RIVI1969
Established
Hello!!
Based on my needs and considering your kind comments and reading several times Sean's review on the Epson R-D1 I decided to buy one over a Leica M6ttl, I haven't got it yet, but it is already at a friend's of mine home in Texas who receive the package for me. I cannot wait to start using it!
Now I need to buy its first lens and I am thinking in 3 options for starter;, the CV 28mm 1.9, the 35mm 1.7 or the 35mm 2.5... Based on the reviews seems that the 28 and the 35 1.7 works better with the sensor because their lower contrast but the 35mm 2.5 is a beautiful compact and sharp lens... so I wonder if lowering the contrast in the camera settings could help to achieve a wider tonal range with the 35mm 2.5 or deffinetely the other 2 lenses works better? the 2.5 is basically one stop slower... Is not like I am going to have only one lens ever, is just my first one.
Thank you again!
Ricardo
Based on my needs and considering your kind comments and reading several times Sean's review on the Epson R-D1 I decided to buy one over a Leica M6ttl, I haven't got it yet, but it is already at a friend's of mine home in Texas who receive the package for me. I cannot wait to start using it!
Now I need to buy its first lens and I am thinking in 3 options for starter;, the CV 28mm 1.9, the 35mm 1.7 or the 35mm 2.5... Based on the reviews seems that the 28 and the 35 1.7 works better with the sensor because their lower contrast but the 35mm 2.5 is a beautiful compact and sharp lens... so I wonder if lowering the contrast in the camera settings could help to achieve a wider tonal range with the 35mm 2.5 or deffinetely the other 2 lenses works better? the 2.5 is basically one stop slower... Is not like I am going to have only one lens ever, is just my first one.
Thank you again!
Ricardo
Gid
Well-known
Congratulations Ricardo. Either camera would have been a great choice, but you will not be disappointed with the RD-1.
The 35 2.5 is the smallest of the lenses and if you've read Sean's reviews you'll know that he liked it and was surprised by its performance relative to its price. I've owned both the 28 1.9 and the 35 1.7. Both very good lenses - the early shots in my gallery are with the 28 on the RD-1 and the slightly later ones with the 35 1.7. The 28 is bigger and I like small lenses so I tended to use the 35 more, but the 28 is probably a better lens, but it depends on what you want. So, any of those lenses will not disappoint. Good luck with your choice and enjoy the camera.
The 35 2.5 is the smallest of the lenses and if you've read Sean's reviews you'll know that he liked it and was surprised by its performance relative to its price. I've owned both the 28 1.9 and the 35 1.7. Both very good lenses - the early shots in my gallery are with the 28 on the RD-1 and the slightly later ones with the 35 1.7. The 28 is bigger and I like small lenses so I tended to use the 35 more, but the 28 is probably a better lens, but it depends on what you want. So, any of those lenses will not disappoint. Good luck with your choice and enjoy the camera.
sevres_babylone
Veteran
I had no rangefinder lenses before I bought my R-D1 and started off by buying the 35 2.5 and also the Nokton 50mm 1.5. I like them both a lot, but find the CV 35 2.5 balances very nicely on the camera and is a joy to use for street/travel photography. Occasionally I do miss having a faster 35, but not enough to regret buying the 35 2.5.
pfogle
Well-known
Hi Ricardo, best wishes with your new baby!
I have the 28/1.9 and the 35/1.7, but at the moment I'm using an older Canon 35/2.8 most of the time, as it's so small and light, it makes it a pleasure to carry the camera. So if I were in your place, I'd probably go for the 35/2.5, for the same reasons, and with 1600 ISO still giving nice results, you don't need the bigger aperture so often.
About the contrast, if you shoot RAW (highly recommended, see many threads!) then you can set the contrast later when you do the conversion. However, the contrast setting doesn't change the information recorded, only the output image (jpg or tiff), so it won't help if you have a scene that is too contrasty.
In my experience, that very rarely happens, but I live in London!
cheers
Phil
I have the 28/1.9 and the 35/1.7, but at the moment I'm using an older Canon 35/2.8 most of the time, as it's so small and light, it makes it a pleasure to carry the camera. So if I were in your place, I'd probably go for the 35/2.5, for the same reasons, and with 1600 ISO still giving nice results, you don't need the bigger aperture so often.
About the contrast, if you shoot RAW (highly recommended, see many threads!) then you can set the contrast later when you do the conversion. However, the contrast setting doesn't change the information recorded, only the output image (jpg or tiff), so it won't help if you have a scene that is too contrasty.
In my experience, that very rarely happens, but I live in London!
cheers
Phil
S
Sean Reid
Guest
Hi Ricardo,
I'm glad that the articles were helpful. Lowering the contrast in the camera has no effect on the RAW files and the RAW files hold a wider dynamic range than the JPEGs. It won't be ready for awhile but I'm retesting the CV 35/2.5 again for an upcoming review of 35mm rangefinder lenses.
Cheers,
Sean
I'm glad that the articles were helpful. Lowering the contrast in the camera has no effect on the RAW files and the RAW files hold a wider dynamic range than the JPEGs. It won't be ready for awhile but I'm retesting the CV 35/2.5 again for an upcoming review of 35mm rangefinder lenses.
Cheers,
Sean
pfogle
Well-known
Sean, could you please clarify one thing for me... what's the difference optically between the classic CV 35/2.5 and the M version? I think I read somewhere that the old pancake was the same as the classic one, but the newer compact is a new optical design.Sean Reid said:
Last edited:
JeffGreene
(@)^(@)
Congratulations Ricardo:
I have the 28 1.9 and have just ordered the 35 2.5. Like Phil, I'm currently using an old Serenar 35 2.8, but I went for the Skopar because the Serenar is a lttle softer than I like, and from what I've seen the Skopar will be sharper.
By the way, I really enjoyed your images. Definitely not PG, but powerful!
I have the 28 1.9 and have just ordered the 35 2.5. Like Phil, I'm currently using an old Serenar 35 2.8, but I went for the Skopar because the Serenar is a lttle softer than I like, and from what I've seen the Skopar will be sharper.
By the way, I really enjoyed your images. Definitely not PG, but powerful!
Dale Cook
Established
Ricardo,
I would highly recommend the CV 35 1.7. I have had the lens about a month and have been extremely impressed with it on my R-D1. I have a few pics in my gallery with this combination if you would like to see for yourself.
I would highly recommend the CV 35 1.7. I have had the lens about a month and have been extremely impressed with it on my R-D1. I have a few pics in my gallery with this combination if you would like to see for yourself.
R
RML
Guest
Did I understand correctly that a lower-contrast lens works better with digital than a lens with higher contrast?
RIVI1969
Established
Hello Dale,
I went through your website congratulations for those great images! I really like the look of the chicago pictures, so you did those with the 35mm? I wonder why some of the files shows some vignetting and some don't..? Best regards, Ricardo
I went through your website congratulations for those great images! I really like the look of the chicago pictures, so you did those with the 35mm? I wonder why some of the files shows some vignetting and some don't..? Best regards, Ricardo
Dale Cook
Established
Ricardo,
The light fall off is added in post. Call me crazy...but I like vignetting in most pictures. I think it adds depth and draws attention to the subject in many cases. It's not a "flaw" of the lens. Hope this helps...
Almost forgot...all of the pics in my gallery were shot with an R-D1.
The light fall off is added in post. Call me crazy...but I like vignetting in most pictures. I think it adds depth and draws attention to the subject in many cases. It's not a "flaw" of the lens. Hope this helps...
Almost forgot...all of the pics in my gallery were shot with an R-D1.
Last edited: