JoshRoot
The NW will rise again.
I have never been a fan of the 50mm focal length. Maybe I don't work it enough, but I've never really found it to be terribily useful to me and my style/subject matter.
Is this the case with anyone else?
I have been shooting with a Voigt 35/1.7 Ultron that I got recently. It is a fine lens (despite it's lack of a focus lever/tab) and very capable. I had one when I had my M6 back in the "film days".
But I find that I'm not getting any interesting results with it. 35mm has always been a better length for me in terms of a "normal" lens. But with the RD1, we're stuck shooting at f/4 if we want a wide lens.
Be that as it may, maybe what this really means is that I should spend a week or so ONLY shooting with the 35/1.7 and force myself to see images in it's FOV.
Thoughts?
Is this the case with anyone else?
I have been shooting with a Voigt 35/1.7 Ultron that I got recently. It is a fine lens (despite it's lack of a focus lever/tab) and very capable. I had one when I had my M6 back in the "film days".
But I find that I'm not getting any interesting results with it. 35mm has always been a better length for me in terms of a "normal" lens. But with the RD1, we're stuck shooting at f/4 if we want a wide lens.
Be that as it may, maybe what this really means is that I should spend a week or so ONLY shooting with the 35/1.7 and force myself to see images in it's FOV.
Thoughts?
anglophone1
Well-known
Pre Rd-1 my standard lens was the 35mmf1.7, now I hardly use it, and have settled for a 28mm f1.9 [42mm] most of the time [still seems a bit narrow] and dropping down to the 21 f4 [31mm] [and tweaking the ISO] when necessary.
I have now got a second body and can see these two being more or less the two main lenses, pity really as it stiil doesn't have the same reach as using the 28 and 35 together........................................probably should have bough a Ricoh GR digital [28 and 21 equivalent] instead.
Quite cool having a 75mm f1.5 though....................... [50mm ]
Clive
I have now got a second body and can see these two being more or less the two main lenses, pity really as it stiil doesn't have the same reach as using the 28 and 35 together........................................probably should have bough a Ricoh GR digital [28 and 21 equivalent] instead.
Quite cool having a 75mm f1.5 though....................... [50mm ]
Clive
JoshRoot
The NW will rise again.
I agree with most everything you said.
I actually have a 28/1.9 coming that I am excited to try out. That extra few mm's might have JUST been enough to save the shots I was taking today that were too tight with the Ultron.
I also have the 21/4, and it's a great lens. But slow, and there is the aux finder issue.
As for a 75/1.5 or 75/2 (equiv), I agree that it's a cool thing. But I don't have a problem with 75mm, just 50mm. So my 50/2 Summitar gets use as a nice portrait lens. I also use my 50/1.8 with my D20 a lot for lot light wedding work.
I actually have a 28/1.9 coming that I am excited to try out. That extra few mm's might have JUST been enough to save the shots I was taking today that were too tight with the Ultron.
I also have the 21/4, and it's a great lens. But slow, and there is the aux finder issue.
As for a 75/1.5 or 75/2 (equiv), I agree that it's a cool thing. But I don't have a problem with 75mm, just 50mm. So my 50/2 Summitar gets use as a nice portrait lens. I also use my 50/1.8 with my D20 a lot for lot light wedding work.
R
RML
Guest
Before I used the 50 quite a lot. I still do but on the R-D1, which effectively turns it into a 75. I'm also known to use the CV 25/4 quite a lot, though not on the R-D1 really. Right now I'm using my 40 on the R-D1. With a FOV of a 60 its a pretty good choice IMO.
pvdhaar
Peter
When I went from a HexarAF (35mm) to a HexarRF (50mm), my reaction was after a couple of rolls of film was "how in the world am I going to cope with that narrow lens? I can't get anything to fit into that frame"..
Still a couple of rolls further down the road, my view changed. The 50 now works for me better than the 35 ever did, I can make it do just about the same things as the 35, but with the addition of an automatic clutter removal feature the narrower field of view provides.
Still a couple of rolls further down the road, my view changed. The 50 now works for me better than the 35 ever did, I can make it do just about the same things as the 35, but with the addition of an automatic clutter removal feature the narrower field of view provides.
Last edited:
Gid
Well-known
I have the 28 1.9, 35 1.7, 50 1.5 and 75 2.5 CV lenses. I used to use the 28 1.9 mostly, but have used the 35 exclusively for the last few months. I love the relatively small size and like the fact that I have to work a bit harder to get the shot I want. Most of the shots in my gallery are taken with the 35. I'm very happy with it.
Regards
Gid
Regards
Gid
S
Sean Reid
Guest
My favorite on the R-D1 is a 28 but I do also use a 35 quite often and have always liked the FOV of a 50mm lens.
Clive,
I just reviewed the GR. Great little camera in most respects.
Cheers,
Sean
Clive,
I just reviewed the GR. Great little camera in most respects.
Cheers,
Sean
ducttape
Established
I recently got a 21 used and Ilike the angle very much. Previously, I didn't even know where my 50 was as I always shot with my 35.
Lately however I've been leaving the house with the 15 on the body. Defacto 21 on the RD1. I don't use a finder, correction, I rarely use a finder on any of the wides with the DR1. Only if I am specifically shooting for purpose. But for day to day shots, with my left eye open I can pretty much guestimate what will be included in the shot now.
I like the comment below about the automatic clutter removal, but I really do enjoy the wides much more so than longs. It's interesting, because I appreciate other's long shots, but mine never seem to be there for me.
Lately however I've been leaving the house with the 15 on the body. Defacto 21 on the RD1. I don't use a finder, correction, I rarely use a finder on any of the wides with the DR1. Only if I am specifically shooting for purpose. But for day to day shots, with my left eye open I can pretty much guestimate what will be included in the shot now.
I like the comment below about the automatic clutter removal, but I really do enjoy the wides much more so than longs. It's interesting, because I appreciate other's long shots, but mine never seem to be there for me.
JonasYip
Well-known
Like some others my default lens on my M6TTL was a 35 (lux ASPH). Now on the RD-1 it's a 28 'cron.
Oddly my default lens on a 1.5x DSLR is a 50....
j
Oddly my default lens on a 1.5x DSLR is a 50....
j
JoshRoot
The NW will rise again.
Hmmm,
Now this is making me want my 28/1.9 to arrive even more.
Come on airmail!
Now this is making me want my 28/1.9 to arrive even more.
Come on airmail!
L
lkgroup
Guest
Although I don't have an R-D1 I do use a SLR Nikon D70. My favorite, standard lens is the 24mm 2.8, so about 36 (35mm). This is the lens length that I us most with Rangefinders so it was natural to use this length.
I do use the 50 F2.0 lens but it is more like a semi tele, at about 75mm, but it is fast and sharp.
leo
I do use the 50 F2.0 lens but it is more like a semi tele, at about 75mm, but it is fast and sharp.
leo
Gid
Well-known
Bear in mind, that if you want to enter the HCB contest you'll have to use a 35 - that's the closest you'll get to a "normal" 50 on 35mm.
Gid
Gid
pfogle
Well-known
I've just had to rationalise my kit as I'm off on a 5 month trip to NZ and Oz this weekend. I've settled on 12 (current fave), 21/2.8 (ex fave), 35 (not sure why) and 50 (2nd fave). I ditched the 28/1.8 and put an old Summar in instead, as I think I'll be doing portraits with it. I'm still not sure whether to take the 35, but it's useful for wide aperture...
Also taking laptop and 3 20GB external drives, and a 250 GB for archiving.
Also taking laptop and 3 20GB external drives, and a 250 GB for archiving.
JoshRoot
The NW will rise again.
I think if I were going traveling, I would take the 15, 21, 28 (assuming I like it as much as you guys), and a 50 for portraits. This of course translates to 23, 32, 42, 75. Which isn't a bad spread.
I do wish that I owned at least a 21/2.8. But that's money I don't have to spend. Maybe CV will make an RD1 specific 21/2 lens that will just cover the RD1 sensor (for a fast effective 35/2). But until then, F/4 will have to do it for me.
I do wish that I owned at least a 21/2.8. But that's money I don't have to spend. Maybe CV will make an RD1 specific 21/2 lens that will just cover the RD1 sensor (for a fast effective 35/2). But until then, F/4 will have to do it for me.
Gid
Well-known
I have been considering a 21 or 25 for the last couple of weeks. Can't justify the Leica and CV is only F4. Heard good reports about the ZMs, but could buy 2 CVs for the price of 1 ZM, which is only one stop faster. I think that if the CV 25 was RF coupled I'd go for it because that would give me near to a (real) 35 which I like, but I already have a 28, so thats a bit close 
The usual I would really like to buy but ......................
I checked out my recent shots and 99% were shot at F4 or smaller and the low light stuff was mostly around ISO400. The RD-1 is good all the way up to ISO1600, so in reality even if F4 is the max on the lens I've got a couple of stops leeway on my type of shooting. The bottom line is that I'll probably go for a 21 and F4 will be fine, but do I go the extra and get the ZM. Choices, choices - nice to have. Any views will be appreciated - and don't get me back on to replacing my 35 - agonised over that for ages and still not sure. Maybe its just GAS
Gid
The usual I would really like to buy but ......................I checked out my recent shots and 99% were shot at F4 or smaller and the low light stuff was mostly around ISO400. The RD-1 is good all the way up to ISO1600, so in reality even if F4 is the max on the lens I've got a couple of stops leeway on my type of shooting. The bottom line is that I'll probably go for a 21 and F4 will be fine, but do I go the extra and get the ZM. Choices, choices - nice to have. Any views will be appreciated - and don't get me back on to replacing my 35 - agonised over that for ages and still not sure. Maybe its just GAS
Gid
Stephanie Brim
Mental Experimental.
I figured I'd put some of my experience here, even though I don't use the RD-1. I can still put some input as to focal lengths, and that's what this discussion is primarily about anyway.
People are kind of surprised when I tell them that the only focal length I've shot with in any kind of serious manner is a 50mm. 50mm is right in my comfort zone. I love the look of a 28mm landscape and an 85mm portrait, but because of how I shoot and what I like to shoot I end up going back to 50mm in the end. It's such a versitile focal length; it can be good for intimate portraits and simple nature shots as well as street photography and urban landscapes. It allows me to stay far enough away that I'm not intruding, yet I'm close enough to actually feel as though I'm part of what's going on.
I tend to want things cropped a little cleaner when I'm taking a photo. I find the 50mm focal length perfect for this. It is also very easy to find good, fast 50mm lenses decently cheap. My interest in low light photography makes this a must. I can also hand-hold a rangefinder with a 50mm lens at something like 1/8 of a second...I can't do that with too awful many other lenses. Could with a 35, but I wouldn't even want to try it with something longer. It is also easier for me to take a shot if I can get in closer...I find that, for some strange reason, I'm not as shy when I can almost blend into the scene. Girl with a camera here, not doing any harm, just trying to be. Works.
It just really works for me. All the time. I don't find myself needing another length very often.
Now, this is just me. I've only been doing this seriously for a little over a year and I've never had the best equipment. Maybe if I get my hands on a 35mm Summicron at some point I'll change my tune dramatically, but I doubt it. I'm most likely to be one of those one-length shooters. I'll be one of those people with 15 50mm lenses, all different models and makes and years.
I'm just crazy like that.
People are kind of surprised when I tell them that the only focal length I've shot with in any kind of serious manner is a 50mm. 50mm is right in my comfort zone. I love the look of a 28mm landscape and an 85mm portrait, but because of how I shoot and what I like to shoot I end up going back to 50mm in the end. It's such a versitile focal length; it can be good for intimate portraits and simple nature shots as well as street photography and urban landscapes. It allows me to stay far enough away that I'm not intruding, yet I'm close enough to actually feel as though I'm part of what's going on.
I tend to want things cropped a little cleaner when I'm taking a photo. I find the 50mm focal length perfect for this. It is also very easy to find good, fast 50mm lenses decently cheap. My interest in low light photography makes this a must. I can also hand-hold a rangefinder with a 50mm lens at something like 1/8 of a second...I can't do that with too awful many other lenses. Could with a 35, but I wouldn't even want to try it with something longer. It is also easier for me to take a shot if I can get in closer...I find that, for some strange reason, I'm not as shy when I can almost blend into the scene. Girl with a camera here, not doing any harm, just trying to be. Works.
It just really works for me. All the time. I don't find myself needing another length very often.
Now, this is just me. I've only been doing this seriously for a little over a year and I've never had the best equipment. Maybe if I get my hands on a 35mm Summicron at some point I'll change my tune dramatically, but I doubt it. I'm most likely to be one of those one-length shooters. I'll be one of those people with 15 50mm lenses, all different models and makes and years.
I'm just crazy like that.
Gid
Well-known
Stephanie,
I find that I now shoot with a 35 on my RD-1 for 95% of the time (53mm in 35 terms). I like the way it makes me work to get a shot. Thanks for reminding me that what I really have is GAS LOL. Now you've got me thinking about alternative 35s again
I think I'll just go out a buy something, anything - that might at least keep me going until next weekend
Gid
I find that I now shoot with a 35 on my RD-1 for 95% of the time (53mm in 35 terms). I like the way it makes me work to get a shot. Thanks for reminding me that what I really have is GAS
LOL. Now you've got me thinking about alternative 35s again I think I'll just go out a buy something, anything - that might at least keep me going until next weekend
Gid
Ed Schwartzreic
Well-known
The lens that stays on my R-D1 is the old version of the Summilux 35/1.4. While I was primarily a 35mm lens user on my M's and found 50mm too long, I guess that part of my enthusiam for the 35's was the way they "draw". That of course doesn't change with the smaller sensor; in fact it helps with the old Summilux at f/1.4, where I think I see less coma due to the field cut.
That said, I have and like the ZI 28/2.8 Biogon on the R-D1, and I regularly use the Tri-Elmar when traveling.
Take alook at the enclosed image, here taken with a 35/2.5 Nikkor. While the FOV is 53mm, it has, for me at least, that 35mm impact.
Ed
That said, I have and like the ZI 28/2.8 Biogon on the R-D1, and I regularly use the Tri-Elmar when traveling.
Take alook at the enclosed image, here taken with a 35/2.5 Nikkor. While the FOV is 53mm, it has, for me at least, that 35mm impact.
Ed
Gid
Well-known
Ed,
Love the mood of that shot.
How do you find the Tri-Elmar? If I can get my head around F4 - I've already laid out a good argument in an earlier post - that may well be a good option. What about its size/weight? Does it make much difference in practice? I've read enough about its performance to know there are no problems in that department. It would be good to hear your and anyone else's views. Sorry if this is a bit O/T.
Regards
Gid
Love the mood of that shot.
How do you find the Tri-Elmar? If I can get my head around F4 - I've already laid out a good argument in an earlier post - that may well be a good option. What about its size/weight? Does it make much difference in practice? I've read enough about its performance to know there are no problems in that department. It would be good to hear your and anyone else's views. Sorry if this is a bit O/T.
Regards
Gid
Ed Schwartzreic
Well-known
Gid,
It's not tiny like the 35/1.4 old style. It weighs about as much as the old 50/1.4 and is slightly longer. Mine is the 1st version, and I've added the hood from the 24/2.8 Elmarit and one of Lutz's STEERs on the focus control. Unless I'm out in daylight to shoot scenics though, I'd opt for a faster. smaller, more discreet lens. My last major trip (to the arctic and with an M6), I took the Tri-Elmar, a fast 50 or 35 (don't recall which), a 21, a 90 and a 200 / Viso. The majority of the time the Tri-Elmar was on the M6.
Ed
It's not tiny like the 35/1.4 old style. It weighs about as much as the old 50/1.4 and is slightly longer. Mine is the 1st version, and I've added the hood from the 24/2.8 Elmarit and one of Lutz's STEERs on the focus control. Unless I'm out in daylight to shoot scenics though, I'd opt for a faster. smaller, more discreet lens. My last major trip (to the arctic and with an M6), I took the Tri-Elmar, a fast 50 or 35 (don't recall which), a 21, a 90 and a 200 / Viso. The majority of the time the Tri-Elmar was on the M6.
Ed