Should I go from 50mm to 35mm?

So it looks like I am getting a Bessa R2. This is my first foray

into "Leica Land". And that is the reason I am getting it. It

will, later on, give me the ability to access some super lenses.

Plus, I really needed a replacement for my Nikkormat FT2 with 50/1.4

SLR. Great worker, but I wanted something smaller, lighter and more

discrete for "street work."

 

Now, here is quandry.

 

I love shooting in natural light, and often shoot 3200 or even 6400

speed film (more often 3200 for obvious reasons). I am attaching an

image that shows an example of my work in this venue. It was taken

with the above state FT and 50/1.4. Again, I used that lens

because it is fast and good for that type of work. Plus the 50mm

is "standard" for an SLR.

 

But my new camera is not an SLR. It is a different beast. For

example the need for a fast lens is somewhat minimized by the fact

that I don't need to look THROUGH the lens anymore. No more getting

popped by a slow lens in marginal conditions because 4.7 or whatever

my zoom is on is "too dark." You know the deal.

 

So I am seriously thinking maybe I should break out a bit here.

 

So here are my options. Yes, they are all Voigtlander lenses. This

is a cost issue. And yes, I know there are Leica bargains out

there, but until I really know the Leica world, I am avoiding used

lenses for a while. If you think I should get a Leica lens, then

feel free to send me a check. :)

 

Lenses -

 

35/2.5 Color Skopar "P" Pancake Type II

- Nice because I don't have to buy a converter, not as nice for the

same reason. It is also compact and fast.

 

35/2.5 Color Skopar "C"

- Bigger, but not by much, and it does have a good price point and

that nice focusing lever.

 

35/1.7 Aspherical Ultron

- At the far end of my price limit. Maybe even over it, but it is

fast. Is the extra speed worth it? I dunno. You tell me. Big lens

though.

 

50/2.5 Color Skopar

- Good price here and I get a lens close to what I am used to.

But is 50mm too much?

 

50/1.5 Aspherical Nokton

- Sort of the Cosina version of a Noctilux I guess. Very fast,

and pretty much what I have shot before. Good? Bad? I dunno.

 

So what do y'all advise? I figure I can learn on any lens, and

worse comes to worst, I can always switch later when I get the cash.

 

I ma intriqued by the Nokton, but that is because I shoot lowlight a

lot. And my gut says "Fast good!"

 

Anyway let me know guys. Attached is a sampling of what I will be

doing.<div></div>

Robert,

 

First of all...welcome to the world of rangefinder cameras. You'll appreciate the ability

to hand hold your camera to much slower shutter speeds. Plus, they're very quiet and

are perfect for low-light shooting.

 

IMHO, you've picked a very good camer to break into the rangefinder world with. They

are relatively inexpensive but, yet, will do the job. Secondly, the Voigtlander Cosina

lenses are all very good in their own right.

 

If I were in your shoes...I think I'd go the 50 Aspherical Nokton f1.5 route. It gives you

a combination of speed and a focusing distance more in line with the 50 on your SLR

cameras.

 

For a secondary lens... the 35 Color Skopar f2.5 Pancake Type II is a fine, fine lens.

 

Both of these lenses will give you sharp and contrasty images for a fraction of the

cost of a new Leica lens. Secondly, if you decide that rangefinder cameras aren't quite

your cup of tea then you could sell them for a very minimal loss, if any.

 

There's also a 35 F1.2 lens out but it's a monster of a lens in terms of size. If I were in

your shoes... I'd stick with the 2.5 Color Skopar 35.

 

Good luck...

 

Cheers

Focal length is a personal choice. I would argue that you get

something f2 or faster. Keep in mind there's no mirror so you

may handhold it at a stop slower and the wider 35mm could

probably be held a stop slower than the narrowing 50 as well.

 

CV are great value but don't rule out the older nikon/canon/zeiss

ltm or the hexar 50mm. Best!

The 50mm Nokton is more an improvement over the Summilux than a Noctilux clone, and that's a good thing, as the Noctilux is a very specialized piece of optics. I find 35mm too wide for me, but that's a matter of taste. If you have been using a 50mm lens all these years, and have been happy with its perspective, there is no reason to change. The Bessa will allow you to see outside the framelines for 50mm (and you can even manually select the 35mm framelines), and you will soon find out whether 35mm would be better for you or not.

The CV Nokton 50/1.5 is just a really super lens IMHO. Speed or no speed.

 

I'm pretty much a beginner hobbyist, so I can't give any expert opinions. But over the last six months I kinda splurged and snagged a bunch of Nikon and CV primes.

 

Along with just a few others (Nikkor 28/2.8 comes to mind), the CV 50/1.5 really stands out from the crowd. Just a great lens.

 

I also have the CV 50/2.5 and love its diminutive dimensions, but I find that the Nokton kicks its butt. For me, the Nokton just seems to capture fine details and package these wonderfully with just a certain refined "look." Coming from Nikon's 50's, I think you'll be very pleased with the Nokton, again IMHO a much better lens than my also very sharp (and pleasantly cheap) Nikon 50/1.8 AFD.

 

I do have an LTM model CV 35/2.5 Pancake, and while not my favorite lens or focal length, I'm up late tonight printing some pics taken with this lens and am pleasantly surprised with some of the results.

 

Anyway, I don't think you'll be sorry with the Nokton 50. It's a winner.

 

Scott

From the above I would choose the 50mm Nokton. However, do I understand correctly that you are not looking at second-hand lenses from any brand? Because the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 is more compact than the CV lens.

 

Anyway, I prefer slightly longer lenses. I always suggest something like a 75mm. There is a 75mm f/2.5 CV that you can look at. I love the 75-90 range as it lets you get in a bit tighter and get more abstract compositions. Great for portraiture, too. And there would be nothing wrong with a 35+75 combo.

I agree with Karim.

 

If you want just one lens, get the CV Nokton 50mm. But if you plan to add a short tele, the 35 Skopar 'C' and the 75mm is a nice combo but not as 'luminus' as the 1.5 Nokton.

If you like to show the complex interrelationships among the various near and far elements in a picture, then you need a wider lens, like a 35 or a 28. If you like to simplify things down to their most essential elements, then you need a little longer lens, like a 50, 75, or 90. From the one picture you posted, it looks like you tend towards the latter. If that is typical of your work, then between the alternatives you raised, you probably should get the 50.

 

BTW, what focal length did you use for the shot you posted?

There are all kinds RF cameras with semi-wide 38-45mm fixed high speed prime lenses (Canon, Olympus, Konica, etc) which can be bought for less than $100 and would suit your purpose just fine. Consider them and keep your Nikkormat for interchangable lenses if you can't afford Leica.

Rob F - I used a 50/1.4 on that shot. Of course! It is my fastest lens by far.

 

As to using a cheap RF, I have done that in the past, But I am trying to simplify here. I want good optics, compactness, and unltimate versatility. And the Bessa R2 fits that very well. Plus I want the option to upgrade later, but keep my good lenses. This will be my only real travel camera. So it needs a certain amount of complexity. By, as was suggested, later getting a 75 or 90 I can have a good setup for street AND on-the-go portrait. I do a lot of traveling to see family in the UK so I can see using (and have used) everything from a 50 to a 90 depending on the situation. Even a 35 if I end up going that way at some point. Then I will also have my Bronica outfit for studio/travel work (depending on how much I want to carry) and my LF for the same.

I would suggest that you would best be guided by what sort of work you mainly do. If you mainly shoot portraits etc, get at least a 50mm since as you know, 50mm (minimum) or 90mm provide the best outcome here for a range of reasons, which I am sure you will be familiar with. If on the other hand you mainly do street work and can only afford one lens - go for the 35mm. More depth of field not only gives, well, more depth of field, it allows you to preset your focus and use hyperfocal focussing to shoot fast without the need to fiddle with the focusing ring when the time comes to take the shot. This is CRUCIAL for mere mortals to capture that "decisive moment." To my way of thinking this is one of the great advantages of a rangefinder - the separate viewfinder removes the compulsion to fiddle and encourages the user to just shoot hwen the opportunity presents itself. You would be surprised how often it works out fine if smaller apertures are used capitalising on the wide angle's inherent depth of field.

If you cannot decide between the 35 and 50 or if you plan to buy a longer lens in future then get the 40/2 Summicron: An excellent and small lens which gives you the versality one needs for travel. Fast enough for almost all kinds of shots it combines nicely with a 75 or 90 on the longer and a 21 or 28 on the wider end. And maybe you might even consider the matching CL instead of the Bessa 2? This is at least my dream combo for travel.

First off, I want to thank everyone who contributed. It was all very helpful.

 

I decided to get the 50mm Nocton. Mostly because I KNOW that focal length and I do tend to focus on the essentials of an image rather than the "big picture". I guess my love of Siskand shows there. :)

 

I will though be getting a 35mm later on. Probably a used one. I will have time to really sort of "shop" around the LSM and M mount world and see what is out there. Prior to this I only dealt with the company that made the camera system. There may have been someone like Tamron making a few lenses for the system, but price-wise and quality-wise it was best to go with the brand name lens.

 

But now....the choices are just mind boggling! I mean the "Leica World" offers a LOT of choices. There are old lenses, new lenses, third party lenses, capitalist lenses, communist lenses, good lenses, and bad lenses. Which is one of the things I wanted to have.

 

After researching I think I will end up with a 35/50/90 system. This would give me versatility, and, most important, a VERY compact travel kit. A small camera bag could fulfill all my needs and then some.

 

When the camera is delivered I'll post some pics.

 

Thanks again.

Robert,

 

A bit late into this thread, I want to cast my vote for the Nokton. Not only is it much better than most anything you can find on the focal length, regardless of brand and price (probably a solid broinze medalist) but also will let you do very selective focusing, something the 50/2.5 Skopar will not.

 

I used to have a 35/2.5 Color-Skopar and it's a very fine lens but if I were in the disjunctive again, I'd go for the 35/1.7 Ultron for the same reasons as the Nokton, that is limited DOF.

 

On the other hand, the diminutive Color-Skopars (35 and 50) are excellent street shooters, aided by their very convenient focusing levers and short focusing arcs. You can't go wrong either way.

PS, <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2601268&size=lg">Here's a photo</a> made at night with the Nokton with very low light level, that illustrates what I mention about the shallow DOF.

A bit late- but here's another opinion. I feel the VF of an RF is so different from the more

WYSIWYG VF of an SLR, it's difficult to make a comparison. I started with a 35mm on a

0.7x M6, and it's taken me awhile to get use to seeing so much outside of the frame. I

think I'd like to go with a 50 and 28, since I also use the Hexar AF which has a wonderful

35mm on it already (tho' not as perfect as the 35 'cron Asph), which had been my

impression at the outset.

 

My point is that with a RF VF, you'll be relating to your subject much differently than with

an SLR of equivalent focal length. It's as if you have to learn a whole new way of

visualizing. For instance, I think I still much prefer an SLR for portraits- one feels much

more intimate with the subject, using longer FL (90mm +) than visualizing your subject

inside a small frameline.

 

If you get the 50mm, with a .6x finder, you're going to feel like you're using a short

telephoto. If you get the 35mm, it'll feel more like the 50mm you're used to--- all in

terms with how you relate to your subject through the finder. How the photos turn out are

yet another story!

(a) Ditto Kai up there. (I have all three and use the 2/40C the most.) (b) For a 35mm, advantage number 1: you can always use the width-distance concept (landscape width of a 35 lens = distance from you to the object). © Advantage number 2: 35mm being more of a wide-angle, you have a bigger range for hyper-focusing. E.g. for 50mm at f/16, I make it from 1 to 1.5 m, but for 35 mm, 1 to 5 m.