oscroft
Veteran
I've got a few CV lenses now (15, 21, 25, 35/2.5, 75) that I use with my Bessa-R and Bessa-L. I use the 35/2.5 the most, with the 21 second (though I've had it longer - the 25 that I only got recently is likely to become my second most used CV lens).
I'm increasingly feeling the need for a 50. I have a handful of FSU 50s and they work fine on the R, but I'd really like something with similar sharpness and contrast to the 35/2.5 Skopar. I'm not really interested in the 50/1.5 Nokton, because it's too big, heavy and expensive - I like to travel light and I don't do low-light work.
Hence my question to anyone who has used them - how does the 50/2.5 Skopar compare to the 35/2.5 Skopar?
I'm increasingly feeling the need for a 50. I have a handful of FSU 50s and they work fine on the R, but I'd really like something with similar sharpness and contrast to the 35/2.5 Skopar. I'm not really interested in the 50/1.5 Nokton, because it's too big, heavy and expensive - I like to travel light and I don't do low-light work.
Hence my question to anyone who has used them - how does the 50/2.5 Skopar compare to the 35/2.5 Skopar?
markinlondon
Elmar user
They have a very strong family resemblance, Alan. I think these two show it.
50 skopar
35 Skopar PII
50 skopar
35 Skopar PII
pau3
Well-known
Hi, Alan,
I've got one and during quite a long time it was my most used
lens. It is very small, but also heavy, much heavier than the 35/2.5
- which I also own -. The construction is superb, feels better than
the 35, and I loved its ergonomics. On the other hand, I was always
pleased with the images I got with it, although it is not the sharpest
lens wide open (which can also be useful sometimes). The only thing
I didn't like is its speed (probably closer to 2.8 than to 2.5). If you don't
mind that extra stop, it is a very nice lens for its price . On the other
hand, its design makes it also one of the nicest lens around.
Pau
I've got one and during quite a long time it was my most used
lens. It is very small, but also heavy, much heavier than the 35/2.5
- which I also own -. The construction is superb, feels better than
the 35, and I loved its ergonomics. On the other hand, I was always
pleased with the images I got with it, although it is not the sharpest
lens wide open (which can also be useful sometimes). The only thing
I didn't like is its speed (probably closer to 2.8 than to 2.5). If you don't
mind that extra stop, it is a very nice lens for its price . On the other
hand, its design makes it also one of the nicest lens around.
Pau
oscroft
Veteran
Thanks for the opinions. It does sound like it's the one for me - I'm not bothered about a smallish maximum aperture (I'd be using it stopped down most of the time anyway), and it looks and sounds like it's very similar to the 35 in results. Just need to save some pennies now.
Justin Low
J for Justin
Had one many years ago and did not like it that much. I'd have liked to try the 50/1.5 Nokton instead, but now I my needs are met with a Hexanon 50/2 and Summicron 50/2 (both excellent performers).
The build quality was solid, but I was not fond of the pictures it produced. I doubt that I'd buy another one anytime soon.
The build quality was solid, but I was not fond of the pictures it produced. I doubt that I'd buy another one anytime soon.
FrankS
Registered User
I was happy with this lens that I had a while ago. Needed to raise some $ so I sold it, and now just recently bought another to replace it.
oscroft
Veteran
Thanks for your thoughts folks.
Justin, what was it about the results from it that you didn't like?
Justin, what was it about the results from it that you didn't like?
Justin Low
J for Justin
Alan, it wasn't as crisp as I'd prefer.
FrankS
Registered User
clintock
Galleryless Gearhead
oscroft
Veteran
Thanks again folks, and thanks for the samples
Justin Low
J for Justin
Frank, I recall shooting it at mid-apertures too. Perhaps I got a lemon sample.