That extra stop

H

hughjb

Established
Local time
8:20 PM
Joined
Mar 16, 2004
Messages
59
I'm in the wedding business, and on occassion I have to take pictures under almost blackout conditions, right now I just have service a Lynx 1.4 Yashica rangefinder to see if I can get use to the feeling of a rangefinder, normally I will work with an SLR.

Assuming that I do well with my trusty Lynx (I will not used at a wedding) I will probably upgrade to a Leica or a camera that can take a Leica lens, a Voitlander or a Rollei, I will like to be a Leica but I don't think that I can load a Leica fast enought for wedding work, I'm just too clumsy.

So here are my 2 questions:

Do you lose anything by placing an M Leica lens on a different brand body?

Betwwen the 1.4 and 1.0 lens there is a 1,000 difference, where will I be able to use the 1.0 that the 1.4 will not be good enough.

Thanks

Hugh
 
Almost any M-mount lens can be mounted on any M-mount camera. Notable exceptions are those lenses that have too big a rear element, which are only a handful.

How often do you need f1 or f1.4? Is the price difference worth it all? I reckon you'll better off investing in a good monopod if you need faster than f2 and have shutter times of 1/4 sec or longer. For the price of an f1 lens you can probably buy a dozen monopods and have change for a used M6 and Summi 50.
 
I use a NOCT Nikkor, but not necessarily because it is an f/1.2 lens. There are other attractive qualities to the lens which may also be true with the Leica lenses (I'm not familiar with their lenses). Most often I use the NOCT stopped down a little from maximum, but nice to know that it will perform well at 1.2 when necessary.

D2
 
If you don't particularly require an RF and can deal with an SLR's shutter/mirror noise, consider the Canon 20D DSLR. It's got very good high ISO performance, probably better than film. They also make a 50/1.0.

...lars
 
On some cameras, you GAIN (shutter speed, shutter sync speed, auto winder, &c) functionality, not lose it, a la Hexar RF.

f/1 lenses are indeed a stop faster than the f/1.4- as Peter Shickele says, "truth is just truth- you can't argue with truth," but it's a truth with a zillion caveats- lenses this fast are truly "artistic" with strong personalities that take much practice and not a little bit of luck to get results you might find satisfactory. Not to say you "can't" or "won't," but that there's more to it than just opening up to f/1 and snapping away at 1/30th of a second.

A tripod/monopod is typically a better buy, along with the f/2. I'm not convinced that there's a better corrected lens wide open than the Summicron, and that's quickly followed by the Planar 45mm on the G2. f/1.4 brings a WHOLE SLEW of SLR lenses into the realm of possibility, and they are typically more modern than the brighter ones for rangefinders. Face it, a Sonnar f/1.5 is a 40 year old lens, and I don't know many 40 year old ANYTHINGS that couldn't be improved on by younger models.

Ahem.

ANYWAY, If you are sniffling from a slight case of Noctilust, rent one and play with it. The learning curve is pretty shallow and takes dedication and the ability to learn from mistakes all too easily made.

Good luck.

The road to the fast lens is paved with gold. Yours.
 
The RF also has the advantage of less vibration when used with slower shutter speeds. If you are thinking of mounting a Noctilux on an R2, or other R series camera, the baselength of the RF would not be adequate for focussing the lens wide-open. If you can get a 50mm F0.95 cheap, its fun to have. The Canon 7 and F0.95 will run less than half of a Noctilux, and a 1/3rd of it if patient.
 
That makes me wonder about the effective baselength of the Lynx-14. Is it long enough to utilize the f1.4 lens at full aperture?

It is a VERY quiet camera though. I don't think I have ever used mine at f1.4.

-Paul
 
How about faster film, most 400 speed emulsions of today have less grain than some slower films of years ago. I have used Fuji Press 800 with imperceptible grain to 11x14 enlargements.

Todd
 
There are some modern fast RF lenses other than the Noktilux, of course... Konica offer(ed) a 50mm f/1.2 for instance, which is a bit scarce. Much easier is the current Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 Nokton, and the more expensive 35mm f/1.2 Nokton, not to mention the brand new and very compact Nokton 40mm f/1.4. And Leica offers the f/1.4 Summiluxes in 35mm and 50mm lengths. All of these except maybe the Hexar f/1.2 should focus ok on the Voigtlander Bessa.

It's nice to have f/1.4 or so available on need; can't crank an f/2 lens open to f/1.4 though! Some of the ultra-fast lenses don't perform as well at moderate apertures as the slower lenses, something to weigh.

One other qualification not yet mentioned is limited depth of field. Alluded to in the comment about camera RF baselength, but you'd want to consider the effect of short DoF in the photos. Desirable or not?
 
Thank you for your responces guys, I'm learning a lot so far. BTW does anybody has any Hexar samples, wide open shots so to speak.

Hugh
 
If you find some, Hugh, please post 'em here- I've only seen a few scattered pictures on the net, and those I don't remember the locations.

The Hexar f/1.2 is a rare lens in 50mm, never officially sold as anything but part of the RF kit (so far as I know, but of course there might be the standard exceptions), and it's quite pricy, and not quite 1/2 stop brighter than any f/1.4 lens.
 
Doug said:
[One other qualification not yet mentioned is limited depth of field. Alluded to in the comment about camera RF baselength, but you'd want to consider the effect of short DoF in the photos. Desirable or not? [/B]
Click to expand...

Doug,

You hit the nail on the head - seems no one else noticed it. Lens speed can be overcome with faster film in many/most cases. Yes, there is a trade-off for quality, but these days, film emulsions are much better than they used to be. You can usually get away with pushing or pulling a stop or two as well. I would not try that with other than color print film or B&W though - slides don't do as well.

The real issue is DOF. At 50mm and 1.4, DOF is pretty short - take a look at this:

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Notice - a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera at f1.4 and 10 feet distance has a DOF of about 1.02 feet. Enough that if you focus of the head shot - the entire subject's head should be in focus, everything behind him or her would be out of focus.

Now, try the same thing with a 1.0 lens - even assuming you get reasonable sharpness with a 1.0 lens at any price...now you get DOF of only .72 feet. Gets a bit trickier to avoid having just part of the face in focus, unless that's the effect you're going for - usually not the case in wedding photography, which is generally less 'artistic statement' and more 'documentary with subtle flattery'.

Does everyone get this? I suspect that DOF is one of the harder subjects to master - some folks seem to be surprised when they get serious OOF effects in their photos. In general, the longer the lens, and the more wide-open the aperture, and the closer the subject, the smaller the effective DOF will be. DOF is defined in general terms as that range that is effectively 'in focus' when the photo is taken. To increase DOF, use a shorter lens, stop down, or take the photo from further away. After awhile it becomes second nature.

One of the reasons it is so important to get a 'portrait lens' that is 'fast' is because the OOF effects one obtains are more pronounced with a 90mm lens than a 50mm lens (shorter DOF for similar f-stop and distance) - it is much easier to throw the background out-of-focus intentionally with a 90mm lens than with a 50mm lens. And with portraits, the accuracy of the lens wide-open is usually less critical than the speed of the lens - people often LIKE the slight softening of a not-so-wonderful lens wide open when it is applied to the cracks and crevices of our faces.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents. Advice? I'd concentrate on getting a really nice 1.4 (or even a 1.8) and stretch the film if required. Better results overall, due to quality of 1.4 lenses wide-open versus 1.0 lenses wide-open and DOF results.

One area where wider is better - the SLR camera when your eyes are getting old and tired like mine. The more light I can get inside the pentaprism, the better! But that's a good part of the reason I tend to shoot more rangefinders these days - lens speed doesn't matter.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Here is a shot with the Canon 50mm F0.95. Wide-Open and about 10ft. If it looks like a duck...
 
Ok guys, you have given great feedback, and since this is my end-of-the-year purchase I still have plenty of time to learn what will work best for me, so let heard your views on the following:

Right now I have two rangefinders that can be operated manually, an old Yashica Lynx-14 which has a fix 1.4 lens (one of the ugliest camera know to man) and a Blad Xpan.

With the Yashica I can shot at a higher speed and with the lens wide open and a very shadow DOF, with the Xpan on the other hand I'm restricted to F4 which renders a deeper DOF, but I can shoot as low as 8 with practice.

Given that rangefinders are harder to focus than SLR's, should I augment my collection od Xpan lenses or commit to a Leica with a faster lenses, what will you do?

Thanks

Hugh
 
Xpan lenses aren't particularly cheap, are they? And neither are fast Leica/ leitz lenses.

If you ask me I'd say you could be better off buying a Voigtlander Bessa (the R2, R2A and R3A bodies are all under $500) and spending some $250 for a 40/2 Summi, a bit more for a Leica 50mm (don't ask me about types; I'm not a Leica expert), or $25 for a J-8.

I don't know why you think RF cameras are more difficult to focus than an SLR. It takes a bit of practise and it's different from focusing an SLR, but it's hardly difficult. However, if focusing is your main concern I'm wondering why you're even contemplating RF cameras.

Anyway, load both the Yashica and the Xpan with some iso400 or iso800 film and shoot. No use in pondering the question. Going out to shoot will answer most of your answers, especially those with big financial impact.
 
hughjb said:
[B
Given that rangefinders are harder to focus than SLR's, should I augment my collection od Xpan lenses or commit to a Leica with a faster lenses, what will you do?

Thanks

Hugh [/B]
Click to expand...

That's an interesting comment.
I can't focus an SLR very well- I see too far into the aerial image, and unless I spend some time with a loupe (or a central rangefinder spot) and really checking things out, my SLR shots are more often out of focus than I'd like.

The rangefinder is easier for me, for once those images line up (and I've good accutance for that) I know that whatever I'm focusing on is in focus. DoF isn't an issue as I've had enough practice to know when "enough is enough."

Heck, I'm adding to my rangefinder collection having just gotten rid of another MF SLR.

What kind of photography do you like? The Leica with fast glass will open several doors to explore if you don't already have such things. I've always found my large aspect cameras (and backs) to languish unless I have a special shoot to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom