back alley
IMAGES
on the rd1, crop factor is 1.53...so is a 21 which brings us to 32 or a 25 which is more like 38 the nearest to a 35 mm pov?
obviously one is wider and one is longer but which have you chosen to sub for a 35?
obviously one is wider and one is longer but which have you chosen to sub for a 35?
Dwig
Well-known
Closer to a 35 on what camera?????????????
If you are comparing these lenses on an R-D1 to a 35mm lens on 35mm film, the 21 is the winner. 35mm film is almost always cropped slightly when printed, much more so than digital images. Only handmade prints using oversized negative carriers ever show all or nearly all of the negative.
If you are comparing to a 35mm on an M9 then its somewhat of a wash. Given the loose precision of the marked focal lengths, it would be hard to be overly precise, but based on the marked values it is a tie.
If you are comparing these lenses on an R-D1 to a 35mm lens on 35mm film, the 21 is the winner. 35mm film is almost always cropped slightly when printed, much more so than digital images. Only handmade prints using oversized negative carriers ever show all or nearly all of the negative.
If you are comparing to a 35mm on an M9 then its somewhat of a wash. Given the loose precision of the marked focal lengths, it would be hard to be overly precise, but based on the marked values it is a tie.
back alley
IMAGES
did you read the first line of my post or notice what forum it's posted in?
kshapero
South Florida Man
Regardless I think the 21mm is the winner
LCT
ex-newbie
None of 21 or 24 (no experience of 25) draw like a 35mm lens IMHO. Despite its narrower FoV my substitute to 35 is 28 on APS-C cameras. FWIW.
back alley
IMAGES
i tend to agree with you.
the 28 on the rd1 seems to be my fall back lens.
the 28 on the rd1 seems to be my fall back lens.
Dwig
Well-known
Yes I read them, but both only reference the camera on which the 21 or 25 would be used. Nothing is said about what camera would be used with the 35mm for comparison.
ampguy
Veteran
for me, irregardless of the effective fov change, it's still the 35 lens that is most like the 35 lens on any other 35mm camera on the RD1/M8.
kxl
Social Documentary
Joe - regardless of FOV, once you get a CV 35/1.2, it will never leave your R-D1. That combo is just magical.
back alley
IMAGES
ferider
Veteran
Naah, Joe, it's not. You do good stuff with your 40, why change ? Imagine a lens twice as big as the 28 Ultron. That would be the 35/1.2.
A fast 35 for your Canon P, now that would be a different story
A fast 35 for your Canon P, now that would be a different story
back alley
IMAGES
the p will share my canon 35/2.8
Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
I had my first outing with it yesterday, its a joy to use, click stop aperture ring, focusing ring large and knurled and easy to use, and surprising well balanced on the R-D1, though it does feel as if its substantial weight will wrench the mount off the camera!
I use the 28/f1.9 most of the time, the 35/f1.4 thereafter.
I agree, a 21mm, even taking the crop factor into account doesn't compare to a 35mm on a 135 camera. The depth of field is (too) excessive for one thing.
Last edited:
back alley
IMAGES
well, i have a few things for sale now and if they sell, i will be left with a fast 28, 40 and 50 and a slower 35 and 50 (3, in fact) and of course the ever popular 15.
Krosya
Konicaze
Naah, Joe, it's not. You do good stuff with your 40, why change ? Imagine a lens twice as big as the 28 Ultron. That would be the 35/1.2.
A fast 35 for your Canon P, now that would be a different story
There is no way that CV 35//1.2 is twice as big as CV 28 Ultron. Plus there is NOTHING that draws like CV 35/1.2. It's THE Lens. CV 40 is a better substitute for a CV 35/1.4, but not for a 35/1.2.
ampguy
Veteran
well
well
The 40/1.4 has less distortion than the 35/1.2, in addition to being quite a bit smaller.
The summilux 35 is probalby the right answer here for the OP though.
well
The 40/1.4 has less distortion than the 35/1.2, in addition to being quite a bit smaller.
The summilux 35 is probalby the right answer here for the OP though.
ferider
Veteran
Right, 28/1.9 vs. 35/1.2, from the bartenders lens table:
- in Weight: 9.3oz vs. 19.6oz
- in cross-cut (from mount forward): 47mm x 53mm = 2491mm^2 ... vs. 63mm x 63mm = 3969mm^2.
Even more than factor 2 if you consider volume or the hoods. And, the 28/2 is even smaller.
You might know if you had ever held one of the lenses you have such negative opinions about.
Roland.
ampguy
Veteran
huge!
huge!
relative to the pre-asph lux ...
pre-asph lux is 6.4 oz., 37mm x 52mm, filter not always needed (or helpful, one might say)
huge!
relative to the pre-asph lux ...
pre-asph lux is 6.4 oz., 37mm x 52mm, filter not always needed (or helpful, one might say
)
back alley
IMAGES
so, in answer to my original query...can we safely say that a 35 is a 35 is a 35 on a rd1 and if i want that 35 'look' i need to use a 35?
kxl
Social Documentary
Can't really say whether or not the CV 35/1.2 is a replacement for any other lens ***FOR YOU*** since that is a personal decision, but ***FOR ME*** -- as much as I like the 35mm FL, I was down to that ONE 35mm lens, until a too-good-to-pass-up deal for a "bundled" ZI + ZM 35/2.0 was posted in the rff classifieds a few months ago.
The color images in the EVERYDAY EGYPT gallery on my website were all taken with the R-D1s and CV 35/1.2.