RD-1 travelling/walkaround lenses?

thanks for the replies guys... varied lens choice, as to be expected... but most not going past the 50mm mark... lots of 28's and 35's though. Hmmm... I really like the ZM 25 biogon, but that's about a year away for me to save up for it. Thinking maybe to go mwooten's route, a 28 and 40... but then, a 28 is too close to the 25, which I will one day get! haha...

@johnmcd: looove the landscape/fisherman shot! The CV21 shots look great!

What about CV25 insteada the 25 biogon? I lose a stop, but do I really need the missing stop? Since for lowlight, I'm thinking the 50/1.5 summarit (is this good? About the only Leitz lens I could possibly afford haha)
 
You can find some very high quality 25mm Canon lenses on "that auction site" for not too much. A sample which is optically good but with some cosmetic barrel markings from use should run under $500 with finder.
 
back alley said:
think about the panasonic g1 with kit lens. great for travel - small, light and sharp.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've thought about the G1, but the LX-3 has the nice wide 2.0-2.8 lens, and it's a small camera. I feel if I got a whole new mount, that I'm just going to down the lens hole again. OTOH, I'm really intrigued to see if olympus brings to market that vintagey looking micro 4/3 that was making the rounds a few months back.
 
Just don't let yourself be fooled into thinking the f/2.0 lens on the Leica / Panasonic means it'll do shallow DOF effects at anything other than minimum focus distance - I've got that as a travel combo with my RD-1s, and there's simply no comparison visually in that way.

The D-Lux - like all small cameras, I would argue, is designed to please the majority of consumers, using the small sensor to create more apparent depth of field in each & every image, thus ensuring that groups of friends are all sharp when they cram together in front of you at parties. It's not a tool for selective focus / portrait work.

That said, the D-Lux 4 / LX3 has much lower-contrast files, so it sometimes has the advantage for that reason in the industrial-laser-cutting-strength New Zealand sun, where the Epson's dynamic range limitations are most obvious. Up to you what's important for your particular taste in images...
R!
 
What do you guys think, if I get a 25/40/75 travel combo with the rd-1? Is the 75 to hard to use on the rd-1? Should I go for 21 instead of 25?

BTW: for wider and longer needs, I have a DSLR for that. I am thinking of a minimalist setup for the RD-1.
 
I like the 40mm FL in my DSLR (same crop) so I chose the 40 as my base FL (I have a 50 and 35 with my DSLR, but the 40 is my preferred "digital normal"). I also have a 28mm and I like the view I get with it on a 1.5x cropped sensor, however, given the prices of RF lenses, I cannot justify getting a 28mm when its FL is so close to a 40mm... so I'm thinking 25 or 21...
 
hmm... problem is, where I am, there are no stores where I can test the lenses first. all have to be bought online. oh well... will try out my initial plan of 21 or 25/40/75... thanks backalley! 🙂
 
Catto said:
Just don't let yourself be fooled into thinking the f/2.0 lens on the Leica / Panasonic means it'll do shallow DOF effects at anything other than minimum focus distance - I've got that as a travel combo with my RD-1s, and there's simply no comparison visually in that way.

The D-Lux - like all small cameras, I would argue, is designed to please the majority of consumers, using the small sensor to create more apparent depth of field in each & every image, thus ensuring that groups of friends are all sharp when they cram together in front of you at parties. It's not a tool for selective focus / portrait work.

That said, the D-Lux 4 / LX3 has much lower-contrast files, so it sometimes has the advantage for that reason in the industrial-laser-cutting-strength New Zealand sun, where the Epson's dynamic range limitations are most obvious. Up to you what's important for your particular taste in images...
R!
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know I won't get a shallow DOF on PS or even a 4/3rd. The idea of switching to something like the lx-3 is more about just enjoying my traveling more with a smaller camera with some zoom flexibility. I don't expect it to be the same as my film cameras or the r-d1, but I have a tendency to bring along too much gear on trips and this would simplify the situation. On my last few trips I've found myself shooting less anyway, but I wouldn't want to be without a camera.
 
"What do you guys think, if I get a 25/40/75 travel combo with the rd-1? Is the 75 to hard to use on the rd-1? Should I go for 21 instead of 25?

BTW: for wider and longer needs, I have a DSLR for that. I am thinking of a minimalist setup for the RD-1."


I think that if you're going "minimalist" then just one lens would be what you're looking for. Either a good 28mm like the M Rokkor or a good 35mm f/2. All three lenses isn't really minimalist as it's a pretty complete kit.

Regarding the longer than 50mm on the R-D1, I love it. My favorite lens ever is my 10.5cm f/2.5 Nikkor in LTM and it's amazing on the R-D1. Yeah, about a 150mm FOV but guesstimating the frame area isn't too hard. I usually just add the height of a focusing patch above and below the real one as well as the width on either side. It gives a decent approximation and using the camera's VF you can more accurately account for parallax error with the moving framelines. That said, I'm probably going to have small framelines for a 90mm or 105mm added to the 28mm mask in the near future.
 
My current traveling setup consists of: cv 21/4 & cv 35/1.4

Small, light, mix of wide and fast. Carrying lenses larger than these is not ideal. cv 35/1.2 is great - but not for traveling. They also have the added bonus of not being noticeable, super expensive or hard to replace. I wouldn't go longer than 40mm, mainly due to the fact you're carrying DSLR.

If you're carrying one lens, I second it being a 28mm. There are more than a few good ones out there, mine being a cv 28/1.9.

On another note, I was wondering what is meant by "traveling". If you're going from hotel to tour bus to guided tour to prepaid dinner - you could get away with bring all your gear with little worry of weight or safety. On the other hand, if you're walking through rougher places unguided with one or less traveling companions and your worries extend past your gear to where you're sleeping tonight and carrying all your belongings x number of miles - then you might want to look at the lightest possible setup that fulfills your photography needs. Just a thought.

matt.
 
Travelling meaning the latter part of what you said... rough parts where concern for gear safety and weight is a factor... your setup looks a good idea... i'm thinking maybe 21 and 40/1.4... a mix of wide and fast too...hmmm... thanks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Epson RD-1 support in DxO Photolab [tutorial]
Replies
0
Views
510
prmortimer
P
D
Sigma lenses on a Leica CL
2
Replies
20
Views
3K
rhl-oregon
rhl-oregon
D
New year resolutions (photo-centered) for 2025
2 3
Replies
41
Views
2K
JohnGellings
J
A
What would you do if you had to start again? - inspired by Harry the K
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
2K
boojum
boojum
J
35mm Still-Picture Photography: It began with scale focusing cameras! Back To Basics. Part 1, From the first to half-frame 35s of then and now.
Replies
10
Views
464
Jason Schneider
J
Back
Top Bottom