Bessa L+21mm or Bessa R+35mm for first time user

[david chau]

hello

 

i am in the process of choosing a bessa L with the 21mm/4 skopar or the bessa R

with the 35mm/2.5 skopar

 

i have not used a leica-style rangefinder camera before, the closest would

probaly be a olympus mju ii, i have always used a manual focus minolta slr with

a 50mm f1.4

 

would it be better to start off with the 35mm to get accustomed to the

rangefinder feel, this would be closer to what i was shooting with the slr and

then add the 21mm or other wide angle later?

 

or just go straight for the 21mm and bessa L?

 

also, what is the low-light performance like on the mentioned lens? i like to

use iso 100 film, assuming the higher aperture numbers, i would need to use

higher iso film to compensate most of the time? what about under sunny

conditions/overcast??

 

 

sorry about all the questions, but thank you for your time

 

=)

[marek_fogiel]

To get the flavour of "true" rangefinder photography, get the Bessa R and the 35mm. The rangefinders can be shot at least 1 shutter speed lower than SLR's, you should be ok with 1/15th of a second for static subjects with this lens, you might even try 1/8th ( take multiple shots). Generally speaking, for low light photography 400 or even 1600 ISO films are better. If you scan, ILFORD XP2 (exposed at 200-250 ISO) will give you a good compromise between speed and fine grain.

[jeffpolaski]

Bessa R. I have both, and the R-series are rangefinder types, whereas the L is a specialty body for ultrawide lenses.

[ronald_moravec1]

R + 35 or 40 or 50mm lens. 21 is too wide for an only lens. 40 & 21 make a nice set. Or 35 & 21 & 75.

 

You will need the rangefnder which the L does not have.

 

if you are not sure of the lens, order the body and change the lines and see what fits your style best. One has lines for 40mm.

[mukul_dube]

Agree with Marek and Jeff about the greater flexibility of the R. I think the 35 mm length is also more flexible than 21 mm.

[frederick_muller]

The further away from "normal", the less useful a lens is. Get the 35mm. The R also has a rangefinder, which the L lacks. The L was built for super-wides, for which one can rely on depth of field. In fact, the L was built for the 15mm VC Heliar, and the combo pretty much launched Cosina's Voigtlander venture. You will just find the Bessa R and 35mm a much more versatile combo. If you want the 21mm too, it will work fine on the R. The 35mm won't be nearly as good on the L.

[jtk]

21mm is a challenge all by itself: very entertaining initially but winds up becoming a bore because exaggerated perspective tends to take over, ddrawing attention to itself rather than contributing to a worthwhile image.

 

How about a 40mm or Nokton 50/1.5 first, then a 35, then a 75/90/100, and THEN a 21?

[astral]

Owning several Bessas I would NOT recommend the L except as a standby camera or one dedicated to a 15mm Heliar or 25mm Snapshot Skopar. The R2 is a better built, and more versatile camera (M-mount) than either the L or R - later Bessas may be better still.

 

The 21mm can be a handful, and not a good choice as a first lens as it (like the 15mm) imposes a style of photography that needs much more thought and suitable subjects to remain interesting/useful as a day-to-day lens. A Bessa R2 & 35mm (esp. Pancake) is a good simple combination, and with the new M-mount 25mm covers most of my wider angled needs. However, 28mm is often my 'grab-and-go' lens on 35mm cameras for both town and country. Having recently aquired a 40mm I find it's a good compromise between 35mm & 50mm, (but I use it on a Minolta CLE, so no viewfinder issues).

[orvillerobertson]

I love my 21/f 4, but it is a challenge only for experienced photographers. The perspective

can be too freakish and odd, as in the work of Eugene Richards. It's best to keeo the lens and

camera plane as level as possible by stooping and raising your body rather than pointing the

plane at an angle. That makes things worse unless you want that effect. The best

combination would be an R2/3/4A and the 35/f 2.5 Skopar. Great and compact lens. One

question, though. Why can't you do street photography with the Minolta SLR?

[david chau]

thanks for your answers guys, i traded-in my mamiya 6x6 for a bessa L, i think i will trade it back during this week, and get the 35mm and bessa r

 

does anyone know of any galleries on the net, that have photos taken with the bessa and 35mm??

 

when i do street photography, i do use the minolta, but i wanted to try something different and smaller, also rf photography interested me when i first started shooting photos, but never had the chance to acquired any

 

maybe with the rf, people wont feel as weird when i take their photo and blend in more with the environment, please feel free to comment on this

[Fotohuis RoVo]

Here is more information about the Bessa bodies:

 

 

http://www.voigtlaender.de/cms/voigtlaender/voigtlaender_cms.nsf/id/pa_dtag6lulbz.html

 

Depending with type, you can choose between a coupling of the finder up from 21mm (R4 A/M).

 

And here some examples:

http://www.chiifcameras.com/content/view/45/62/

[astral]

David, I don't feel that rangefinder cameras are necessarliy any better than anything else for street photography. There are pros and cons for rf cameras in such applications, and pnet has numerous threads on the subject. It's not a foregone conclusion that a rf camera is the best option for everyone. Generally, speaking the "best camera" for street protography is the one that you are most comfortable with. Rangefinder cameras are a little 'leisurely' in operation (compared to most slrs), and can be both liberating and restrictive in street use, even to fairly experienced users. Nevertheless, if you are starting afresh, you may develop a technique with a rf camera that you like: you may even have experience with this genre that you can apply using a rf camera(?). Either way, a Bessa R2 & 35mm sounds like a sensible approach compared to diving into Leica hardware.

 

My personal preference for street and candid work is a TLR - Rolleiflex - or my Canon A640, since both allow non-eye level use, though I'd happily use a manual slr. The one advantage in street work - for me at least, and hereabouts - is that it does seem less intrusive than using a slr: folk often seem to recognise that you are indeed a 'photographer', not merely a 'snapper or snooper' ... though individual circumstances do vary. Good luck. AC

[astral]

My last post should have said:

 

The one advantage >of a rangefinder camera< in street work ...... is that it does seem less intrusive than using a slr .....

 

Just a small clarification. AC

[david chau]

in what way is the rangefinder restrictive for street photography?

[astral]

There are three things I personally find 'restrictive' with (my) rangefinders: firstly, there's no visible check on depth of field in the viewfinder, something I do like to know for closer-distance subjects; secondly, there's no real option to use a zoom lens (the Tri-Elmar is, at least for me, unaffordable); and finally few interchangeable lens rangefinder cameras have ttl meters. The flip side of the coin is that these same restrictions mean that you/I/we are working with quite a simple tool which can itself be pretty liberating, though more demanding than a modern slr, etc. That said, I believe (hope) experience will ultimately largely mitigate these perceived and actual 'restrictions'. I hope that makes some sense?