Nokton 50mm f/1.1 on R3A

[dshooter]

Hi everyone,

Newbie question again ...

I just bought a new Nokton 50mm f/1.1 and using it on my R3A body. The lens is blocking about 1/3 of the viewfinder. Will using the external viewfinder help to overcome this? Or is it necessary to have external viewfinder?

Thanks very much.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Now you know the joys of having an ultra fast lens! An external viewfinder adds bulk and requires moving your eye position for every shot.. Learn to extrapolate what will be in your shot.

 

[dshooter]

Thanks ... ah ... so the external viewfinder is only to compose and you cannot do the focusing through it?

Then I won't get it 🙂 ... like you said, I will learn to extrapolate.

And yes ... I love the lens. 🙂

 

[Chiif Ho]

Glad you love the lens.

External finder won't be necessary. After a while, you will get used to it.

Or you can get the LH-7 when it comes out, it's supposed to be vented and you can see through... Alternatively shoot without the hood. 🙂

 

[dshooter]

Thanks Chiif .. 🙂 Glad to see you here too. I will consider not having the hood eventhough it looks cool with the hood actually 🙂

 

[Svitantti]

How is it focusing with such a fast lense on a relatively short base length? I mean is the focus where you tried to get it or often slightly off the target?

Anyone else have experience on this?

 

[kshapero]

How is it focusing with such a fast lense on a relatively short base length? I mean is the focus where you tried to get it or often slightly off the target?

Anyone else have experience on this?

My question, too.

 

[Sparrow]

It’s about as difficult as a 75mm f2.5, so maybe too difficult would you say?

 

[kshapero]

It’s about as difficult as a 75mm f2.5, so maybe too difficult would you say?

I have never had a problem focusing the 75 or a 90 for that matter on a Bessa R3x.

 

[Svitantti]

I would compare 75/1.4 and 50/1.1 rather than 75/2.5. I think 2.5 is no problem with a Bessa.

 

[Toni Nikkanen]

I would compare 75/1.4 and 50/1.1 rather than 75/2.5. I think 2.5 is no problem with a Bessa.

90/2 would be pretty close I think...

 

[Sparrow]

I have never had a problem focusing the 75 or a 90 for that matter on a Bessa R3x.

at 4ft a 50 f1:1 has a dof of 38mm, and a 75 at f1:2.5 is 39mm

 

[issa918]

May i know where i can find these information? Thanks!

 

[Sparrow]

Well from me I suppose, one could check here if I’m not trustworthy 🙂

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

 

[Toni Nikkanen]

at 4ft a 50 f1:1 has a dof of 38mm, and a 75 at f1:2.5 is 39mm

Ah indeed, I would never have guessed focal length is that significant. Also it seems that 90/3.5 is equally hard to focus then.

(Given the same distance of course, one tends to shoot farther away with a longer lens, maybe, but let's not get overly philosophical here.)

 

[hiromu]

at 4ft a 50 f1:1 has a dof of 38mm, and a 75 at f1:2.5 is 39mm

But that's when you shoot at the same distance, right? I mean you will get different magnification of your subject.
If you shoot the same subject with same composition, then you have to step closer with shorter lens to get same magnification, therefore, the DOF gets smaller...

 

[Sparrow]

Ah indeed, I would never have guessed focal length is that significant. Also it seems that 90/3.5 is equally hard to focus then.

(Given the same distance of course, one tends to shoot farther away with a longer lens, maybe, but let's not get overly philosophical here.)

a 85mm f2 Zuiko when compared to a 50 f1.2 prompted me to look into DOF many years ago, I was surprised too

 

[Thardy]

Ah indeed, I would never have guessed focal length is that significant. Also it seems that 90/3.5 is equally hard to focus then.

(Given the same distance of course, one tends to shoot farther away with a longer lens, maybe, but let's not get overly philosophical here.)

Focal length has a huge effect on the dof.

 

[Sparrow]

But that's when you shoot at the same distance, right? I mean you will get different magnification of your subject.
If you shoot the same subject with same composition, then you have to step closer with shorter lens to get same magnification, therefore, the DOF gets smaller...

yes, but i don't think it compensates fully for the focal length, maybe someone has the maths to tell us, anyone?

I use a 105 f2.5 on an slr for head and shoulder portraits and a 50 f2 for a seated figure

PS I had a 180 f2 at one time, now that was character building closer in

 

[ath]

If you stay out of the Macro range the DOF is only affected by aperture and magnification, i.e. same aperture and magnification = same DOF.