Telephoto on RF or SLR?

T

Tim Gray

Well-known
Local time
12:20 PM
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
1,965
For a while I've been thinking of picking up a lens between 90-135mm range for a telephoto to round out my 28+50 combo. I probably wont shoot it a ton, so $2k lenses don't make much sense :) I had been thinking that'd I'd probbly get one in that range for my Canon SLR (100/2 or 135/2) and use it in conjuction with my RF, which would be used for wide and normal. The Canon offerings are affordable and quite good.

On the other hand, the RF options for 90mm are pretty high quality and not too expensive either. Picking up a 90mm lens for RF would certainly be a lot more compact than the equivalent lens for SLR *and* the SLR itself. No matter how cheap and good the SLR setup might be, if it's at home, it won't get used. So... I'd never even really considered 90mm for RF, and was wondering how you guys who shoot both SLR and RF feel about 90mm lenses on the two. Is 90mm useable on RF? Or is an SLR just better suited for a longer focal length like 90mm?
 
I very clearly prefer my M3 over my SLRs for 75-90mm. More hand-holding capability, easier to shoot moving targets, better lenses.

The M3 90mm lines feel like M6 50mm lines to me.

Cheers,

Roland.
 
Last edited:
For lenses of 85 or 90mm the M is my choice. 135mm or longer I prefer the SLR but still often take an M mount 135 with me "just in case". If I know for sure that I'll need longer lenses then I'll take an SLR body along.
 
As Roland says, the M3 is the best M for longer lenses. Later bodies with the 0.85 finder should be nearly as good. I might add that I found the 135mm focal length a bit of a problem on the M3 I had and am comfortable with a 90mm on my M2. I had an FD 100/2.8 with my Canon SLRs for a third of a century. Excellent lens. In general, SLRs are to be preferred for lenses longer than 85/90/100.
 
On the other hand, I almost never pack a lens longer than 75mm for the RF anyway: if I know I'm going to need one I pack the D200+70-200/2.8+TC-14, otherwise I don't bother and rely on my wife's Ricoh R7 for occasional long shot if we need it.
 
I doubt I'd use it that much. I have a 200mm lens for my SLR and was thinking of picking up a 100mm. At the same time, when I travel, I seriously doubt I'll take the SLR along with me, whereas I might grab a 90mm lens and throw it in the bag. I was just wondering how much of a pain a 90 is on RF.
 
The 90mm lens is not problem with the M series cameras. A 90mm F2.8 Tele-Elmarit is a small, light-weight, and sharp lens. I took mine out with the M2 this weekend.
 
Like they said... An 85/90mm is easy to use on a RF, or even a Bessa L or a barnack 1f (did that for years) as long as you're some distance from the subject, or working at a known distance. Hint: prefocus.
 
They are really good to have. Some are very small like the Elmar and Elmarit.

If I don't have one in my bag, I sure miss shots. Not only portraits, but also with landscapes and architecture, when isolating features.

Cheers,

Roland.
 
Ooooh! Another big advantage of a 90 is its coverage at its closest focusing distance of one meter. It's exactly the same area of coverage as you can get with a 50mm D.R. Summicron, and you don't have to play around with putting on any "eyes". Think of the money you'll save also.
 
Tim Gray said:
Hmm. Well I might just keep an eye out for a good deal on a 90 then :)
Click to expand...

You might also want to keep an eye out for the Canon 100/3.5 (LTM). Very compact, lightweight, and sharp. Doesn't take up too much room in the bag. The older 90 Elmars are also quite small and sharp if you get a good sample.
 
I find myself using a 85/90mm more frequently that I thought I would. I started on the low end and decided if I liked the focal length, I'd trade up.... and that's what I did.

I also did a budget portrait lens test comparison on another thread, which compared a Nikkor 85/2, a Canon 85/2, and an Elmar 90/4.

I'm selling my 85/2 Canon in the classifieds for $90 and someone else has a Nikkor 85/2 for $300.
 
Last edited:
IMO for anything over 50mm you are better off using your SLR.
Unless you like composing within those tiny RF framelines... ;)

Chris
 
I have no problems using M-Hexanon 90/2.8 :
3345425064_5d0eb25079.jpg


and Nikkor 10.5cm/2.5 :
2894593827_cd2244970e.jpg


both wide open on Hexar RF, Leica, etc
 
Tim, you don't say which M-type RF body you would be using with the longer lens. Lower magnification makes a difference... The 90 is no problem on my M2 with .72x finder, but the frames are looking pretty small on the Minolta CLE and Hexar RF with their .6x magnification. As others mentioned, the .85x and .91x finders would make composing even more convenient with the larger framelines. Or a 1.25x eyepiece magnifier would be a help too.
 
I personally have trouble with longer lenses on RFs - I had a CV 75/2.5 which I sold, and I have a Rokkor 90 which gets little use.

It's not that I have any problem focusing them, or that it's hard to frame them - I have no problems with either of those. For me the problem is that I just can't "see" a telephoto shot when I'm picking it out of the centre of a large viewfinder image (even the 1:1 frame of a Bessa R3). I can see the correct frame, yes, but with an SLR I get the perspective better because I see only the enlarged telephoto view itself.

If, for example, I go out with the Rokkor 90 and an RF, I rarely come back with shots I like, because I just don't "see" the telephoto shots out there. But if I go out with an Olympus OM and a Zuiko 100/2.8, I get far more good shots, because I can get a much better feel for what the shot will look like.

But, even though I do prefer SLR for longer lenses, I still like having the Rokkor 90 for when I'm out with RF gear - it takes up very little space in my bag, and I can still get better shots with the Rokkor that's with me than with the OM gear that's back at home.

Anyway, I'm not sure if I've explained that well - it's hard to put intuitive feelings into words.

Should you get an RF lens or an SLR lens? Ahh, get both :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom