RD-1 travelling/walkaround lenses?

Your lens selection will depend on what you intend to do. For indoor shots, I tend to use CV 50/1.5 or for closeups I use Summicron 90/2. I really like the pictures from the 90 for closeup. I also use 28/2.8 Konika for indoor when I need the coverage.
For outdoor and landscape, I tend to use Canon 25 or the 28. I also have a CV 40 and Xenagone 35, but I don't use them as often. I have been thinking about getting a CV 15.

Hope this helps. Good luck.
 
I'm hankering for the Canon 50/1.2, seeing images taken with it sold me to the lens... however, I have no idea yet where to get a good used copy for a good price. In the meantime, I'm still thinking of a 40 and a 21 or 25... the reason for the "or" is I'm planning to get a CV15 in the future and for me, 15-25 makes more sense than 15-21...
 
thinkfloyd said:
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)
Click to expand...

I bought the CV 25/4 because it's the shortest focal I can use in my Epson and still use the internal VF (and I can use it on the M8 with framelines and all :)). The lens is very sharp but I prefer the rendering of any of my fast 28s (the Leica 28/2 Summicron Asph, the old CV 29/1.8 and the new CV 28/2). The CV has higher contrast and in harsh light (bright sunny day and big contrast on the scene) it can "stress" the Epson sensor a bit. All my 28s have lower contrast (the CV 28/1.9 has really low contrast) and I get more "flexible" files from them.

Moreover, the 25 has noticeable fall-off on the Epson (is better on the M8, even without coding) and the difference between f2 and f4, in low light, may be the difference between 400 ISO (fantastic on the Epson) and 1600 (borderline too grainy) . And 28 to 25 is not such a big difference, especially when compared to a 21, a 15 and a 12.

After a few days of wonder on how such an inexpensive and small lens can be this sharp, I confess it has been gathering some dust: I tend to use either a 28/2 or the 21/2.8 when I really need to go wider.

So, it could be a better option to buy a 28 and later a 21 (or vice-versa, depending on your priorities) or go even wider. Finally, if you go for a 25, I would consider the Biogon, if you can afford it: judging from my 21/2.8 Biogon, I would spend the extra money over the CV 25/4, if that's an option. It's not only the extra stop, the Biogon is better, overall, than the CV 25.

Anyway, the CV 25/4 is small, light, cheap and very sharp.

BTW, even reckoning that the Summarit is a very good lens, I would consider the CV 50/1.5 Nokton. I was probably lucky with my sample but it's a wonderful lens and very inexpensive. Maybe there is some sample variation, but a good copy of a 50/1.5 Nokton is probably one of the best bargains one can get.

Now, on the subject of the thread... :)

I concur with the 28/50 combo for a two lens set. Usually, my 28/2 Summicron sits on my M8 and the 28/2 Ultron is on the Epson. The CV 50/1.5 jumps from one to the other... :)

When I take only one lens, it's going to be either the 35/1.2 Nokton (when light is very tight) or the (excellent) UC-Hexanon. Like many Epson users, I tend to use the 28 frame for my 35s.

If there is room for three lenses, I'll take the 28/50 and add a wider (usually the 21/2.8 Biogon, or the 12/5.6 when I need something extreme) or longer (the 75/2.5 Heliar has put to rest all my 90s on digital) lens, depending on what I'm doing.

I sometimes even spoil myself and take the 12/21/28/50/75, if it's going to be a long trip. Nevertheless, it's rare to carry more than three lenses and most of the time I'll be switching between the 28 and the 50, with the 21 (or the 12) coming out for some special shot or the 75 for a tight portrait (beware, though, that the 75/2.5 can be TOO sharp for portrais, unless all your female models have perfet skin... :)).

Cheers,
jvr
 
thanks jvr: I've got a 40/2 rokkor with me now, and thinking to add a 75 heliar (for tight shots and close-ups) and a 25/4. But I'm really considering saving a little more to get the biogon version...

I'm thinking of getting a 28/2 (or 28/1.9) for flexibility though... but since you said the 25 and 28 is pretty close, I'm wondering, should I just go for the 28? Though the 25 is a better lens, it is faster...
 
Don't forget the M Rokkor 28mm. It's without a peer at that size and price. A very clean M Rokkor 28 would run just a bit more than a new CV 28 and half of what a beater Leica 28 would cost. The Minolta is a fantastic lens as well.
There's talk of a Summarit out there but this lens lately might only be relegated to portrait duty since the coatings are soft and they are commonly encountered in less than great shape. That said, don't knock the Canon 50mm f/1.4. It's hands down better than the 1.2 and not a collector's item like the faster lens. It is an updated Summarit with better coatings and the benefit of more R&D for better correction. The cost of the Canon lenses is nice too.
If you've already got a 40mm, then forgo the 28mm and go straight for the 21 for a decent wide. When my 21mm ZM arrives I'm expecting that I will only be carrying around two lenses with the R-D1 after that. The 21 and one of my 50mm lenses.

I think the biggest downfall of the R-D1 is the finder. I love the 1:1 but only for use with my 35mm lenses. Coming from shooting with an M4, I wish Epson put in a .72x finder at the very least so we could use our 21mm and 25mm lenses without aux finders or guesstimation.

**crosses fingers for .68x finder in R-D2**

Don't give yourself too many choices in lenses though, that gives one the opportunity to think too much, change lenses and miss the shots.
Phil Forrest
 
@phil: the canon 50/1.4 is better than the 1.2? really? hmmm, that's great to hear since it's much cheaper (by a hundred or two)... bokeh-wise?

as for the 21, i'm thinking of not going past (or beyond?) 25, because of the viewfinder issue, though I'd rather go the 21mm route. I really want to avoid using auxiliary finders...

aren't there .72 or .68x finders from other cameras that might work (at least via DIY) with the RD-1? hmmm... might as well take a shot at researching, just in case :)
 
The 50mm f/1.2 looks great as a portrait lens, but if I'm shooting something like a portrait, I want a longer focal length (yes even on the 1.5x crop R-D1) to throw the background out more. The 50mm f/1.2 is quite a bit larger than the 1.4 and offers very little more in terms of bokeh. What it does offer (in my opinion) is a veiling flare at every aperture and never actually making a nice sharp photo. It's chock full of aberration and this is great, but not for an all purpose lens. If you're looking at a 50mm for something other than portrait work, seriously consider a more modern design or even a very well corrected old one like the Canon or Nikkor 1.4s. If I were to buy only one 50mm lens though, it would be a Dual Range Summicron (which i already have and love :) ) Wide open it is very sharp at the plane of focus and has a very pleasant falloff in front and behind. Stopped down between f/4 and f/8 I don't think there's a lens in the world that can beat it (I do have a very good sample that's been recently collimated.) And yes, despite the warnings that Epson gives about the lens not working on the R-D1, mine works fine, YMMV.

As far as finder magnification options go, there's only two ways to get the magnification which I want in the VF:
Sacrifice a Bessa R2A finder and transplant the VF elements and the prism into the R-D1. This is optimal, but also carries the risk of screwing up the R-D1 since the VF comes from an R3A and there may be some physical engineering differences between the two which make them incompatible. (If I had the money, I'd do it this weekend)
The other option is much simpler but takes some hefty optical design work: Adapt a set of "goggles" a-la Leitz M3 Summaron with the appropriate negative .35x (roughly) elements for the VF and the RF patch. That's a much cheaper option but still takes a good amount of metalwork and precise optical centering or the focus will be off and then this is just an academic problem.
If any RFF members have come up with a working, accurately focusing solution to this problem, let me know, I'm buying!

Phil Forrest
 
Hmmm, so the canon 1.4 is the better lens in more ways than one (save for the miniscule difference in speed)... well, in my experience, my DSLR meters the same settings whether I use a 1.2 or 1.4 aperture (an A-50/1.2, so i guess it's no biggie) :) The dual range summicron sounds awesome, however, budget for a leica lens is too obscene for my wallet...

magnifier options? looks like too much work haha... we better go back to trying to convince epson to make one... haha...
 
Hmmm, so the canon 1.4 is the better lens in more ways than one (save for the miniscule difference in speed)... well, in my experience, my DSLR meters the same settings whether I use a 1.2 or 1.4 aperture (an A-50/1.2, so i guess it's no biggie) :) The dual range summicron sounds awesome, however, budget for a leica lens is too obscene for my wallet...

magnifier options? looks like too much work haha... we better go back to trying to convince epson to make one... haha...
 
The DR Summicron is one of the least expensive Leica lenses these days, as a matter of fact. They came with close focusing "eyes" which can be lost or dropped and the elements may de-center or separate making focusing inaccurate or impossible. That said, it's one of the sharpest 50mm lenses ever made both in my opinion and according to all sorts of Leica pundits (including Erwin Puts.) Don't forget that just because it says "Leitz" or "Leica" doesn't mean that it's the best. If it's one of the newest lenses, then yes, that is quite possibly true. but for older (affordable) lenses, I'd pick brands other than Leica if they offered some benefit. As far as screwmount lenses go, I think the Canons are the best, Nikons second and Leitz last actually. I have a last-generation 35mm Summaron f/3.5 from the IIIG days and it's a dog up until f/5.6. Incredibly flare prone, low contrast, chromatic aberration, all that. It's sharp, but doesn't handle contre jour lighting at all, even with a hood. The coma is too much to use that lens with faster film in the evenings because point light sources throughout the frame bloom up into big swallowtails and mushrooms. That lens was CLA'd by DAG last year but it's still a dog. Meanwhile, my Canon 35mm f/2.0 will beat the Leica lens at every aperture.
I think this holds true for the 50mm Summarit as well. It was a good lens right after WWII, but even a decade later Leica, Canon and Nikon had all made better on the design.
Don't forget other third party brands as well like Komura. They made some great lenses for LTM and they aren't too expensive.
Phil
 
actually, i read up on the DR summicron and my interest has been further piqued... do the goggles work on the rd-1? cause I really feel limited with the minimum focusing distance of the RD-1, and this is exactly what I am looking for... how does it work with your RD-1?
 
Cannot be used in its close range with the R-D1 i'm afraid. Leica goggles don't match the VF & RF windows of the R-D1.
 
relatively easy

relatively easy

took me about 15 minutes/30 shots. With the screen, it's fairly easy to get it down quickly, and can always check.

thinkfloyd said:
isn't the 28-40 too close in FL? I'm thinking the same, but worry i might not use one or the other... how hard is it to estimate with the 75?
Click to expand...
 
The goggles won't work with the DR, but since we are using digitals, we can always check the focus on the little screen. It only takes a ruler or a string with some marks to index distance.
 
@phil: true... oh well... i got a great deal on a canon 50/1.2 so i'll be trying that out first to see if the "canon glow" will work for me... i'm now considering a 28 to complement it. is the VC 28/2 really that much better than the 1.9 version?
 
If you can find one the Hexanon 21/35 dual Fl is a super option. Maybe not the smallest lens but not much larger than say a CV 1.5/50 Nokton. Changing focal lengths is a quick twist of a ring on the lens. The lens is sharp open and well controlled. I like having a roughly 28mm and 50mm FOV available. For me the CV D21mm VF stays on with the lens at all times. That VF compensates for the R D1 Crop factor. Of course you can guess using the VF as well for the wide end. Although this lens has nice a balanced feel on the RD1 it does not complement the M8 body as well IMHO. Here is a quick shot from last month. shot open at the 35mm end. I realize the skin-tone looks like ham. That was just the sunburn ;)

 
Fished a very reasonable priced Leitz Summicron C 2/40 the night before last night out of the E-Bay.

Dwarfed a shot...and was really surprised. Much sharper than the Nokton 1.5/50, very easy to focus in comparison to the CV, so with the shorter length maybe I will not miss the additional stop in comparison to the Nokton for low light photography.

Look at the dwarf (low room light, aperture 2.0, exposure 1/30, 50% crop):

EPSN4889_50.JPG


Cheers, Andreas
 
I want to complete my 3 lens kit for the RD-1, but first a couple of questions to help me decide... I'm considering going 25 or 28 - 40 - 75... I got the 40 already, and am thinking whether to go wide or long next. I've pretty much decided to go 75, I currently have a 90 elmar I'm looking to sell to get the 75. I find 90 to be too long for my tastes. Now for the wide end, which do you guys suggest? a 25 or a 28? (Biogon or Ultron 1.9). I would love to have the Biogon, but the Ultron is half it's price. Will the bulk of the old Ultron cause me problems in the future? Also, I think 25 is a more logical choice when using a 40. Or is the difference between 25 and 28 moot?

Thanks! (trying to get all by next month)

edit: to add, I find the 90mm a pain to compose using the 50mm framelines. How do you guys compose with a 75? Is it pretty much like how a 40mm is with the 35mm framelines?
 
Last edited:
i went with a 21 and a 28, so if you want only one then maybe a 25 makes more sense.
it's something that i have thought about doing but i have been enjoying the 28 too much and i like the 21 too.
the zm 28 is a nice size and can be had used for around $600.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom