sean_reid Posted September 29, 2006 Share #21 Posted September 29, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) steve - why bother yourslef about which one is narrower and which is wider... sean.. u make rviews... do u recognize the effect imidiatle, or it takes a few seconds to realize it when the pics are side by side???? is there such a big differance??? Hi Vic, I don't notice the difference immediately, only when the pictures are side by side. Is it a large difference? No, not necessarily. Does it matter to another photographer? That's not for me to say as I don't know what his or her reasons might be for wanting to know. I try to never assume that my priorities would necessarily apply to other photographers. The question above had to do with finding a 21 with a slightly narrower FOV to correspond more closely with the M8's full window (which I don't think will work out but I understand the idea). BTW, one buys a Zeiss ZM either because 1) he or she prefers it or 2) he or she likes it and wants to save a lot of $$. Ditto for CV. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 29, 2006 Posted September 29, 2006 Hi sean_reid, Take a look here Voigtlander lenses with M8. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Rona!d Posted September 29, 2006 Share #22 Posted September 29, 2006 I had the CV15 and the Tri 16/18/21 on the M8. Well, i thought the CV 15 would be good enough (as it is on my MP) BUT now i´m seriosly thinking about where to get the money for the Tri. I switched off the code-thing, so both lenses had the same conditions from that side. To be fair, i had a real hard test-field, a white wall. As you all know, the REAL photos are not white walls (although ...) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted September 29, 2006 Share #23 Posted September 29, 2006 oh sean - of course my priorities are not other photographers priorities - sure... but lets look at it.... rangefinder cameras are never accurate for framing... u will never get accuracy in framing like on 100% field of groundglass (slr or large cameras)... besides - the idea of accurate framing (i mean precise) just kills the beauty of range finder photography abilities and capabilities... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertwang Posted September 29, 2006 Share #24 Posted September 29, 2006 Accurating framing destroys the idea of spontaneous snapshooting. If you want that use the SLR... which I do for my macro shots! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_l Posted September 29, 2006 Share #25 Posted September 29, 2006 Sean- Thanks for the info on actual field of view...I guess I should just calm down and wait till I have it in hand and then give these a try..... Vic vic- Of course we won't get 100%..but being outside the frame window is different than being outside the frame lines but visible to the photographer, as we have with inset frame lines...outside the window sort of defeats the whole rangefinder thing of seeing what is outside the frame as a help in deciding what should be in it...and if a bunch of what is actually going to be in the image is also outside the window, that is even worse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertwang Posted September 29, 2006 Share #26 Posted September 29, 2006 I agree about looking outside the frame too but even parallax error doesn't always help here you know? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 29, 2006 Share #27 Posted September 29, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) oh sean - of course my priorities are not other photographers priorities - sure... but lets look at it.... rangefinder cameras are never accurate for framing... u will never get accuracy in framing like on 100% field of groundglass (slr or large cameras)... besides - the idea of accurate framing (i mean precise) just kills the beauty of range finder photography abilities and capabilities... Vic, Let's back up a second. I myself am not particularly concerned with these small differences in FOV but I report them for photographers to whom they may be important. So let's not confuse the issue here. As far as rangefinder photographers not having a very good idea of where their edges will fall....I couldn't disagree more with you. Rather than repeat myself here, you can look at my discussions of this in various articles about rangefinder cameras and lenses. In short, a good photographer starts to learn (with a given camera and a given lens at a given focus distance) where his or her pictures' edges will fall. Look again at the work of some of the best photographers who have used rangefinder cameras and pay particular attention to what happens at the pictures' edges - the forms that are defined and created by those edges. Those aren't accidents. Has their work "killed" RF photography, I would hardly say so. Rather that work has largely defined the mediums. I could give specific example after specific example but perhaps that's better left for an article on this. But, again, I strongly disagree that an RF camera is a tool for vague framing. When I work with the R-D1, I never place my edges at the frame lines but always outside them (I don't tend to work at 2-3 feet distance). Where I place those edges exactly depends on the lens I'm using and the focus distance. BTW, was just looking at your site this morning because I was interested in a comment you made about vantage point in another thread. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 29, 2006 Share #28 Posted September 29, 2006 Sean-Thanks for the info on actual field of view...I guess I should just calm down and wait till I have it in hand and then give these a try..... Vic vic- Of course we won't get 100%..but being outside the frame window is different than being outside the frame lines but visible to the photographer, as we have with inset frame lines...outside the window sort of defeats the whole rangefinder thing of seeing what is outside the frame as a help in deciding what should be in it...and if a bunch of what is actually going to be in the image is also outside the window, that is even worse. Hi Steve, I don't think you need to calm down at all; it was a reasonable question. Many of us are excited about the M8 and rightly so. Christmas Eve doesn't come that often for adults. No reason not to enjoy it. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 29, 2006 Share #29 Posted September 29, 2006 I agree about looking outside the frame too but even parallax error doesn't always help here you know? It's just practice, Albert. For an RF photographer, in particular, it makes a great deal of sense to find a camera and a few lenses that one loves and then stick with them for a long time. Practice and familiarity then teaches the mind and body where the edges of the frame will fall for camera X with lens Y at distance Z. It becomes internalized over time for a photographer who works regularly with concentration. Experience will teach the mind and body how to compensate for parallax just as it teaches one how to get a basketball in the hoop or how to find middle C on the piano by feel. Consider an experienced frisbee player for example. She knows how to adjust her throw so that it remains accurate even as the wind varies in strength and changes in direction. Like the other animals, our visual-physical sense can be very finely tuned by attention and practice. When Helen Levitt trips the shutter on her Leica, she knows where her picture's edges are. And a photographer needs to care about the edges of his or her pictures every bit as much as a painter, graphic artist, etc. The evidence of this within the history of visual art is overwhelming. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted September 29, 2006 Share #30 Posted September 29, 2006 sean - no not irrisposible framing at all... of course... i also make frames as u describe... wit the feeling of the frame even without the viewfinder use sometimes... of course i agree with u.. i just said that rf camera will not allow u precise framing like slr 100% camera of big camera... and i think that if somebody tries to do so with rf - then all the point is missed .. u canot get neither exact 100% framing nor the great freedom and intuitive use of rf camera.... and sure i understand your work, and indeed - apriciate it very much as i have mentioned somewhere.. and actually, as now there is a need to make subscdription - i wil do it to hear your opinions - sure man :-)))) steve - this is exactly the point... so may be it will be better to get the 21 finder if u want 21 lens... u know - 21 lens doesnt really need rangefinder focusing - it is very flexible. some time of exercies on it and u will get great sense of distance... i will admit here quitly - shu shu:-))) i even focus sometimes the 50 at f4 if im in very concentrated condition.. it is more than ok, and gives me the imidiate reaction (even if i can focus with rf very fast and accuratly - i ave mp 0.85 with is very rewarding for it). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertwang Posted September 29, 2006 Share #31 Posted September 29, 2006 I really like the bargain aspect of VC... i bet that lots of rf photogs really like being able to afford wide angles at least. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
humanized_form Posted September 29, 2006 Share #32 Posted September 29, 2006 the VC lenses are incredible value. i like the 35/1.7 Ultron, 28/1.9 Ultron and 50/1.5 Nokton a lot. i would like to try some of the older pre-asph Leica lenses(specifically the 35mm Summicron and Summilux) with the M8, but even they cost so much more than the VC lenses do. i have read some say (Erwin Puts, Stephen Gandy etc) that the VC lenses offer similar performance to the pre-asph Leica stuff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grober Posted September 30, 2006 Share #33 Posted September 30, 2006 The 50/1.5 Nokton has never failed to please although I confess I tend to like the 75 perspective more so I don't use 50mm all that much. (Preference will surely change in this regard as I learn the M8 with its 1.33 finder thingy.) One 28mm NOT to overlook is the Canon 2.8 (you'll need a bayonet adapter). It's my only 28mm at present and has consistently delivered good results. I lusted after the faster speed of the 28/2 Summicron but it's large size and considerable price made me pause. This veteran's small size is also an advantage. I also briefly owned it's stable mate, the Canon 25/3.5 but I never felt its optical performance was anything but ordinary. THEN the dazzling ZM 25/2.8 Biogon entered our life and very quickly the Canon 25 disappeared on eBay. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted September 30, 2006 Share #34 Posted September 30, 2006 Same as on any recent stock M - the only change is that they have replaced the 135mm frame with a 24mm frame. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 1, 2006 Share #35 Posted October 1, 2006 The 50/1.5 Nokton has never failed to please although I confess I tend to like the 75 perspective more so I don't use 50mm all that much. (Preference will surely change in this regard as I learn the M8 with its 1.33 finder thingy.) One 28mm NOT to overlook is the Canon 2.8 (you'll need a bayonet adapter). It's my only 28mm at present and has consistently delivered good results. I lusted after the faster speed of the 28/2 Summicron but it's large size and considerable price made me pause. This veteran's small size is also an advantage. I also briefly owned it's stable mate, the Canon 25/3.5 but I never felt its optical performance was anything but ordinary. THEN the dazzling ZM 25/2.8 Biogon entered our life and very quickly the Canon 25 disappeared on eBay. I also love the Canon 28/2.8, and use it often, but I suspect that some people may not care for it. It's not quite as sharp stopped down as some of the newer lenses (which doesn't bother me at all for the pictures I choose to use it for) and at wider apertures it's extremely soft in the outer zones (which can be kind of fun). A famous lens, for sure, but an acquired taste. It does have a really beautiful, gentle way of drawing in B&W. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterb Posted October 1, 2006 Share #36 Posted October 1, 2006 With an SLR camera you make a picture. With the rangefinder camera you find one. P Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grober Posted October 1, 2006 Share #37 Posted October 1, 2006 Personally I believe the Tri-Elmar is a "crazy" lens.... It costs a lot, have a "zoom" range that could be defined as "ridicolous" (1.3x!!) and, in addition, is all but fast with a "sad" f/4... should not be Leica an available light tool? at f/4? f/4 could be reasonable for some uses, but for a fraction of the price of the Tri-Elmar!! Why don't you buy an Elmarit 21/2.8 instead and keep the 12 Voigt for extreme shooting? Elio Strongly agree with both comments here. I had the second generation TE and used it often (on a M4-P) for weddings using flash for "standard" group shots. This left my 35/2 & 75/2 Summicrons on the M7 for available light work. For other uses, I finally decided that the TE was just to slow and sold it. Nice also to hear a plug for the first generation 21/2.8 Elmarit. The later ASPH design is no doubt a better design, but the older one still delivers dazzling shots. (It's one drawback is its unusual 60mm filter size.) With many Leica-photogs upgrading to the ASPH lens, the older lens can be had for a very reasonable price. -g Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grober Posted October 1, 2006 Share #38 Posted October 1, 2006 I also love the Canon 28/2.8, and use it often, but I suspect that some people may not care for it. It's not quite as sharp stopped down as some of the newer lenses (which doesn't bother me at all for the pictures I choose to use it for) and at wider apertures it's extremely soft in the outer zones (which can be kind of fun). A famous lens, for sure, but an acquired taste. It does have a really beautiful, gentle way of drawing in B&W. Cheers, Sean Sean nailed the characteristics of this veteran lens perfectly. For a "more serious" 28mm lens, your other postings have convinced me to buy the Nokton. But the ol' Canon will always be in my kit too. What could I sell it for anyway: $250 maybe? It's fun value outweighs that by a mile... Thanks! -g Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 1, 2006 Share #39 Posted October 1, 2006 Sean nailed the characteristics of this veteran lens perfectly. For a "more serious" 28mm lens, your other postings have convinced me to buy the Nokton. But the ol' Canon will always be in my kit too. What could I sell it for anyway: $250 maybe? It's fun value outweighs that by a mile... Thanks! -g Hi g, You mean the 28 Ultron? That's a great lens all around. If I'm making pictures for myself, I often use the Canon. If the pictures are for clients, it's usually the Ultron. The two complement each other very well, the Canon is a great sunny day lens (and, as you say, very compact) whereas the Ultron is good for just about everything. Having written the above, I now am reminded that I shot every new picture for a recent magazine feature article (Robb Report) with an R-D1 and the Canon 28 (at F/8 and F/11). I have lots of pictures made with that combination that I'm very happy with. Will I use the Canon on the M8? - absolutely. It was satisfying to do the whole set with just one RF and one lens, esp. since some seem to think 20 lbs. worth of gear are needed for this work. That reminds me. Yesterday, I started a wedding shoot photographing the bride and entourage in a beauty salon. Another photographer was just finishing up her pictures of another bride. That photographer was carrying at least 50 lbs. of gear including studio flash heads with a huge power pack, etc. I did all my pictures by existing light with just the R-D1 and the 28 Ultron. Different strokes... Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted October 2, 2006 Share #40 Posted October 2, 2006 Let's change the focus a bit to the longer end. The natural successor to the classic 90 mm lenses is of course the 75 mm focal length. Does anyone know how good the C/V 75 mm is? Is it usable wide open? Of course we all lust for the 75 mm Summicron, but there's that financial aspect ... BTW I agree that the 15 mm is better than the 21 mm, especially in the corners. Quite remarkable definition. This will go into my M8 kit with my 28 Summicron. The current 50 mm Summilux is a fabulous lens (like the 28) but will be useful largely as an indoor 'people lens'. The old badger from the days of flashpowder Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.