FrankS
Registered User
The cv50f2.5 weighs at about twice as much as the cv25 lens, Joe. That must mean it has twice the focal length. 
back alley
IMAGES
twice the weight...must be a better quality lens, eh?
the 28/3.5 is heavier also than it's siblings but still small and easy to handle.
i just emailed stephen asking about the 50.
joe
the 28/3.5 is heavier also than it's siblings but still small and easy to handle.
i just emailed stephen asking about the 50.
joe
back alley
IMAGES
bit the bullet
bit the bullet
i just sent stephen a money order for a new 50/2.5 lens.
with this lens the kit is complete...although i do have that 75mm finder and no 75mm lens...
joe
bit the bullet
i just sent stephen a money order for a new 50/2.5 lens.
with this lens the kit is complete...although i do have that 75mm finder and no 75mm lens...
joe
jamesj
Well-known
i need to save some monies fast....or sell some records
back alley
IMAGES
anyone know if the 50/2.5 is as contrasty as the 35/2.5?
joe
joe
vrgard
Well-known
jamesj said:
Sell some records?!? Don't do it!!!!
(actually, it's nice to know that I'm not the only one around here that's obsessed with vinyl records)
-Randy
P.S. And no, I didn't forget about you Wes. I know your obsession equals if not exceeds my own!
T
tedwhite
Guest
Joe:
Weren't you the one who sold me my Canon 50/1.8? It's a great lens and very small. Why would you want a slower lens?
(just curious).
Ted (just realized it's on the Bessa R in my Avatar)
Weren't you the one who sold me my Canon 50/1.8? It's a great lens and very small. Why would you want a slower lens?
(just curious).
Ted (just realized it's on the Bessa R in my Avatar)
amateriat
We're all light!
So, other than (maybe) a 75, this means that you're...(pregnant pause)...done?back alley said:i just sent stephen a money order for a new 50/2.5 lens.
with this lens the kit is complete...although i do have that 75mm finder and no 75mm lens...
joe
- Barrett
back alley
IMAGES
ted, i don't think that was me as i had mostly if not all chrome lenses.
barrett, you must be thinking of frank
though i have to admit that with this 50 i can't think of what i might want next. in fact i was wondering if i should sell the 40 rokkor.
joe
barrett, you must be thinking of frank
though i have to admit that with this 50 i can't think of what i might want next. in fact i was wondering if i should sell the 40 rokkor.
joe
T
tedwhite
Guest
My bad. I bought the Canon 50/1.8 from Frank S., not you.
Anyway, I still wonder why you would want a slow 50 when there are so many very good fast ones out there just begging for some love.
Anyway, I still wonder why you would want a slow 50 when there are so many very good fast ones out there just begging for some love.
back alley
IMAGES
the plan is small for the r4m.
all cv and all of the small versions of the lenses for minimal weight, no intrusions into the finder at all.
speed is nice but not essential for my shooting preferences. i mostly shoot during the day and outside. i use 100 and 400 speed film depending on the light. i rarely shoot wide open or look for those in focus subjects with oof backgrounds so a slower lens is not needed.
i remember when using the mamiya 6 all 3 lenses were much slower than their 35 counterparts.
all cv and all of the small versions of the lenses for minimal weight, no intrusions into the finder at all.
speed is nice but not essential for my shooting preferences. i mostly shoot during the day and outside. i use 100 and 400 speed film depending on the light. i rarely shoot wide open or look for those in focus subjects with oof backgrounds so a slower lens is not needed.
i remember when using the mamiya 6 all 3 lenses were much slower than their 35 counterparts.
amateriat
We're all light!
Joe: I was thinking of both of you...and me, and Dog knows how many others here.
And I've been intrugued by the R4. Much as i've been a-pining (largely in vain) for a CLE at less-than-extortionate prices (a few went on the 'Bay at relatively sane prices lately, but I was asleep at the switch, so to speak). R4s aren't cheap, of course, but they are new, with warranty, etc., and with That One Ability no other RF on the planet has. And, since it has an electronic shutter, it's likely quieter than those noisier, earlier Rs.
Sigh...you see where this is going....
- Barrett
And I've been intrugued by the R4. Much as i've been a-pining (largely in vain) for a CLE at less-than-extortionate prices (a few went on the 'Bay at relatively sane prices lately, but I was asleep at the switch, so to speak). R4s aren't cheap, of course, but they are new, with warranty, etc., and with That One Ability no other RF on the planet has. And, since it has an electronic shutter, it's likely quieter than those noisier, earlier Rs.
Sigh...you see where this is going....
- Barrett
T
tedwhite
Guest
Joe:
Thanks for the explanation. Now I understand. As I think of it, I've used the Color Skopar 35/2.5 on my Bessa R almost exclusively, and in a wide variety of lighting situations, bars (Neopan 1600), FP4 or Tmax 100 for normal outdoor stuff, and TriX (my film of choice) for everything else.
I have used the Canon 50/1.8 on occasion (I'm not particularly inclined to use this focal length) but have yet to find a situation where I needed to use it wide open, but then I haven't gone into dimly lit dens of iniquity with it, either.
Ted
Thanks for the explanation. Now I understand. As I think of it, I've used the Color Skopar 35/2.5 on my Bessa R almost exclusively, and in a wide variety of lighting situations, bars (Neopan 1600), FP4 or Tmax 100 for normal outdoor stuff, and TriX (my film of choice) for everything else.
I have used the Canon 50/1.8 on occasion (I'm not particularly inclined to use this focal length) but have yet to find a situation where I needed to use it wide open, but then I haven't gone into dimly lit dens of iniquity with it, either.
Ted
Ronald M
Veteran
E-mail mark at Marktheken@yahoo.com. he had a new one for sale
back alley
IMAGES
amateriat said:Joe: I was thinking of both of you...and me, and Dog knows how many others here.
And I've been intrugued by the R4. Much as i've been a-pining (largely in vain) for a CLE at less-than-extortionate prices (a few went on the 'Bay at relatively sane prices lately, but I was asleep at the switch, so to speak). R4s aren't cheap, of course, but they are new, with warranty, etc., and with That One Ability no other RF on the planet has. And, since it has an electronic shutter, it's likely quieter than those noisier, earlier Rs.
Sigh...you see where this is going....
- Barrett
i think i do see...
it really is a very nice camera and if you got an r4a you would have ae like the cle. i don't regret getting the r4m but being the lazy sod that i am i do miss the ae.
joe
amateriat
We're all light!
Joe: If I got one, it would have to be the R4a. I want the (potentially) quieter shutter, in addition to the AE function as I'm used to with my Hexars. It's enough that I'm going to have to remember to manually set the framelines for each lens-change...
- Barrett
- Barrett
back alley
IMAGES
i think i shot a roll with a 35mm lens and the 28mm framelines...doh!!
amateriat
We're all light!
Well, since I'd likely use an R4a mostly with something like a 21mm lens, the frameline-switching thing wouldn't be that bad...but I'm merely speculating at the moment. Someone could hit me over the head with a $300 CLE tomorrow morning...
- Barrett
- Barrett
T
tedwhite
Guest
I recently borrowed a friend's 28mm Ultron and put it on my Bessa R, using the 35mm framelines. Seemed to work OK. I just figured I'd be getting a bit more than the framelines indicated. And I did, but not all that much more. I could live with that combo.
Ted
Ted