Licorice
Member
For a long time I was eager to get an digital RF but failed to do so because of lack of funds.
Last year I was looking eagerly for an Epson R-D1 but could not do it for some reason and now I am hot again
Leica M8.2 is now around $3300 and M8 $2500 I considered them but reminded myself that I should better improve my photography first and R-D1 is more than enough for that purpose. I could later get a Leica maybe.
I will definitely buy a R-D1 since they are now around $1000
I considered starting my Leica lens setup now but again its hard to swallow crazy Leica prices and not having the option to use them on a 8/8.2/9. And I do not want to delve into film again either.
So since I am also looking for a couple of lenses, I ask you to guide me what to get. Here are my thoughts.
Since I am 28-50 mm inclined, sometimes favouring longer focals for portraits, and because I like bokeh and shallow DOF, and hate flash, I chose to buy a new CV 35/1.2 Nokton for its signature, despite its heft. Anyway after using Nikon SLR glass, it should not be that big. I think there will be 10% blocking of viewfinder as well, I believe this won't be much of a nuisance.
Now, my dilemma is what to choose as a second lens. I like 40/1.4 since its perfect with R-D1 from what I gather, tiny, fast, do not vignet. Bokeh is reported to be a bit on the harsher side I think but very good anyway. The downside is that the focal length is very closer to the 35. Therefore I think buying a 50 mm (perfect for portraits at 75 mm effective) where things get complicated.
Which one would you get now?
CV 50/1.5
Zeiss 50/2.0 Planar
Zeiss 50/1.5 Sonnar
Sonnar is faster and planar is reported to be a finer lens even surpassing Smmilux, is it true? And is Sonnar's front focus by design easy to get used to?
CV50/1.5 against Sonnar, which one is more of a signature lens with a character?
Those 50s are not as small as 40/1.4 Nokton which is a shame since the second lens would also be for portability when I do not need 35/1.2 (well I know they are different Focus lengths indeed, but whatever, you get the picture?)
Everything contradicts something. Help me out please!
Thank you
Edit: for my vocabular and grammatical mistakes (which I could spot )
Last year I was looking eagerly for an Epson R-D1 but could not do it for some reason and now I am hot again
Leica M8.2 is now around $3300 and M8 $2500 I considered them but reminded myself that I should better improve my photography first and R-D1 is more than enough for that purpose. I could later get a Leica maybe.
I will definitely buy a R-D1 since they are now around $1000
I considered starting my Leica lens setup now but again its hard to swallow crazy Leica prices and not having the option to use them on a 8/8.2/9. And I do not want to delve into film again either.
So since I am also looking for a couple of lenses, I ask you to guide me what to get. Here are my thoughts.
Since I am 28-50 mm inclined, sometimes favouring longer focals for portraits, and because I like bokeh and shallow DOF, and hate flash, I chose to buy a new CV 35/1.2 Nokton for its signature, despite its heft. Anyway after using Nikon SLR glass, it should not be that big. I think there will be 10% blocking of viewfinder as well, I believe this won't be much of a nuisance.
Now, my dilemma is what to choose as a second lens. I like 40/1.4 since its perfect with R-D1 from what I gather, tiny, fast, do not vignet. Bokeh is reported to be a bit on the harsher side I think but very good anyway. The downside is that the focal length is very closer to the 35. Therefore I think buying a 50 mm (perfect for portraits at 75 mm effective) where things get complicated.
Which one would you get now?
CV 50/1.5
Zeiss 50/2.0 Planar
Zeiss 50/1.5 Sonnar
Sonnar is faster and planar is reported to be a finer lens even surpassing Smmilux, is it true? And is Sonnar's front focus by design easy to get used to?
CV50/1.5 against Sonnar, which one is more of a signature lens with a character?
Those 50s are not as small as 40/1.4 Nokton which is a shame since the second lens would also be for portability when I do not need 35/1.2 (well I know they are different Focus lengths indeed, but whatever, you get the picture?)
Everything contradicts something. Help me out please!
Thank you
Edit: for my vocabular and grammatical mistakes (which I could spot
)
Last edited:
umcelinho
Marcelo
honestly? get a wider one, the 50 might be too close to the 35, you can still make portraits with the 35. i'm a wide angle guy, so take it with a pinch of salt I got myself the 21/2.8 Biogon and it is really good on the R-D1. to frame you just set the viewfinder to 50mm, open both eyes and then consider the 50mm to be que central rectangle of a bigger 9 block rectangle, that gives the exact 32mm field of view. you won't even need an external VF, unless you're picky about this. But it's really great to have a wide lens on the R-D1 and it renders pretty beautifully, so far I'm liking it a lot.
you could get a CV 21/4 and a CV 50/1.5 for the same $, if you don't mind the slower 21 and you really want a fast 50 for portraits. The 50mm Nokton 1.5 can be found for low prices and performs well, no complaints here. that should cover both your additional needs (longer for portraits, 28-35 wider).
I got myself the 21/2.8 Biogon and it is really good on the R-D1. to frame you just set the viewfinder to 50mm, open both eyes and then consider the 50mm to be que central rectangle of a bigger 9 block rectangle, that gives the exact 32mm field of view. you won't even need an external VF, unless you're picky about this. But it's really great to have a wide lens on the R-D1 and it renders pretty beautifully, so far I'm liking it a lot.you could get a CV 21/4 and a CV 50/1.5 for the same $, if you don't mind the slower 21 and you really want a fast 50 for portraits. The 50mm Nokton 1.5 can be found for low prices and performs well, no complaints here. that should cover both your additional needs (longer for portraits, 28-35 wider).
Last edited:
The Meaness
Well-known
For me, 35-50 are a little too close together. That 35/1.2 is a really flexible lens, both with it's FL and max aperture. I'd put the money aside for now, shoot with the 35, and make sure it's a lens you will bond with. You may find it's all you need, or that a second lens will do the trick.
No matter what, after a month or two of shooting with that lens, you'll have a good idea what you're looking for next (if anything).
No matter what, after a month or two of shooting with that lens, you'll have a good idea what you're looking for next (if anything).
kxl
Social Documentary
First, get the CV 35/1.2 ad R-D1s. Shoot that combo for a few months. Figure out what's missing.
When I had my R-D1s, the 35/1.2 pretty much stayed on it for 95% of the time. The other 5% was pretty much experimental or exploratory to see how a certain lens would draw when used with an R-D1s.
When I had my R-D1s, the 35/1.2 pretty much stayed on it for 95% of the time. The other 5% was pretty much experimental or exploratory to see how a certain lens would draw when used with an R-D1s.
Licorice
Member
umcelinho, thank you for interesting recommendation (biogon 21), however I feel The Meanes' and kxl's advice to get used to r-d1 with one lens for a while is very sound for my case.
My rangefinder experience consists of use of a Yashica Electro 35 G, with its fixed 50 mm and I remember the joy even after many years. I sold my Nikon D90 a couple of months ago when it downed on me that I can not manage a hefty DSLR (even though D90 is considered a smallish DSLR). Shooting like a machine gun and having no time to tweak what I shot for many weeks is a big let down as well.
Even though 35/1.2 is a big lens it would still be a refreshment after a DSLR.
And I should get used to RF first of all. Considering a 50 Sonnar with its quirks of focus compensation at this stage? What were I thinking?
I just can't help my desire for lenses with a character, with a soul, I can be very happy with a soft rendering lens more than a sharper one provided it has a character. I should consider getting a Zeiss Ikon and shoot film maybe. There is one available (used) for 1100 bucks near where I live. But again I need private time with R-D1+35/1.2 for some months probably.
I also considered an M8.2 available LN at around USD 3200 but maybe I should save up for lenses and an M9 for later (well
maybe when there is an M11 around)
Thank you for your suggestions. And by the way, months ago I had seen somewhere on the net a shoot-out of 50 mm M lenses including 50 lux, 50 planar, an 50 canon, 50 nokton and a couple more. It was a good comparison review, does anybody happen to know where it was?
My rangefinder experience consists of use of a Yashica Electro 35 G, with its fixed 50 mm and I remember the joy even after many years. I sold my Nikon D90 a couple of months ago when it downed on me that I can not manage a hefty DSLR (even though D90 is considered a smallish DSLR). Shooting like a machine gun and having no time to tweak what I shot for many weeks is a big let down as well.
Even though 35/1.2 is a big lens it would still be a refreshment after a DSLR.
And I should get used to RF first of all. Considering a 50 Sonnar with its quirks of focus compensation at this stage? What were I thinking?
I just can't help my desire for lenses with a character, with a soul, I can be very happy with a soft rendering lens more than a sharper one provided it has a character. I should consider getting a Zeiss Ikon and shoot film maybe. There is one available (used) for 1100 bucks near where I live. But again I need private time with R-D1+35/1.2 for some months probably.
I also considered an M8.2 available LN at around USD 3200 but maybe I should save up for lenses and an M9 for later (well
maybe when there is an M11 around
)Thank you for your suggestions. And by the way, months ago I had seen somewhere on the net a shoot-out of 50 mm M lenses including 50 lux, 50 planar, an 50 canon, 50 nokton and a couple more. It was a good comparison review, does anybody happen to know where it was?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
kxl is right. After a while with the 35 you'll have a MUCH better idea of what else to buy. A 35 with that crop is a lovely portrait lens; personally, I'd be looking at 25/24, 21, 18 or even 15 as a second lens. But not until I'd explored the limitations of the 35, and besides, your style and mine probably differ, and you might like a 75.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
Licorice
Member
In some way, I like short teles for capturing more intimate moments at a distance. However FOV characteristics aside, having a tele and backing up to compose a frame is less practical to have a wider lens and come closer. I am mor einclined to wider lenses as you do, while being very comfortable with true 35-50 mm FOV. That CV 35/1.2 seems to be unique so I hope I will bear with its size happily.
Tom Diaz
Well-known
I agree with The Meaness and KXL. Try the 35 for a while with the RD-1s and then decide.
I like things on the wide-to-normal end, which limited my choices on the wider end with a camera like we're talking about (I used to use an M8). The CV 21mm is a fine lens although not fast--which is the problem: where are you going to find a lens that is both wide and fast without spending a fortune? The 28/2 Ultron is probably a nice lens, but when I was shooting an M8 I found that I wanted a wider lens, like a 21. On a full-frame camera 28mm is usually as wide as I want or need.
If you would like a short tele type lens (e.g., a 50mm), CV has some nice ones that can be moderately inexpensive to truly inexpensive.
The 50mm f/2.5 is very small and portable and cheap.
The 50mm f/1.5 is fast and has "character." The one I have (in the Nikon RF mount) has very nice contrast and decent resolution. (It's not a Summilux, but it is quite a bargain.) As you may know from Cameraquest's site, this lens has been discontinued, but they still have some on the shelves. (If I were you I would risk using your equipment for a few weeks before deciding, though, betting that they'll still have one if you want one.)
For more money and less of a bargain, you might like the CV 50mm Heliar lenses. The 50mm f/3.5 is very sharp for a 5-element lens and is very compact when collapsed. The 50mm f/2 I found less sharp and less compact. They both have "character" in the form of good bokeh (and not-ultra-high resolution in the case of the f//2) and make good portrait lenses.
For even less of a bargain but huge sex appeal there's that new CV 50mm 1.1 Nokton for $1000. I am lucky to already own a Noctilux or else I would totally have to have one of those.
I also have a cool CV Apo-Lanthar for my Nikon RF, and they make a similar one for the Leica mount. Very nice lens for the money. However, 85mm or 90mm may be longer than you want on an RD-1. I do not use this one as much because of my preference for shorter lenses, but it is a very nice lens.
I like things on the wide-to-normal end, which limited my choices on the wider end with a camera like we're talking about (I used to use an M8). The CV 21mm is a fine lens although not fast--which is the problem: where are you going to find a lens that is both wide and fast without spending a fortune? The 28/2 Ultron is probably a nice lens, but when I was shooting an M8 I found that I wanted a wider lens, like a 21. On a full-frame camera 28mm is usually as wide as I want or need.
If you would like a short tele type lens (e.g., a 50mm), CV has some nice ones that can be moderately inexpensive to truly inexpensive.
The 50mm f/2.5 is very small and portable and cheap.
The 50mm f/1.5 is fast and has "character." The one I have (in the Nikon RF mount) has very nice contrast and decent resolution. (It's not a Summilux, but it is quite a bargain.) As you may know from Cameraquest's site, this lens has been discontinued, but they still have some on the shelves. (If I were you I would risk using your equipment for a few weeks before deciding, though, betting that they'll still have one if you want one.)
For more money and less of a bargain, you might like the CV 50mm Heliar lenses. The 50mm f/3.5 is very sharp for a 5-element lens and is very compact when collapsed. The 50mm f/2 I found less sharp and less compact. They both have "character" in the form of good bokeh (and not-ultra-high resolution in the case of the f//2) and make good portrait lenses.
For even less of a bargain but huge sex appeal there's that new CV 50mm 1.1 Nokton for $1000. I am lucky to already own a Noctilux or else I would totally have to have one of those.
I also have a cool CV Apo-Lanthar for my Nikon RF, and they make a similar one for the Leica mount. Very nice lens for the money. However, 85mm or 90mm may be longer than you want on an RD-1. I do not use this one as much because of my preference for shorter lenses, but it is a very nice lens.
Licorice
Member
Thank you. Learning more about lenses is a big fun, albeit using one sometimes may disappoint since eveyone of us has different tastes. My main motives going for a RF is first I believe a "slower", more mindful of the scene than the finnicky controls is more productive for improving skills, and also more enjoyable. Being at the moment, being conscious, like yoga and then I favour filmlike tonalities which is rendered very good with a R-D1 I gather. That's why also lenses appeal to me. I like razor sharp lenses with excellent bokeh and not the less lenses like Zeiss 50 Sonnar. I would like to find out more about such lenses. Albeit some has a hefty tag, some other happens to be a bargain.
and then I favour filmlike tonalities which is rendered very good with a R-D1 I gather. That's why also lenses appeal to me. I like razor sharp lenses with excellent bokeh and not the less lenses like Zeiss 50 Sonnar. I would like to find out more about such lenses. Albeit some has a hefty tag, some other happens to be a bargain.morgan
Well-known
I agree with the others; play with it for awhile and see what you're missing. I shoot the 35/1.2 95% percent of the time on the R-D1. I rarely use the 50's I have, I just can't find the use on the R-D1. I do use my 15mm when I travel, and I'm thinking of adding a 21 or 24, or something in that range. Of the 50's you're considering, I like the sonnar the best. It has such character. I shot a friend's for a few days and fell in love with it on my bessa r2a, but I'm reluctant to buy one given that I don't usually like 50s on the R-D1, which is what I primarily shoot.
back alley
IMAGES
whenever you decide to get a second lens...i agree that the 15 from cv is one to take a hard look at. it has the fov of a 21 (or so) on the rd1, can be used as a point & shoot, by hyper focal 'focussing' and helps to make some wonderful images.
swoop
Well-known
If I had an R-D1 I'd say a 21mm was mandatory.
umcelinho
Marcelo
well, I do agree with the others. getting more than 1 lens right away is not really necessary. Stick with the 35/1.2, get to used to it and then make a move if you feel the need for it. The 50mm equivalent field of view is the most versatile there is, I leave my 35/1.4 Nokton mounted on my R-D1 pretty much all the time.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
No doubt with the 35 on an R-D1 you'll be missing the whole wide spectrum... Another vote for the 15... It can be your usual wide on the R-D1 and your ultrawide for film...
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan
porktaco
Well-known
the cv 50/1.5 is an amazing companion to your rd-1
buckpago
Established
there is no second lens for the 35mm f1.2
that all you need and shoot
that all you need and shoot
nakedcellist
Established
I have a CV Nokton 35/1.4 and 50/1.4. I used them both on the R-D1, until after a while the 35 was the one I used the most. The 50 is nice, but it is also big.
Licorice
Member
Experienced users, how much of the R-D1's viewfinder is blocked by CV35/1.2 ?
Is it to the degree of being a nuisance. I guess not but I wonder how much anyway?
Is it to the degree of being a nuisance. I guess not but I wonder how much anyway?
LCT
ex-newbie
Depends if you prefer wides or teles. I would take a 28 or a 50 personally (preferably both) but it's just me.
Last edited:
ampguy
Veteran
I agree with others that 35 and 50 can be kind of close for a 2 lens outing. Consider a 75 maybe, or a 15/21 or 28 if you go with the 50 and want wide.