Your advice please

[manfred63]

Hello,

I am on 'digital' since a couple of years and am missing 'something'. So I started to look around and found out about Bessa R cameras which look great to start with again on analog.
I am mostly interested in Landscape 5both B/W and coulour) as well as portraits.

Now my question - what to choose?

1) Bessa R3M with Heliar 50mm 2.0 and complete with 21 or 25 mm lens
2) Bessa R4M with Nokton 40mm and complete with 21mm

Thank you for your opinion and help.

Best regards

Manfred

 

[lZr]

Welcome Manfred.

Bessa R4x are not ideal for portraits. We need 75/90 mm lenses for the purpose.

You like wide angle lenses. They are beautiful, but not the ones you will like for landscapes. You can use the R3x for portraits, but rethink the choices for lenses.

RF Landscapes are special view scapes you will want to review here in our Gallery.
Look and enjoy

Look for more opinions here

I hope your Bessa choice will be one you will like for the purpose

 

[ruby.monkey]

if you're interested in the 40mm then the R3M would be the most suitable, as the R3A/M are the only models with 40mm framelines.

 

[callistratis]

I'm not sure if any rangefinder is ideal for landscapes. It's more difficult to use polarizing and gradual filters. For landscapes I would choose SLR.

 

[manfred63]

Thank you for the first answers; I have been looking around a bit in the galleries, and I think I start to understand a little bit about the specifics.

So now I think maybe the best way is to start with body and 1 lens, shoot and get used to the camera and then see if I want to go more in tele or more in wide.

So for the moment I have a great offer to get a R3M with Heliar 50 (250 anniversary kit) at very reasonable price; is this a good starter, or would a 40 or 35mm make more sense? I think having both 50 and 40 is not very interesting, I think either 50 and 35 or only 40 to start with.

Thank you for your help

Manfred

 

[xayraa33]

I would go for the R3M with the Heliar Lens.
but then I am a 50mm lens fan and from what I seen, the Heliar looks to be a very fine lens .

 

[Anupam]

Nokton 40 gets my vote on the R3

 

[tedwhite]

I agree. I believe the R3A/M have 50 framelines, so the 50 Heliar would work. Also, you might consider the Color Skopar 35/2.5. Much less expensive than the 40, and seems to work just fine when you set the frameline at 40.

 

[manfred63]

Thank you for your answers, now I have still a question for you:

I could get the R3M with 50mm Heliar at about 580 Euros and the R3M with 40mm Nokton at about 650 Euros, what do you think is best to start with.
Afterwards I will add 21or 25 and 28 or 35.

Thank you in advance

Manfred

 

[Doug]

Both lenses are fine (I use both), but the R3M's viewfinder framelines for 40mm are rather difficult to see even without glasses... While the slightly smaller 50mm frames are easy and give you a bit of useful view around the outside of the picture area. Ideal, in my view, so my recommendation is the 50mm lens.

The Heliar Classic collapses about 1cm for more compact carry, is very well made, and quite an engineering accomplishment being the fastest Heliar-formula lens ever made. Results look very nice, smooth and sharp.

 

[kalokeri]

I second Doug.

If you think about adding some wides in the future the Heliar Classic is the better choice in my eyes. Keep in mind that you will need external finders for every lens smaller than 40mm with the R3M.

Thomas

 

[ferider]

I do recommend the 40 - very natural view and 1 stop faster when you need it. Also together with the 75/2.5 on the R3* a phantastic combo also for
landscapes. I find a short tele much more useful for landscapes than something wide. It is very difficult to do a decent landscape with anything wider than 28 - too much foreground needed. And yes, RFs are great for landscapes. Check out lZr's gallery for instance ...

Roland.