W
wblanchard
Guest
I know people have the camera and 40mm lens, I just haven't really seen any photos posted showing how nice the lens is....anyone want to share some shots? or their thoughts on the 40?
Where are the R3a and 40mm pictures?
- Thread starter wblanchard
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 8
- Views 2K
N
Natalia
Guest
I'll be developing some pix taken with R2A and 40/1.4 Nokton over this weekend....
Gerold
Mittagspausenkünstler
I received my R3A / 40/1.4 combo just before Christmas. Not having had the chance to really take it out in the meantime, I just took a few shots on the go.
On a shoestring:
The 40 seems to have a stunningly strong resolution capability. I have uploaded an example to my gallery which evidences that ("Resolution"). I couldn't want more resolution - this is as much as I can draw a benefit from. Stopped down, the 40 Nokton is incredibly strong, I think.
On the flipside, used wide open, the 40 at 1.4 and, to a lesser degree, at 2 has an unpleasant out-of-focus area rendition. It almost looks like a halo-effect, and can be irritating. My Zeiss lenses for the G don't do that. Example: "Out-of-focus area".
Then there's another rather weak point: Vignetting wide open under low-light conditions. The Nokton used wide open seems to do that more than any other lens between 35 and 50 focal length that I use. It does worse than the Nikkor 35 1.4, which, at 1.4, is not impressive in this respect. By the way: My new R3A/Nokton had a very strong impact on my 3-year old daughter. She insisted to have a new camera as well, so I had to tinker one for her. Examples o fresults are also uploaded to my gallery ("Vignetting; Handicraft").
I should say though: The above downsides don't disqualify the 40 Nokton at all, in my view. This little lens can do great things when one is aware of its limits. And even if the limitats shold hit - who cares really. A bit of vignetting will never kill a strong image!
The R3A handles intuitively in my hands, I like everything about the ergonomics. What's not for me is the finder. Wearing glasses, and having used with manual Nikon SLR for a very long long time, I'm used to move my eye around when framing. But the 40 mm frames are too far out for me. They give me a hard time getting a sense of proportions within the frame. I don't think I'm going to get used to it. As a consequence, I have an R2A with a 35 Ultron on order. I checked with an R2 before, and it works fine for me. Without glasses, the R3A finder is fantastic!
Here are the examples: My gallery.
Cheers, Gerold
On a shoestring:
The 40 seems to have a stunningly strong resolution capability. I have uploaded an example to my gallery which evidences that ("Resolution"). I couldn't want more resolution - this is as much as I can draw a benefit from. Stopped down, the 40 Nokton is incredibly strong, I think.
On the flipside, used wide open, the 40 at 1.4 and, to a lesser degree, at 2 has an unpleasant out-of-focus area rendition. It almost looks like a halo-effect, and can be irritating. My Zeiss lenses for the G don't do that. Example: "Out-of-focus area".
Then there's another rather weak point: Vignetting wide open under low-light conditions. The Nokton used wide open seems to do that more than any other lens between 35 and 50 focal length that I use. It does worse than the Nikkor 35 1.4, which, at 1.4, is not impressive in this respect. By the way: My new R3A/Nokton had a very strong impact on my 3-year old daughter. She insisted to have a new camera as well, so I had to tinker one for her. Examples o fresults are also uploaded to my gallery ("Vignetting; Handicraft").
I should say though: The above downsides don't disqualify the 40 Nokton at all, in my view. This little lens can do great things when one is aware of its limits. And even if the limitats shold hit - who cares really. A bit of vignetting will never kill a strong image!
The R3A handles intuitively in my hands, I like everything about the ergonomics. What's not for me is the finder. Wearing glasses, and having used with manual Nikon SLR for a very long long time, I'm used to move my eye around when framing. But the 40 mm frames are too far out for me. They give me a hard time getting a sense of proportions within the frame. I don't think I'm going to get used to it. As a consequence, I have an R2A with a 35 Ultron on order. I checked with an R2 before, and it works fine for me. Without glasses, the R3A finder is fantastic!
Here are the examples: My gallery.
Cheers, Gerold
Last edited:
Huck Finn
Well-known
Thanks, Gerold. Beautiful pictures.
chmeyer
Member
The 40 is the only lens I own. I love it.
There are several photos in my gallery.
Chris
There are several photos in my gallery.
Chris
JohnM
Well-known
I've been lazy scanning negatives lately; even if I wasn't, the gallery seems to hate me and it rejects my attempts to upload to it.
The R3 - I love the finder, but it took some time to get used to. The 40 framelines are way out and in the beginning, I had trouble keeping the rangefinder patch and the meter reading visible at the same time. The 1:1 finder is neat, but I cannot get used to focusing with both eyes open so I don't. The framelines don't "float in the air" for me, but the finder is very bright and open. Very nice.
Like the R2, I'm much more comfortable using the R3 with the sidegrip or the trigger winder and a softrelease. One difference I've noticed about the R3 as opposed to the R2 - the shutter release is much more sensitive. The pressure I use to get a meter reading from the R2 fires the shutter of the R3. I definitely wasted my share of frames early on.
The 40 - I've had a couple of rolls developed and I would agree completely with Gerold. It's a very capable, compact performer, but it can produce some odd OOF effects wide open. I did not have the issue with the stiff focusing ring that some had - it was fine out of the box. I'm still learning about the lens and what it does well and not so well - I'll sit down at the scanner and give some examples soon.
The R3 - I love the finder, but it took some time to get used to. The 40 framelines are way out and in the beginning, I had trouble keeping the rangefinder patch and the meter reading visible at the same time. The 1:1 finder is neat, but I cannot get used to focusing with both eyes open so I don't. The framelines don't "float in the air" for me, but the finder is very bright and open. Very nice.
Like the R2, I'm much more comfortable using the R3 with the sidegrip or the trigger winder and a softrelease. One difference I've noticed about the R3 as opposed to the R2 - the shutter release is much more sensitive. The pressure I use to get a meter reading from the R2 fires the shutter of the R3. I definitely wasted my share of frames early on.
The 40 - I've had a couple of rolls developed and I would agree completely with Gerold. It's a very capable, compact performer, but it can produce some odd OOF effects wide open. I did not have the issue with the stiff focusing ring that some had - it was fine out of the box. I'm still learning about the lens and what it does well and not so well - I'll sit down at the scanner and give some examples soon.
RObert Budding
D'oh!
Gerold - Nice photos. I love the shot of your daugter with her camera!
Robert
Robert
Gerold
Mittagspausenkünstler
Thanks Robert ... she's having great fun with it!
T
thelucia4
Guest
I have found the CV 40/1.4 mc to be a very good all-round performer, including nice rendition of oof areas.
You can see some tests I ran with the lens at the links below. The bokeh test images show how the lens performs under pretty extreme conditions. I think the lens holds its own in all types of shooting situations.
http://www.firstpersonphoto.com/bessa40.htm
http://www.firstpersonphoto.com/cv40bokeh.htm
You can see some tests I ran with the lens at the links below. The bokeh test images show how the lens performs under pretty extreme conditions. I think the lens holds its own in all types of shooting situations.
http://www.firstpersonphoto.com/bessa40.htm
http://www.firstpersonphoto.com/cv40bokeh.htm
