let's talk about focal lengths and seeing...

[back alley]

ok, strange things going on in my head...

in 35mm, using film, my favourite focal length is 35mm.

translated into rd1 speak one would assume that a 21, which = about a 32mm fov would be my preference.
and it is close...

but i seem to enjoy using a 28mm instead, which = about a 43mm fov.

i cannot understand or explain why.

 

[payasam]

Ever use a 40mm lens on a full frame 35mm camera, Joe? Like Leica CL and Bessa R3?

 

[back alley]

i used the rokkor 40 on the cle, yes, and i did enjoy that too.
come to think of it, i had the cv 40/1.4 as well.

 

[Al Kaplan]

You see how you see. Each of us is different. Some people are most comfortable shooting in the 85 to 105 range, others prefer something in the 28 to 35mm range. For many years a 50mm was the only lens available with really high speed, otherwise I doubt that many people would choose one except as a compromise. I thought that I'd found heaven back in the late sixties when I got a 19mm Canon. Now I hardly shoot with anything but a 15mm Heliar. The odd thing is that I've shot two record album covers with a 400mm. Sometimes you have to use what you have to use.

http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com

 

[Leikon68]

I' m not very usual with this camera, I' m being discovering it ( and liking it ) , but it seems that the recorded file with an 28mm corresponds to the external frame of the wiewfinder. In this case the system works approximately like an DSLR.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Sandbags are a fantastic tripod substitute as long as you don't need great height. Most people seem to try to get by with the lightest tripod they can find when the biggest heaviest one will be the best and most effective. For 35mm get one rated for 6x6cm (120 film). For a Hasselblad get one designed for 4x5. Hang your camera bag from the tripod. The extra weight makes for a much steadier tripod. A gallon sized jug can be filled with water on location but transported there while empty. A gallon of water weighs close to eight pounds.

Use the center post only for fine adjustments. Extend the heaviest sections of the tripod first. Save the skinny ones for when you really, really need the height. I prefer metal to carbon fiber. It's cheaper and heavier.

The little Leitz table top tripod (do they still make them?) is very useful when on location. You can press the legs against a wall or tree trunk, or hold your rig upside down pressing it up against the ceiling, nice steady low angle shots by just sitting it on the floor. Don't scrimp on your ball head either. The expensive ones are worth the expense. They don't "creep".

A good big tripod is a better investment than an aspherical lens.

 

[LCT]

...i seem to enjoy using a 28mm instead, which = about a 43mm fov. i cannot understand or explain why.

Same for me. Must be due to DoF i guess. The focal length does not change despite the crop factor so with a 21mm lens, DoF is way wider than that of a 35 on a 24x36 camera. Too wide for a 35 actually so the best compromise is 28mm. Same with 50mm lenses. It was my favorite focal length with film and now i prefer the 40 over the 35 on the R-D1.

 

[back alley]

Same for me. Must be due to DoF i guess. The focal length does not change despite the crop factor so with a 21mm lens, DoF is way wider than that of a 35 on a 24x36 camera. Too wide for a 35 actually so the best compromise is 28mm. Same with 50mm lenses. It was my favorite focal length with film and now i prefer the 40 over the 35 on the R-D1.

i am not alone!

 

[ferdinandshen]

Ditto here. I found my Elmarit v3 has been used in place of Summicron 35 v4. I also found the 28mm frameline in VF looks pretty different from the real outcome -- not only the area covered, but the perspective is altered too. I welcomed the change. So I sold my CV 25/4 with no hesitation at all.

ok, strange things going on in my head...

in 35mm, using film, my favourite focal length is 35mm.

translated into rd1 speak one would assume that a 21, which = about a 32mm fov would be my preference.
and it is close...

but i seem to enjoy using a 28mm instead, which = about a 43mm fov.

i cannot understand or explain why.

 

[Jeff S]

Not strange to me at all. For 20+ years I shot film M's with various iterations of 4 lenses...28, 35, 50 and 75. I recently took the digital leap to an M8.2 and guess what...my 4 lenses work just fine, with no major shift in usage. And, I don't lust for anything wider. The focal lengths didn't change, so I guess I did.

Jeff

 

[Ronchnam]

about focal lenths

about focal lenths

Hi,
about dof try this : http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

About focal lenths :summicron 40 just fit the 35 frame on my R-D1 and the Rokkor 28 fit my 35 CV external viewfinder.

 

[kermaier]

Probably due to the exaggerated perspective of the 21mm as compared to the 28mm. Degree of center cropping aside, a 21mm is still a super-wide in the way it maps the 3D subject onto the 2D sensor plane. The 28mm is less extreme in perspectvie effects.
::Ari

 

[morgan]

I've been using mostly a 35/1.7 as my walkaround street lens with the R-D1, basically a 50mm. On 35mm, I split my time between the 35 and a 50mm. Lately, I just haven't been happy with my R-D1 walk around shots. I'm starting to feel like a 50mm EFL is too in-between or something. It could also be my environment, which I'm not feel super inspired by lately. I've been thinking about trying a 21 or 28, something that would force me to change how I think about shots. I like the 28mm perspective on 35mm, so maybe the 21 would be a better bet. The 28 on the RD1 might end up being too close to what I've got now. Plus I'm heading to tokyo in july, I think a really wide angle could be fun...

 

[back alley]

for some reason, the 28 seems a 'best fit' for me on the rd1.

i like the 21 as well and that would make sense as i like a 35 on the zi...but the 28 just feels right. i remember liking the 40 on the cle also so maybe there is something to the 43mm is the 'normal' lens for a 35 film camera.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Maybe normal for you. We all have our unique view of "reality", for want of a better word.

 

[back alley]

i never said normal for me al.

it says...maybe there is something to the 43mm is the 'normal' lens for a 35 film camera.

 

[kermaier]

I like the 28mm perspective on 35mm, so maybe the 21 would be a better bet. The 28 on the RD1 might end up being too close to what I've got now. Plus I'm heading to tokyo in july, I think a really wide angle could be fun...

Maybe get a 25mm and a 15mm? The 25mm becomes a 37mm on the R-D1, but doesn't give as dramatic a perspective effect as the 21mm. Also, you can frame using the whole viewfinder area on the R-D1 and do without an external finder. If you want a super-wide for Tokyo scenes, the 15mm will be very nice on the R-D1 at a 22mm efective FoV.

::Ari

 

[back alley]

i wonder if i ditched the 21 and the 28 if a 25 might be a good substitute for the other 2?

 

[morgan]

Maybe get a 25mm and a 15mm? The 25mm becomes a 37mm on the R-D1, but doesn't give as dramatic a perspective effect as the 21mm. Also, you can frame using the whole viewfinder area on the R-D1 and do without an external finder. If you want a super-wide for Tokyo scenes, the 15mm will be very nice on the R-D1 at a 22mm efective FoV.

::Ari

Yeah, the 25 is on the radar as well, but I don't know if the 37mm perspective will be dramatic enough for what i want it for. My 15mm is on the way back from repair as we speak, so once it returns I'll have to put it through it's paces on the R-D1. I love it on film. If the 15mm works well enough as an extreme wide angle, maybe I'll put the dough towards something else (I've been wanting an LX3 as well).

On the 21, I thought if I bought the old LTM 21mm though, I could use the included finder for the 15mm when mounted on the R-D1. I get kind of a twofer buying that one.

And furthermore, back on topic, I walked around with a 50mm on R-D1 yesterday and with the magnification I found it a little difficult to focus rapidly. It reminds me of shooting with the 90mm framelines on the R2A, just such a small area.