sgy1962
Well-known
I'm curious as to what lenses, in terms of focal length, are people using w/ the R-D1?
Does the restricted field of vision due to sensor size alter how you go about taking pictures, or do you just opt for a wider angle lens to correspond to a focal length you would use with film?
Just curious.
I have a 35-50-90 w/ my rangefinder, and if I go the R-D1 route I know I can still get alot of use out of my 35mm lenses, but I would probably have to get at least one wider lens.
Does the restricted field of vision due to sensor size alter how you go about taking pictures, or do you just opt for a wider angle lens to correspond to a focal length you would use with film?
Just curious.
I have a 35-50-90 w/ my rangefinder, and if I go the R-D1 route I know I can still get alot of use out of my 35mm lenses, but I would probably have to get at least one wider lens.
pfogle
Well-known
I use 21mm 80% (thanks Mike!)
28mm 10%
35mm 5%
50mm 5%
I have a 75 but I've never used it yet!
It will be very different for different people.
Phil
28mm 10%
35mm 5%
50mm 5%
I have a 75 but I've never used it yet!
It will be very different for different people.
Phil
LCT
ex-newbie
sgy1962 said:
Due to the crop factor a wide angle lens becomes a normal one as far as FOV is concerned but it remains a WA otherwise.
Im may give nice results by expanding foregrounds for instance but also ugly ones like the (already ugly ;-) brick walls in the 2nd pic.
Then if you like natural perspective you can hardly get it with wider FOVs than 50mm (35mm lens) in practice which induce a different way of taking photos IMHO.
Best,
LCT
R-D1 & Leica 28/2
R-D1 & Leica 28/2
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
On a film camera, the lenses I use most are a 50 and an 85 or 100.
On the R-D 1, not too surprisingly, the lenses I use most are a 35 and a 50.
I also have a 21 (thanks, Mike!) but haven't had occasion to use it much yet. I've also used the 85 and 100 on the R-D 1, but the need for an accessory viewfinder makes it a bit inconvenient.
(I use a Tewe zoom viewfinder to cover these fields of view; works OK, but when sighting through the accessory finder I have to be very careful to keep the tip of my nose out of the camera eyepiece!)
On the R-D 1, not too surprisingly, the lenses I use most are a 35 and a 50.
I also have a 21 (thanks, Mike!) but haven't had occasion to use it much yet. I've also used the 85 and 100 on the R-D 1, but the need for an accessory viewfinder makes it a bit inconvenient.
(I use a Tewe zoom viewfinder to cover these fields of view; works OK, but when sighting through the accessory finder I have to be very careful to keep the tip of my nose out of the camera eyepiece!)
sevres_babylone
Veteran
35mm (CV Pancake II) 75%
50mm (CV Nokton) 25%
With my film cameras, the lenses I used most were 35mm (point and shoot), 40mm, 50mm, 85mm, 100mm. Very rarely did I go wider or longer.
I wear glasses, have difficulty seeing the 28mm frame in the R-D1, and that is a key reason why I didn't get a 28mm. Aside from the inconvenience of an external viewer, finances are largely the reason for not getting a 21mm.
50mm (CV Nokton) 25%
With my film cameras, the lenses I used most were 35mm (point and shoot), 40mm, 50mm, 85mm, 100mm. Very rarely did I go wider or longer.
I wear glasses, have difficulty seeing the 28mm frame in the R-D1, and that is a key reason why I didn't get a 28mm. Aside from the inconvenience of an external viewer, finances are largely the reason for not getting a 21mm.
David Kieltyka
Clicking away feverishly
I've been mostly using a 15/28/50mm lens set over the past few months. The nice thing about the CV 15mm is focusing...it's not coupled to the rangefinder but has so much DOF even on the R-D1 that as long as you're in the ballpark your photos will be crisp. Infinity, two meters, one meter...these three focus settings cover 90% of my photos with the lens. Not needing the RF for focusing also means I don't have to keep switching between the internal & external VFs. The 28mm makes a slightly wide "normal" lens. I use the CV Ultron, which gives me decent DOF control wide open. The 50mm is my long lens...not as much reach as my 85mm on a film camera but good enough and a nice companion to the 28mm. I use a number of different 50s depending on how much speed I need/want and the particular look I'm going for.
For low-light stuff I go with either the Ultron or the CV 40mm Nokton. I've found I can get consistently good results with the 40mm at f/1.4 and 1/30th sec. while f/1.9 and 1/15th sec. with the 28mm is more hit & miss.
-Dave-
For low-light stuff I go with either the Ultron or the CV 40mm Nokton. I've found I can get consistently good results with the 40mm at f/1.4 and 1/30th sec. while f/1.9 and 1/15th sec. with the 28mm is more hit & miss.
-Dave-
J. Borger
Well-known
50mm cron 60%
35mm cron asph 35%
75mm lux 5%
If i had to do it again i probably would have bought a 28mm instead of the 35mm.
I most times go out with just 1 lens ...... somehow it is mostly the 50mm
Han
35mm cron asph 35%
75mm lux 5%
If i had to do it again i probably would have bought a 28mm instead of the 35mm.
I most times go out with just 1 lens ...... somehow it is mostly the 50mm
Han
Jim Watts
Still trying to See.
21mm Avenon (thanks Mike)
25mm CV Skopar
28mm CV Ultron
35mm Cron
50mm Cron
90mm Tele - Elmarit
If using film in my M4 my favourite lens is the 35mm Cron (probably used 80% of the tiime). Because I am totally familar with that combination I know where the framelines will fall before I raise the camera to my eye.
Ideally for me a digital rangefinder would have built in frames that would cover at least a 35mm lens (if a full frame sensor) or the equivalent allowing for the multiplication factor. So getting the R-D1 has meant some adjustment and is the reason for the purchase of some of the wider angle lenses above (O.K. its GAS really) in search of the ideal combination. After some use and because I'm an eyeglass wearer and also not that keen on auxillary finders I have found that in general I still use the 35mm Cron most, probably about about 50% of the time and have adapted to the 53mm field of view, which of course is not much different from using the 50mm on the M4.
After trying a friends I am now tempted (O.K. its more GAS
) by a 40mm Nokton because of some close focusing issues with the Cron on my R-D1, the extra stop and as I don't like too much finder slop the closer match to the R-D1 35mm framelines. Of course if I could afford a 35mm asph lux???
25mm CV Skopar
28mm CV Ultron
35mm Cron
50mm Cron
90mm Tele - Elmarit
If using film in my M4 my favourite lens is the 35mm Cron (probably used 80% of the tiime). Because I am totally familar with that combination I know where the framelines will fall before I raise the camera to my eye.
Ideally for me a digital rangefinder would have built in frames that would cover at least a 35mm lens (if a full frame sensor) or the equivalent allowing for the multiplication factor. So getting the R-D1 has meant some adjustment and is the reason for the purchase of some of the wider angle lenses above (O.K. its GAS really) in search of the ideal combination. After some use and because I'm an eyeglass wearer and also not that keen on auxillary finders I have found that in general I still use the 35mm Cron most, probably about about 50% of the time and have adapted to the 53mm field of view, which of course is not much different from using the 50mm on the M4.
After trying a friends I am now tempted (O.K. its more GAS
) by a 40mm Nokton because of some close focusing issues with the Cron on my R-D1, the extra stop and as I don't like too much finder slop the closer match to the R-D1 35mm framelines. Of course if I could afford a 35mm asph lux???
Last edited:
Ed Schwartzreic
Well-known
I find that I am using just 3 lenses for most of my shooting, but one of them is the Tri-Elmar, so that probably ups the number. By far the most-used lens is the old 35 Summilux. It is low-contrast enough for most subjects, it is SMALL unlike the 35/1.4 aspheric, and of course it still draws like a 35, despite the field cut. (35's have been the lenses I used most on my Leica RF's). Moreover, due to the field cut and use of the center portion of the lens perhaps, it seems less objectionable wide open than it does on film. I can use it outside, inside, whatever.
The Tri-Elmar is my basic outdoor lens. I just used it to shoot an outdoor wedding and didn't wish for any other optic. (I used a Rollei TLR for the formals). It also works well when I use flash on the R-D1 and don't need the speed.
The Nocti I use for such things as shooting performances, meetings, etc.
------------------------------------
If I need something longer, I like the 90AA. I'm waiting for the new Zeiss 21/2.8 Biogon as well.
The Tri-Elmar is my basic outdoor lens. I just used it to shoot an outdoor wedding and didn't wish for any other optic. (I used a Rollei TLR for the formals). It also works well when I use flash on the R-D1 and don't need the speed.
The Nocti I use for such things as shooting performances, meetings, etc.
------------------------------------
If I need something longer, I like the 90AA. I'm waiting for the new Zeiss 21/2.8 Biogon as well.
R
RML
Guest
I have my RD-1 only a few weeks now and I'm still trying to work out which lenses will work for me. My CV 25/4 and J8 are no-brainers, as is my Rokkor 40. I'm thinking of getting a CV 15 to get that wiiiiiide angle effect I had with the 25 on my Bessa R.
atufte1@mac.com
Alexander Tufte
I use this lenses:
35/2 Summicron 90%
50/2 Summicron 10%
Best Regards
Alexander Tufte
35/2 Summicron 90%
50/2 Summicron 10%
Best Regards
Alexander Tufte
S
Sean Reid
Guest
Normally:
28 Ultron
35 Ultron
50 Nokton
All three focal lengths get used often.
Sunny days outdoors
Canon 28/2.8
Canon 35/2.8
Cheers,
Sean
28 Ultron
35 Ultron
50 Nokton
All three focal lengths get used often.
Sunny days outdoors
Canon 28/2.8
Canon 35/2.8
Cheers,
Sean
X
xcapekey
Guest
35/2 summicron
50/2 summitar
85/1.8 canon
21/2.8 avenon
50/2 summitar
85/1.8 canon
21/2.8 avenon
agoglanian
Reconnected.
well right now i only have one lens, but this is my first rangefinder i have owned. but i borrow m7s and mps from school all the time.
im using the 35mm Summicron-m f/2
and i will be getting the 50mm f/1.5 Nokton
and hopefully sometime the CV 12 or 15mm
im using the 35mm Summicron-m f/2
and i will be getting the 50mm f/1.5 Nokton
and hopefully sometime the CV 12 or 15mm
saxshooter
Well-known
I often use the:
15mm Super Heliar
28mm Elmarit
35mm Summilux ASPH (or the old Summicron when I'm packing light)
50mm Summicron
The 15mm Super heliar has really satisfied my need for wide. I love the vignetting too. Doesn't bother me at all. Great lens. If I were to go out with two lenses it would be the 15mm heliar and the 50mm Summicron.
Charlie
15mm Super Heliar
28mm Elmarit
35mm Summilux ASPH (or the old Summicron when I'm packing light)
50mm Summicron
The 15mm Super heliar has really satisfied my need for wide. I love the vignetting too. Doesn't bother me at all. Great lens. If I were to go out with two lenses it would be the 15mm heliar and the 50mm Summicron.
Charlie
DanielT
Member
Tri-Elmar as standard
CV 35 mm 1.7
Daniel
CV 35 mm 1.7
Daniel
Phil_Hawkes
Established
My lens kit is a bit different because I started with a Konica Hexar RF. What I have (in order of purchase) is:
50/2.0 Konica Hexanon
90/2.8 Konica Hexanon
50/1.0 Leica Noctilux (2nd hand)
35/1.4 Leica Summilux (2nd hand pre-asph)
15/4.5 CV Heliar (2nd hand, when I bought the R-D1 in Japan)
28/1.9 CV Ultron (after reading Sean's review)
Most of my photos are taken in the evening or at night, so I tend towards faster lenses.
Prior to buying the 28, my usage was
50/1.0 35%
35 30%
15 30%
90 5%
Since buying the 28, my usage is
28 50%+
50/1.0 30%
15 15%
The rest 5%
I found I was having trouble with glare in the 35, especially wide open (this was also a problem on film). In some cases, this gave a lovely glowing effect, but wasn't always desirable. The CV 28 seems to handle glare better than my 35 lux and it is my dominant lens now.
Most of my shots with 90 have been attempted wide open, which made focussing similar to :bang:.
I should be shooting more with the Konica 50/2.0, since it is supposed to be a good lens, but I don't often have the luxury of that much light., so it is easier to keep the Noctilux on the camera and have the flexibility of 4 extra stops. The 50/2.0 goes with me in the bag, just in case.
My next lens? Hopefully a Ziess Ikon 21/2.8.
Phil (a newbie)
50/2.0 Konica Hexanon
90/2.8 Konica Hexanon
50/1.0 Leica Noctilux (2nd hand)
35/1.4 Leica Summilux (2nd hand pre-asph)
15/4.5 CV Heliar (2nd hand, when I bought the R-D1 in Japan)
28/1.9 CV Ultron (after reading Sean's review)
Most of my photos are taken in the evening or at night, so I tend towards faster lenses.
Prior to buying the 28, my usage was
50/1.0 35%
35 30%
15 30%
90 5%
Since buying the 28, my usage is
28 50%+
50/1.0 30%
15 15%
The rest 5%
I found I was having trouble with glare in the 35, especially wide open (this was also a problem on film). In some cases, this gave a lovely glowing effect, but wasn't always desirable. The CV 28 seems to handle glare better than my 35 lux and it is my dominant lens now.
Most of my shots with 90 have been attempted wide open, which made focussing similar to :bang:.
I should be shooting more with the Konica 50/2.0, since it is supposed to be a good lens, but I don't often have the luxury of that much light., so it is easier to keep the Noctilux on the camera and have the flexibility of 4 extra stops. The 50/2.0 goes with me in the bag, just in case.
My next lens? Hopefully a Ziess Ikon 21/2.8.
Phil (a newbie)
Jim Watts
Still trying to See.
Hi Phil, Welcome,
Re. the glare. I had this problem with my 35mm Cron when shooting towards the light, but a switch to the lenshood from my 50mm Cron (same clip bayonet fit) cured the proble. As 35mm = 53mm on an R-D1 cutoff is not a problem.
Re. the glare. I had this problem with my 35mm Cron when shooting towards the light, but a switch to the lenshood from my 50mm Cron (same clip bayonet fit) cured the proble. As 35mm = 53mm on an R-D1 cutoff is not a problem.
Rocamadour
cronopio
Phil.
When shooting with the noctilux, what iso do you prefer? That is, do you avoid higher iso and rather shoot 1.0 or is it the opposite?
When shooting with the noctilux, what iso do you prefer? That is, do you avoid higher iso and rather shoot 1.0 or is it the opposite?
Phil_Hawkes
Established
Thanks for the welcome Jim. I'll remember the 50 Cron lenshood idea.
Rocamadour: good question. It depends on my mood!
Initially I was shooting wide open at slower speeds to use as low ISO as possible, but I found the results a little blurred. I thought I was getting a lot of out-of-focus shots at f1, so I avoided f1 fopr a while, although I'd often end up at f1.2 or f1.4. Recent experience seems to suggest that the focus is OK at f1, if I am careful. So I put the blur down to either
1. rushing the shot and me not being careful enoguh when focusing, or
2. underestimating how much my arms shake when I am in full-fledged photo-taking mode. (Maybe the coffee, or adrenalin... I'm not sure)
Anyway, now I tend to go for the higher ISO, shoot RAW. limit my exposure times to well within the standard rules for an SLR, and then shoot 1/2 stop down from fully open or more. If that results in under-exosure, then I accept that and brighten during RAW processing.
Ask me in a week's time and I'll probably have changed my mind and start to be a bit adventurous again.
I should stress that I am an amateur, so I can still experiment wtihout danger. My one assignment (a cousin's weddinga few months ago) is where I found some pictures a bit blurry. More about that some other time.
Phil
Rocamadour: good question. It depends on my mood!
Initially I was shooting wide open at slower speeds to use as low ISO as possible, but I found the results a little blurred. I thought I was getting a lot of out-of-focus shots at f1, so I avoided f1 fopr a while, although I'd often end up at f1.2 or f1.4. Recent experience seems to suggest that the focus is OK at f1, if I am careful. So I put the blur down to either
1. rushing the shot and me not being careful enoguh when focusing, or
2. underestimating how much my arms shake when I am in full-fledged photo-taking mode. (Maybe the coffee, or adrenalin... I'm not sure)
Anyway, now I tend to go for the higher ISO, shoot RAW. limit my exposure times to well within the standard rules for an SLR, and then shoot 1/2 stop down from fully open or more. If that results in under-exosure, then I accept that and brighten during RAW processing.
Ask me in a week's time and I'll probably have changed my mind and start to be a bit adventurous again.
I should stress that I am an amateur, so I can still experiment wtihout danger. My one assignment (a cousin's weddinga few months ago) is where I found some pictures a bit blurry. More about that some other time.
Phil