Zoom lenses?

[RML]

If you like all those things about a rangefinder then learn to love zooming with your feet ;-) Seriously, what zooms do you like to use? For an assignment I would carry my DSLR with a good all-purpose zoom for when I get stuck in a corner or need to know that I nailed a shot. For the art shots or wandering around I would pull out the rangefinder. My hit ratio drops with my rangefinder, but when it does connect I'm so much more happy with the photo.

The foot zoom thing sounds nice but isn't quite the same as a real zoom, is it. There are situations where the foot zoom will very much change the composition, and there are situations where I can't move or back anyway.

My approach to assignments is to get the must-have shots in the bag before trying anything artsy. Whether I use an slr or an rf for the bag shots isn't the problem. The problem is that an rf with it's fixed focal length isn't versatile enough. But I love the immediacy of changing settings and focusing of the rf, as opposed to the (often crappy) auto-focus and the hoorid ways of changing settings on dSLRs.

 

[RML]

A Pentax ME Super or MX or an Olympus OM would give you a 'near rangefinder' experience and offer many zoom options. The only way a RF could properly use a zoom would be to have a coupled zooming finder and I'm not surprised frankly that nobody has bothered to design one.

Film cameras are out of the question. 🙂 The benefits of digital overcome any benefit the use of film might have. Sadly, perhaps, but there you have it.

And yes, I understand that designing a rf coupling for zooms would be a nightmare. But one can ask, right? 🙂

 

[RML]

I haven't tried any of them myself, but might not a Digilux 2 or 3 (or Panasonic eq.) fit Your needs if You like digital? They have manual friendly controls and supposedly good zoom lenses. Not small but still more compact than most dslrs.
Just a thought
Jacob

A useful thought.
I may have to consider going that way.

 

[payasam]

I thought long and hard about the Digilux before concluding, sadly, that it was beyond my means. An attractive camera, specially for those who are accustomed to manual ones.

 

[RML]

Interesting observation, Payasam.

 

[hlockwood]

I thought long and hard about the Digilux before concluding, sadly, that it was beyond my means. An attractive camera, specially for those who are accustomed to manual ones.

I was on the verge of buying a Digilux 2 until I read negative reviews of the image quality. Everything else about the D-2 appealed to me.

Anyone care to comment?

And, sorry for hijacking the thread.

Harry

 

[oftheherd]

Dang! That 35-75 sounds nice. The tri-elmars are a bit too wide for me.

I may have to go hunt for a cheap normal-to-short-tele M42 mount zoom and see if I can get to work properly on the R-D1 (with adapters). Any suggestions?

Film cameras are out of the question. 🙂 The benefits of digital overcome any benefit the use of film might have. Sadly, perhaps, but there you have it.

And yes, I understand that designing a rf coupling for zooms would be a nightmare. But one can ask, right? 🙂

I am guessing you must have a dslr with adapter for the M42? You might look at the Fujica 43-70 (or 75, I forget) which they introduced with their AZ-1 camera. Other manufatures then also came out with a similar lens, including Nikon and Yashica.

As I said, I don't remember if it is to 70 or 75, as I haven't used mine in some little while. It is a small lens, being not much bigger than a 50mm. It is also sharp, being a Fujica lens.

 

[laptoprob]

I have a Digilux 2 since a few weeks now. At first I was disappointed about sharpness, but that was side open. Even a Summicron zoom is still a zoom. Not that sharp wide open. Beautifully soft!
Stopped down to about f4 the lens is very sharp.
Having a relatively small sensor increases dof but focussing is difficult with the electronic viewfinder. Using highlights in eyes works best.
The camera is very handholdable upto very slow shutter speeds, I still am amazed by that.
I also found the camera's Jpeg converter does a good job in sharpness. I couldn't get a similar effect from a similar RAW file. Tried this on a gate in the distance.
ISO 400 is a bit limiting but I found it is very possible to underexpose and to salvage later. Especially in BW, maybe because of the big pixels (relatively few on the smallish sensor) and the large lens.

All in all, I am learning to work and love the camera.

I tried to get some first pics into my gallery but got annoyed too much about the 300k file limit. Isn't there a good tool to define the file size rather than the pixel size when downsizing?