Focusing fast lenses on the Bessa R2

[brien_m]

Has anyone experienced significant difficulties focusing fast lenses

(say a 50mm at f1.4/f1.5 at close distances) on the Bessa R/R2? Do

you think the R/R2 is reasonably reliable for these moderately fast

lenses?

Thanks

[ka_ho_wong]

R2 is not for fast lens, at least not to me.

[steve g]

<a href="http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/technics/rfaccuracy.html">Erwin Puts link on RF EBL needed for lens/speed combos</a><br>

and...

<a href="http://www.cameraquest.com/leica.htm">Stephen Gandy link on RF EBL's for various cameras</a><br>

Browse those sites and you will find the answers you need.

[brien_m]

Thanks Stephen,

I am actually familiar with those site. I guess I am looking for practical experience. Erwin's theoretical data suggest the Bessa R/R2 could accurately focus a Noctilux, but I assume this would require alot of precision by the user. I know the user is a big variable, but I'm just wondering, from others' experiences, if the R/R2 can focus reliably with a 50mm/f1.4, or if it is quite challenging to be quick and consistent.

[david_s._berger]

I have had success using the Summilux 50/1.4, Nikkor 50/1.4, and the Nikkor 85/2, all wide open, on the Bessa R2. I do have to take my time though, compared to using slower lenses (or these lenses stopped down). I have had less success with the Canon 50/1.2, perhaps due in part to the darker environment when I have used it.

 

By way of comparision, I do get more in-focus shots wide open with an M3, but that is to be expected.

 

Cheers,

 

dsb

[cameron_sawyer]

I have had very good success focussing the 50/1.5 Nokton on the Bessa R, no worse than with an M6 0.58. The Bess'as rangefinder patch is exceptionally bright and is free of any flare, which seems to make up, to some extent at least, for the shorter RF base.

[hamish]

I have tried the nikon dg 2 magnifier with mixed success on the r2, with the nokton. Limited as i flip it out the way once focussed and this i suspect changes the film plane relative to the point of focus. Anyway, worth considering as an option. it is a x 2 magnifier so gives quite a big uplift in EBL.

[sang_wook_sohn]

I have an Epson R-D1, and I am having a hard time getting focus right when using Noctilux wide open, although I have no problem getting sharp image with 50 Summicron wide open.

 

So I am hoping if anyone has good way to focus correctly with Noctilux at F1, it would be very very helpful. :)

 

Thanks.

 

Sang

[al_kaplan1]

The "effective base length" equivalent of a lens is the diameter of its aperture, which on a 50mm f/1 lens would be 50mm. You really need to use a rangefinder with a base length of that size or larger. Neither the R2 or the new digital Bessa are even close!

[frank]

Bessa R2 + 50/1.4 = NO

 

At 0.7 m depth of field of the Summilux at full aperture is about

1.5 cm (0.6 inches). Focus your Bessa to 0.7 m and move your

head some inches forward and backwards while looking

through the finder. You will see there is no unsharp image in the

finder.

 

The Bessa's base lenght is too short and therefore too

unreliable for fast lenses. Sometimes you will get sharp images

with a 50/1.4, sometimes not. It's a kind of lottery.

 

BTW effective base length of the Bessa R/R2 is 26 mm, base

length of the Minolta CLE is about 29 mm. Minolta guys once

recommended not to use lenses faster than f.2 (standard) and

f.4 (tele).

[maciej_j._piasecki]

I am using Jupiter3 1,4/50 lens on my R2. It is focusing from 1m and at that distance is a lottery, as Frank said. On little longer distances I am satisfied with results. Look few threads below "Your photo of the week", I posted portrait photo made with this lens wide open and distance less than 2m.

 

Cheers,

 

Maciej

[maciej_j._piasecki]

Hmmm.... Jupiter 1,5/50 of course.

[del_gray]

Of course if you use a fast lens that is a little wider it gives a little more room for error because of the wider lens' inherently greater depth of field. A 35/1.4 would still require great care used wide open, but it would be better than a 50/1.4. I've been playing with my 35/1.2 on a CLE (a strange combination where the lens is almost bigger than the body!) to see if the baselength is enough to handle a Leica 35/1.4 that I am thinking about trading to (mostly for size reasons). When I put the combo on a tripod at about 3 feet and carefully focused, I was very pleased with the result down to 1.4. I haven't taken it out into the real world yet to shoot with it handheld and spontaneously. I think that the new C/V 40/1.4, R2a and R3a lineup might also help answer your question. The R2a has the same baselength as the R2, but it appears that the 40/1.4 isn't really intended for that camera but rather the R3a with the 1x viewfinder and baselength of 37 (compared to 25 on the R2a), maybe because it would be too hard to focus?