peter_n
Veteran
Sean Reid posted a couple of hours ago that his massive new piece of work is now up on the Luminous Landscape site but the post (at the end of his earlier very lengthy thread) seems to have gotten lost in RFF's traffic. His efforts really deserve some attention and the review is extremely interesting. Thanks Sean for all the hard work you've done for all rangfinder fans! 
Link to the review is below:
Fast Lenses for the Epson R-D1
Link to the review is below:Fast Lenses for the Epson R-D1
S
Sean Reid
Guest
Thank you Peter!
Best,
Sean
Best,
Sean
back alley
IMAGES
wow, that is some read! (no pun intended)
i'll need to read it again to digest all that info more fully.
great job sean, lots of work represented there.
joe
i'll need to read it again to digest all that info more fully.
great job sean, lots of work represented there.
joe
S
sychan
Guest
Thanks for the article
Thanks for the article
It was an excellent article, and kind of a cool "how to evaluate lenses" lesson too.
Thanks for the article
It was an excellent article, and kind of a cool "how to evaluate lenses" lesson too.
Jim Watts
Still trying to See.
Sean,
This is a really excellent in depth review. I particularly like how you guide the reader not to look for winners, but to use it as a reference for their own needs. I think it may turn out to be a reference classic for working photographers seeking how to judge lenses in real world use.. I for one will be returning to it.
This is a really excellent in depth review. I particularly like how you guide the reader not to look for winners, but to use it as a reference for their own needs. I think it may turn out to be a reference classic for working photographers seeking how to judge lenses in real world use.. I for one will be returning to it.
S
Sean Reid
Guest
sangwooksohn said:
Sang,
Thank you and thanks for the correction. I'm sending it to my editor right now. Much obliged.
Sean
S
Sean Reid
Guest
Sychan and Jim,
Thank you. I hope it does end up being useful as one kind of reference source.
Best,
Sean
Thank you. I hope it does end up being useful as one kind of reference source.
Best,
Sean
HenningW
Well-known
Nice writeup, Sean. I've shot with all those lenses except the 35/1.7 Cosina and 35/1.5 Canon on film cameras, and my impressions are quite in line with yours. I can certainly understand that the higher contrast of the latest Leica lenses can cause problems with the dynamic range, even though I missed that in the time I had the R-D1 to use. On film with a decent shoulder that's not an issue, of course but it certainly has its own look.
Have you tried reducing the contrast of any of these lenses by use of a filter? I know it's not the same as using a low contrast lens, but it might be a workaround under some circumstances. Some of my UV filters that haven't been used in years have developed a bit of 'scum' that might do the trick.
Henning
Have you tried reducing the contrast of any of these lenses by use of a filter? I know it's not the same as using a low contrast lens, but it might be a workaround under some circumstances. Some of my UV filters that haven't been used in years have developed a bit of 'scum' that might do the trick.
Henning
HenningW
Well-known
I forgot to mention, Sean, that your daughter deserves a special commendation for helping you with the material. I could never get my daughter to do that for me.
Henning
Henning
S
Sean Reid
Guest
Hi Henning,
My daughter is herself a young photographer and she was willing to serve as model in exchange for a blueberry pancake breakfast at a diner (pre-shoot). I told her there was no need to fake a smile for the pictures (which she doesn't normally do anyway, having grown up around me) and so what we see in the pictures is a patient and somewhat bored nine-year old. The great thing about Cheyenne is that she'd do it again in a heartbeat, no problem. She knows it takes a long time but that its for a good cause. She also helped me to choose and arrange the various objects shown in the pictures.
The way I'm dealing with matching lenses and contrast is to use my CV lenses in various kinds of light and my Canon lenses in bright sunlight. I'd own the Summilux 35 and 50 in a heartbeat but I don't want to spend that kind of money now when other obligations have to take priority. The Leica Asph lens I'd buy first would be the 35/1.4.
Cheers,
Sean
My daughter is herself a young photographer and she was willing to serve as model in exchange for a blueberry pancake breakfast at a diner (pre-shoot). I told her there was no need to fake a smile for the pictures (which she doesn't normally do anyway, having grown up around me) and so what we see in the pictures is a patient and somewhat bored nine-year old. The great thing about Cheyenne is that she'd do it again in a heartbeat, no problem. She knows it takes a long time but that its for a good cause. She also helped me to choose and arrange the various objects shown in the pictures.
The way I'm dealing with matching lenses and contrast is to use my CV lenses in various kinds of light and my Canon lenses in bright sunlight. I'd own the Summilux 35 and 50 in a heartbeat but I don't want to spend that kind of money now when other obligations have to take priority. The Leica Asph lens I'd buy first would be the 35/1.4.
Cheers,
Sean
Last edited by a moderator:
Peter Klein
Well-known
Sean:
Well done!
I want to add my kudos to the comments about your article. We all owe you a vote of thanks for such a massive and thorough piece of work. What a concept-- a "lens test" that is really about the pictorial effect of how lenses draw their images. Lines per millimeter and MTF graphs have their place, but your article really gets to the heart of the matter in the way that photographers can relate to instantly.
I've long had a feeling that a DRF is in my future. Maybe not the RD-1, but perhaps a successor or a sibling. After I read your article, that premonition is stronger.
I notice that you also shoot an Olympus E-1. So we have similar tastes--I shoot Leica M and an E-1, too. Could you maybe give a few words about how the images from the RD-1 and the E-1 compare? I've looked over your wedding pictures, but they are not big enough to see the fine points, and the Flash show prevents me from looking at EXIF data.
--Peter
Well done!
I want to add my kudos to the comments about your article. We all owe you a vote of thanks for such a massive and thorough piece of work. What a concept-- a "lens test" that is really about the pictorial effect of how lenses draw their images. Lines per millimeter and MTF graphs have their place, but your article really gets to the heart of the matter in the way that photographers can relate to instantly.
I've long had a feeling that a DRF is in my future. Maybe not the RD-1, but perhaps a successor or a sibling. After I read your article, that premonition is stronger.
I notice that you also shoot an Olympus E-1. So we have similar tastes--I shoot Leica M and an E-1, too. Could you maybe give a few words about how the images from the RD-1 and the E-1 compare? I've looked over your wedding pictures, but they are not big enough to see the fine points, and the Flash show prevents me from looking at EXIF data.
--Peter
Beniliam
Out of the limelight
Sean congrath for your website, your photos, and your excellent review of the RD1.
pfogle
Well-known
Sean... just another vote of thanks and, well, amazement at the amount of energy you've put into your tests, and into encouraging us here in the forum.
I feel as though we're on the cutting edge here in the move away from over-concern with technical gizmos, to assessing the gear from the practical and aethetic perspectives.
I hope your tests become a benchmark for other reviewers to pay more attention to the real needs of photographers - lenses are often 'sharp enough' for our purposes, but the way an image looks is what really counts.
Now, if considering a new lens, I don't think about whether it's a bit sharper than others I have, but rather, is it different enough to give me a new tool for the toolbox.
thanks again
Phil
I feel as though we're on the cutting edge here in the move away from over-concern with technical gizmos, to assessing the gear from the practical and aethetic perspectives.
I hope your tests become a benchmark for other reviewers to pay more attention to the real needs of photographers - lenses are often 'sharp enough' for our purposes, but the way an image looks is what really counts.
Now, if considering a new lens, I don't think about whether it's a bit sharper than others I have, but rather, is it different enough to give me a new tool for the toolbox.
thanks again
Phil
S
Sean Reid
Guest
Beniliam,
What's the translation of the Baudelaire quote? I'm afraid I don't have any Spanish.
All,
I appreciate the comments about the article. I am consciously trying to move the discussion of cameras and lenses in a different direction from where I've seen it headed for a long time. It's been the case in all my reviews since 2003, but I went furthest out on a limb with this latest article. It's likely that the vast majority of photographers will never read this fast lens review because they have no interest in rangefinders in general or the R-D1 in particular. That's too bad, I think, because much of the discussion in the review concerns ideas that are worth considering for all serious photographers. We're in a very small world here at RFF.
We're also in a unique position because we have so many different kinds of lenses to choose from for L and M mount cameras. In a sense, we've got access to many of the lenses that shaped much of the history of 20th century photography. And while there are, of course, differences between the look of digital and film captures, much of the look created by a specific lens on film is still there on digital. I have a real affection for the Canon 28/2.8, possibly in part because its drawing has been etched in my mind by years of looking long and hard at the work of Garry Winogrand. It's an iconic lens, even though (in objective terms) it's "flawed" in many respects. At this exact moment in time, I see the R-D1 as the most versatile small format digital camera one could work with (in terms of drawing). My close friend, photographer and critic Ben Lifson, began with digital capture using a Canon DSLR but he never warmed to it after 40 years of using Leicas. After using my R-D1 for a few minutes, he put all his Canon DSLR stuff up for sale and never looked back. Our mutual friend, Jim Rubino, sent Ben some early color work made with the R-D1 and a CV 35/2.5. Ben told me he just stared at those pictures on his monitor. "The color", he said, "it just keeps coming at you".
Regarding the E-1, my review is here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/e1-2nd.shtml I had to send my review E-1 back to Olympus this week, but it is my favorite DSLR. I would very much like to use it as my only DSLR for weddings and other small-format commercial work (carry 2-3 R-D1 bodies and 1 E-1 body). The 1Ds would then be used almost exclusively for architecture since, in my mind, it is really more of a medium format tripod camera. The E-1's big limitation for me, unfortunately, is the same now as when I bought (and then sold) one in late 2003. For my standards, it is not a good camera in low light. I'm not real happy with even the (nominal) ISO 800 files. I wrote the E-1 noise profiles that are on the Neat Image site but when I filter noise I'm really only willing to filter the chrominance noise. I don't like the waxy softness that comes from, even the best, filtering of luminance noise. Moreover, compared to the Canon DSLRs, the E-1 is actually a 1/2 stop less sensitive at higher ISOs. It's ISO 800 is really providing the same sensitivity as the Canon would be at about ISO 640. Add in the fact that the 14-54 is only as fast as F/2.8/F3.5 and the E-1 is really down 2 - 3 stops under a 10D or 20D. As much as I've tried to rationalize around that problem (because I love the E-1) there's no getting around the Canon's superiority in low light. The R-D1 can deliver a good ISO 1600 and use fast lenses, so it does great in that respect. If I had three R-D1 bodies, I could then use the E-1 only for ISO 100 - 400 photography (with or without flash) and it does beautifully for that kind of work. Oly has $$ probs. right now but I hope they get past it and deliver a successor to the E-1 with 8-10 MP and a Panasonic sensor that does beautifully at a true ISO 1600. The new F/2 Oly zooms will be an asset as well. If that ends up being the case, I'm going to sell off some Canon gear and switch to Oly for most DSLR work.
As to the question about how the two compare...If I were to answer with complete candor, I'd have to say that there's no comparison in my mind. The R-D1 has access to the finest (in my opinion) small-format lenses ever made (and so many variations of drawing to choose from). As such, in my mind, it's untouchable even with only 6MP. Clearly cameras like my 1Ds and the new 1Ds MkII provide higher resolution, etc. but I cannot make those cameras draw like an R-D1 no matter what lens is on them (including the Zeiss primes I use). That is also true of the Leica, of course, which, with its tiny 35mm negative, has always been somewhat of a sketching camera. After using the R-D1 with my favorite lenses, every other digital camera leaves me somewhat cold.
Cheers,
Sean
What's the translation of the Baudelaire quote? I'm afraid I don't have any Spanish.
All,
I appreciate the comments about the article. I am consciously trying to move the discussion of cameras and lenses in a different direction from where I've seen it headed for a long time. It's been the case in all my reviews since 2003, but I went furthest out on a limb with this latest article. It's likely that the vast majority of photographers will never read this fast lens review because they have no interest in rangefinders in general or the R-D1 in particular. That's too bad, I think, because much of the discussion in the review concerns ideas that are worth considering for all serious photographers. We're in a very small world here at RFF.
We're also in a unique position because we have so many different kinds of lenses to choose from for L and M mount cameras. In a sense, we've got access to many of the lenses that shaped much of the history of 20th century photography. And while there are, of course, differences between the look of digital and film captures, much of the look created by a specific lens on film is still there on digital. I have a real affection for the Canon 28/2.8, possibly in part because its drawing has been etched in my mind by years of looking long and hard at the work of Garry Winogrand. It's an iconic lens, even though (in objective terms) it's "flawed" in many respects. At this exact moment in time, I see the R-D1 as the most versatile small format digital camera one could work with (in terms of drawing). My close friend, photographer and critic Ben Lifson, began with digital capture using a Canon DSLR but he never warmed to it after 40 years of using Leicas. After using my R-D1 for a few minutes, he put all his Canon DSLR stuff up for sale and never looked back. Our mutual friend, Jim Rubino, sent Ben some early color work made with the R-D1 and a CV 35/2.5. Ben told me he just stared at those pictures on his monitor. "The color", he said, "it just keeps coming at you".
Regarding the E-1, my review is here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/e1-2nd.shtml I had to send my review E-1 back to Olympus this week, but it is my favorite DSLR. I would very much like to use it as my only DSLR for weddings and other small-format commercial work (carry 2-3 R-D1 bodies and 1 E-1 body). The 1Ds would then be used almost exclusively for architecture since, in my mind, it is really more of a medium format tripod camera. The E-1's big limitation for me, unfortunately, is the same now as when I bought (and then sold) one in late 2003. For my standards, it is not a good camera in low light. I'm not real happy with even the (nominal) ISO 800 files. I wrote the E-1 noise profiles that are on the Neat Image site but when I filter noise I'm really only willing to filter the chrominance noise. I don't like the waxy softness that comes from, even the best, filtering of luminance noise. Moreover, compared to the Canon DSLRs, the E-1 is actually a 1/2 stop less sensitive at higher ISOs. It's ISO 800 is really providing the same sensitivity as the Canon would be at about ISO 640. Add in the fact that the 14-54 is only as fast as F/2.8/F3.5 and the E-1 is really down 2 - 3 stops under a 10D or 20D. As much as I've tried to rationalize around that problem (because I love the E-1) there's no getting around the Canon's superiority in low light. The R-D1 can deliver a good ISO 1600 and use fast lenses, so it does great in that respect. If I had three R-D1 bodies, I could then use the E-1 only for ISO 100 - 400 photography (with or without flash) and it does beautifully for that kind of work. Oly has $$ probs. right now but I hope they get past it and deliver a successor to the E-1 with 8-10 MP and a Panasonic sensor that does beautifully at a true ISO 1600. The new F/2 Oly zooms will be an asset as well. If that ends up being the case, I'm going to sell off some Canon gear and switch to Oly for most DSLR work.
As to the question about how the two compare...If I were to answer with complete candor, I'd have to say that there's no comparison in my mind. The R-D1 has access to the finest (in my opinion) small-format lenses ever made (and so many variations of drawing to choose from). As such, in my mind, it's untouchable even with only 6MP. Clearly cameras like my 1Ds and the new 1Ds MkII provide higher resolution, etc. but I cannot make those cameras draw like an R-D1 no matter what lens is on them (including the Zeiss primes I use). That is also true of the Leica, of course, which, with its tiny 35mm negative, has always been somewhat of a sketching camera. After using the R-D1 with my favorite lenses, every other digital camera leaves me somewhat cold.
Cheers,
Sean
Last edited by a moderator:
Beniliam
Out of the limelight
Dear Sean,
This is the translation of the quote: What matters what can be the reality that is outside me, if it has helped me to live, to feel that I am and what I am?
This is the translation of the quote: What matters what can be the reality that is outside me, if it has helped me to live, to feel that I am and what I am?
Huck Finn
Well-known
Sean, I never felt that you were going out on a limb. I think that your approach is what photographers have been asking for. Your article was spectacularly successful. I didn't think a review could be any better than yours on wide angles for the R-D1, but you topped it with this one. Thank you for all the hard work that went into it!
Huck
Huck
Last edited:
dougyau
Member
Dear Sean,
Thank you for a most useful review.
Douglas
Thank you for a most useful review.
Douglas
S
Sean Reid
Guest
Hi Huck and Douglas,
Thank you very much indeed.
Beniliam,
Thank you for the translation. Beaudelaire, as you likely know, was important to Walker Evans and Walker Evans has been important to me. This suggests that I need to start reading Beaudelaire. Strange as it may sound, Kerouac has been the writer I've learned a lot from so far. Although the chain, strange as it may be, does exist, ie:
Beaudelaire > Evans < > Robert Frank < > Kerouac >
Of course a linear diagram doesn't do this justice at all. Kerouac (along with the conductor Furtwangler and an amazing performance of Beethoven's 9th) was partly responsible for a huge revelation I had while photographing in Florida in 2001. Also Ornette Coleman but that hasn't sunk in all the way yet.
Cheers,
Sean
Thank you very much indeed.
Beniliam,
Thank you for the translation. Beaudelaire, as you likely know, was important to Walker Evans and Walker Evans has been important to me. This suggests that I need to start reading Beaudelaire. Strange as it may sound, Kerouac has been the writer I've learned a lot from so far. Although the chain, strange as it may be, does exist, ie:
Beaudelaire > Evans < > Robert Frank < > Kerouac >
Of course a linear diagram doesn't do this justice at all. Kerouac (along with the conductor Furtwangler and an amazing performance of Beethoven's 9th) was partly responsible for a huge revelation I had while photographing in Florida in 2001. Also Ornette Coleman but that hasn't sunk in all the way yet.
Cheers,
Sean
Gordon Coale
Well-known
Kind of makes me want to get an R-D1. Oh, wait...I've wanted one since Stephen Gandy saw in at PMA over a year ago. That probably won't happen since my budget is in the FED range. Oh, wait...FEDs use many of the same lenses! Probably the biggest thing I've learned hanging out here at RFF is that there is a lot more to a lens than sharpness. Thank you thank you thank you, Sean, for articulating that so well in your review. Now I want an R-D1 even more!
S
Sean Reid
Guest
Hi Gordon,
Thanks. The great thing about these lenses is that they're just as interesting, I'm sure, on film cameras. I can't say how my observations would translate when these specific lenses were used with film but it is great that one can get an inexpensive Bessa body, for example, and have access to all these wonderful lenses.
Cheers,
Sean
Thanks. The great thing about these lenses is that they're just as interesting, I'm sure, on film cameras. I can't say how my observations would translate when these specific lenses were used with film but it is great that one can get an inexpensive Bessa body, for example, and have access to all these wonderful lenses.
Cheers,
Sean