street if they are near while the Voigtlander with its equivalent 38mm is easier to use under such conditions. Still with the 6MP of the R-D1, we can not aggressively crop so it remains a good compromise.
Philippe
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pmat/
georgef
Well-known
It mainly depends on shooting style and subject for me. I use the 28 1.9 as my low light glass, the canon 50 1.2 (yes, I know the arguments but dont care hehe) for portraits and my fav, the CV 15mm. I find the later the one that mostly reflects my style.
I tend to favour lens "character" more than sharpness, so the CV glass is great for the price for me. Also, in regards to vignetting, I use photoshop for all my processing, and have created an action set to remove the vignetting; it is very effectiveand all it takes is a single click (pressing F2 on my PC) to remove the vignette.
I tend to favour lens "character" more than sharpness, so the CV glass is great for the price for me. Also, in regards to vignetting, I use photoshop for all my processing, and have created an action set to remove the vignetting; it is very effectiveand all it takes is a single click (pressing F2 on my PC) to remove the vignette.
Tuolumne
Veteran
50mm f1.4 Summilux and 75mm f2.5 Summarit are my most used lenses. But I shoot alot of theater with my R-D1 and need the reach. When I want something wider I use the 35mm f1.4 Summilux, but somehow that always seems too wide for me. Odd, because I never shoot 75mm with film and mostly shoot 50mm with film. Can't explain it.
/T
/T
edhohoho
Established
Since I prefer to take hand-held pictures at night and hate carrying around extra lenses and changing them while out on the street, the Noctilux is the lens for me. For some reason I also like the longer focal length, so the 35 Summilux ASPH get less use though it was my previous favorite. The 75 Summilux is amazing on the R-D1, but I don't use it quite as often given it's limited field of view.
bluepenguin
Established
Leica Summicron 35mm 1st ... I love it~!