Gid said:
Congratulations and welcome to the club. I can't help with film types as I always shoot raw with everything on standard and adjust if necessary in post processing. As far as exposure is concerned, the R-D1 can tend to underexpose - in my experience around 2/3 stop, more so in contrasty light - protecting highlights.
As far as 21s are concerned my experience is limited to the Pasoptik (aka Avenon, Kobalux) 21 2.8, which is a lovely lens.
www.dantestella.com has reviews of the Kobalux lenses and he rates the 21 on a par with the Leica. Lots of folk here rate the CV 21 F4.
My lens line up on the R-D1 is 21, 35, 50 and 90 currently. I use the 35 most as I like the 50mm FOV on film, but I've been using the 50 quite a lot recently and enjoy it.
It is a great camera and I'm sure you will enjoy it.
BTW - was that the real colour of that guy's coat in your example image?
And more congratulations!! The Epson is a lovely camera (I use mine side-by-side with a 50's M3, sharing lenses...
🙂 and produces wonderful results (in some ways, even better than my Nikon D80).
I totaly concur with Gid on lens line up (and also other stuff, later!), although I'm waiting for a 75/2.5 Heliar, as I find my 90 a bit too long on the Epson.
I have a Zeiss 21/2.8 Biogon and is a very, very good lens. The only real problem is finding it a bit bulky (ok, and expensive). I'm thinking of buying a 21/4 Skopar to use when travelling "small". I'm used to carry my Summaron 35/3.5 on my M3 and the 21 Skopar looks like could fit the same role. Beware that you really need an external VF for a 21 and that field-of-view is a bit wider than a 35 on film (you'll notice it). I have the 21D finder from CV and it's a treat, although I also bought a 28/35 VF from CV and I'm using it more and more (much smaller, although more of a problem with glasses).
I never tried the 21/4 Skopar but my CV lenses are much (make that very much!) better than I expected, although your mileage may vary, from what I read in the forum (quality control?). My opinion, based on my samples:
1) the Ultron 28/1.9 (I posted a new theread on a Summicron 28/2 ASPH today...) shows more of a veiling flare, on difficult light, than I would like, but results can be very good (especially on B&W). Some people agree with me on this, some are very happy with their Ultrons. I used it on film and digital and flare is more of a problem with digital (maybe the CCD relects more light than film?).
2) I heartly recommend the 35/2.5 Skopar (I have the PII in M-mount but I guess the glass is the same as the screw version). It's small, light and sharp. If I bough it again, I would go for the screw, because of the hood (and being able to use it on older cameras). This lens is one of the reasons why I don't need my 35 'Cron ASPH anymore. The other is below...
🙂
3) I have to say I love my Nokton 50/1.5. I had a new Leica Summicron 50/2 and I sold it (only kept the collapsible for emotional reasons), because I prefer the Nokton. Prints on my Epson R2400 are very beutiful, with a mix of sharpness and delicacy that is almost unbelieveble.
4) I recently bought a new Nokton 35/1.2 (because I really liked the 50/1.5) and it's an addicting lens. Impact is breathtaking (in some ways, even better than my ex 35/2 'Cron ASPH, the one you have), the only problem is bulkiness (I don't mind the weight, but the size is really big - in RF terms. Much smaller than my Sigma 20/1.8 for Nikon, though...
🙂. But it's getting more and more air time on my Epson!
5) last, but not least, the mighty 12/5.6 Wide-Heliar. God. It's a 18 on the Epson but a 12 on my M3. For the price, is a steal. Some vignetting (photoshop!) but otherwise incredible from f/8 down.
Going back to the 21, your choice should be dictated by the use you make of it. If you are a "35/2" person with your M6, the 21/4 is probably too slow for that role. That's why I bought the Biogon and I'm glad I did. The extra stop can be a life-saver and vignetting is not a real problem. And, from what I read, the Biogon is indeed a better lens than the Skopar (it would better be...
🙂. At least for me, I have absolutely nothing to say on image quality about the Biogon, except very good things, on both digital and film. It's expensive, it's bulkier than I would like (it's probably bigger than the Nokton 50/1.5!) and hood/lens cap ergonomics could be better (much better!). But optically and mechanically is probably as good as it gets.
If you are used to the 50mm vision, your 35 on the Epson will be great and the 21 will be there for the change. In that case, I guess the 21/4 will be great.
Regarding film type, I really recommend you to try shooting RAW. First, because vignetting can be an issue with wide-angles and the Epson and Epson RAW deals with it very well (better than CS2, IMHO). Second, because you get a lot more control over your photos. Exposure is one of them (I totaly agree with Gid that the Epson underexposes to protect highlights) but also other things, such as white balance and noise reduction. Third, because you don't have a clue on the detail you are missing from your Epson until you convert a ERF file in CS2 or CaptureOne. I can post a few comparisons but it's really noticeable. ERF files to take a lot of space (over 9Mb each) but they're worth the trouble if you want to really see the full potential of your Epson.
Happy shooting!
