which is closest to 35?

the more i look the more confused i get...

i like my 40 so why sell it? i love the 'look' from my recently acquired canon 35/2.8 and should/will use it more.

the lure of the big 35/1.2 is real but do i need it?

i'm thinking not...
 
Hi Joe

Hi Joe

This question comes up frequently, and I don't think there's ever been a consensus, just opinions.

On both the RD1s and M8, I feel that with a 35, I can still get portraits (on the wide side), and can blur out the background/foreground at 1.4 or f2 (this is with and RD1 and 35/2 cron asph:

281655503_Rae2r-L.jpg


but with a 28, have to forget about portraits, but have an overall better all purpose wide angle, and don't need to focus as critically.

So when going out with a single lens, if I think I may want to want to take portraits, I take a 35 or larger, and if I am thinking just snapshots, I take the 28, and with the 28, get the benefits of easier hyperfocal focusing if I choose.


back alley said:
so, in answer to my original query...can we safely say that a 35 is a 35 is a 35 on a rd1 and if i want that 35 'look' i need to use a 35?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
i like the perspective i get with the 40 on the rd1 and at 1.4 i can take a decent portrait with a soft background, and the fast 50 sonnar is also great for that.
the 28 was comfortable right off with the rd1 but i foolishly talked myself into thinking a 25 would be better. i think i was wrong about the 25 and have now gone back to a 28.
 
Back to the topic, I'd say 21mm would be closer to the 35mm field of view, as I tend to prefer wider as you can always crop a little. But the perspective won't be the same as a true 35mm lens, that could only be achieved with a 35mm. In that sense, I think the 25mm would have a perspective closer to 35mm, keeping a similar field of view.
 
yup

yup

I loved the 40/1.4 on the RD1, it fits the framelines better than a 35 at many distances. The one thing is sometimes the bokeh wide open is a little harsher than a longer lens if you plan to use wide open most of the time.

28 is also a great length on the RD1. I've done many outings, and a few trips with just the RD1 and 28. The only issue I've run into a couple of times was running out of light with a 28/2.8 where a 28/1.2 or 28/2 would have been handy, but also larger.

28 and 40 are great FL's for the RD1.

back alley said:
i like the perspective i get with the 40 on the rd1 and at 1.4 i can take a decent portrait with a soft background, and the fast 50 sonnar is also great for that.
the 28 was comfortable right off with the rd1 but i foolishly talked myself into thinking a 25 would be better. i think i was wrong about the 25 and have now gone back to a 28.
Click to expand...
 
ferider said:
Right, 28/1.9 vs. 35/1.2, from the bartenders lens table:

- in Weight: 9.3oz vs. 19.6oz
- in cross-cut (from mount forward): 47mm x 53mm = 2491mm^2 ... vs. 63mm x 63mm = 3969mm^2.

Even more than factor 2 if you consider volume or the hoods. And, the 28/2 is even smaller.

You might know if you had ever held one of the lenses you have such negative opinions about.

Roland.
Click to expand...


I suppose that "twice as big" means different things for different people. I'd compare length and width/diameter and there is NO WAY CV 35/1.2 is double that of CV 28/1.9. Why would I compare in any other terms? To me big, when talking about the lens is doesnt mean weight of it. Apparently it does to you. :rolleyes:

it's like which lens is bigger - Canon LTM 50/1.8 or canon EF 50/1.8 for EOS? One is small but heavy and the other is larger, yet plastic and light.

Oh, and BTW,I dont have negative opinion of CV 28/1.9. And I have held it too. I suggest that you get your "facts" straight on what I like and dont like before commenting about it, since you chose to do so.
 
So volume and weight don't count? By your terms it would have to be four times as big by mine. I use both, and I agree with Roland, its twice as big, and feels it too.
 
It is twice as Heavy, not twice as big. Two different things as you can see in my canon lenses example above. But , really, it is up to you how you look at things-I am just making my viewpoint more clear.
 
You said: "There is no way that CV 35//1.2 is twice as big as CV 28 Ultron."

I showed you two: weight and volume.

Anything else to do but following my posts and proving me wrong, Krosya ? Welcome to my ignore list.
 
21 or 25 or 28 on the RD1...
1.53 * 21 = 32.13 equivalent
1.53 * 25 = 38.25 equivalent
1.53 * 28 = 42.84 equivalent

So what angle of view appeals to you most?
Personally, I have a fondness for the ~38mm equiv, which is provided by 28mm on the M8, 60mm on 645, and 75mm on 6x7. That sure doesn't mean I use it all the time... just a sweet spot for me as a walkabout lens.
 
are we talking 'look' or FOV here?

as for FOV:

24 x 1.53 = 36,72

=> the 24mm clearly, get a 1.4/24 'lux. if you like to crop a bit, there's a 1.4/21 too. :D
16 grand well spent!
 
I initially brought the ZM 25/2.8 thinking it would give me a more 35mm look, it didn't, I then got a ZM 21/4.5 and CV 21/4 and in time a Leica 21/2.8 pre-asph (not just for the R-D1 of course!) and they didn't rock my 35mm boat either. I think it was partly because of the difference in DOF, maybe lens curvature differences, lack of speed or having to use an external viewfinder (I wear glasses)....

So looking back at it... (I have used the R-D1s for 2-3 years now.) My close to 35 experience would be an actual 35mm lens to give me the feel if not the dimensions of a 35mm lens, and my CV 28/2 which is almost the lens cap on my R-D1s.
 
F/2.8 aperture in a lens of standard focal length is rather pedestrian... Even the cheapest Canon EF 50mm lenses, as plastic as it is, is F1.8... There is little wonder that a ZM 25/2.8 doesn't match up to a tradition 35mm lens! Apples and oranges as they say.

Don't any smarty pants, tell me that a Leica 24/1.4 ASPH will solve my problem either! You'll still need an external viewfinder, you'll have a lens that is worth 3x the body and not to mention a frankenstein size! We in the R-D1 section of this forum is much too smart for that!

Ezzie: nice work with the R-D1 in your gallery.
 
Last edited:
hello Backalley.
I've got a Leica 21mm and R-D1, and because of the depth of field and picture style like a 28mm, it is a completely different way of taking pictures from the 35mm on a 24x36. A 28mm lens like a 21mm lens will force you to envisage a perspective because the background will appear important in your picture, in proportion; a bit like a 24mm and a 21mm. While with a 28mm which would make a 42mm-equivalent, or a 25mm which would make a 38mm-equivalent, we would be closer to the 35mm type of photography. Which is a central subject plus a surrounding scene but not too wide. If that makes sense ?
 
In my RD1 days I had a 21/2.8 Avenon/Kobalux.
It often felt "a little wide", but it was 35-esque, in field-of-view.
I did not use anything between 21mm and 35mm, unfortunately, so I cannot comment on how it compares to 24/25/28mm.

To get a rough feel, check my flickr. The shots should be tagged with Kobalux21mmf28ltm
 
ampguy said:
I loved the 40/1.4 on the RD1, it fits the framelines better than a 35 at many distances. The one thing is sometimes the bokeh wide open is a little harsher than a longer lens if you plan to use wide open most of the time.

28 is also a great length on the RD1. I've done many outings, and a few trips with just the RD1 and 28. The only issue I've run into a couple of times was running out of light with a 28/2.8 where a 28/1.2 or 28/2 would have been handy, but also larger.

28 and 40 are great FL's for the RD1.
Click to expand...

Yes, totally agree. Just today I went with my 28/2.8 and 40/2 M-Rokkors on the R-D1. The 40/2 is just wonderful, and portraits are eminently possible. The 28/2.8 is great (maybe at its best?) wide open, but I find myself switching to ISO 1600 indoors.

Neither is really a 35mm though. The 28mm has a noticeable enough perspective expansion effect to make it obviously "wide-angle", and the 40mm crops in just a bit too tight to mimic a 35mm.

I have a 21/3.4 Super Angulon, but that is in no way like a 35mm lens in the perspective and drawing.

I have a Canon 25/3.5, which is really good on the R-D1 (despite flare from light sources due to a lot of fine scratches). But it's still clearly much wider in flavor than a 35mm, FoV aside. (I'm painfully GASing for a CZ 25/2.8 biogon.)

So I have to say it as well: My favorite short-normals on the R-D1 are the Summaron 35/2.8 and UC-Hex 35/2. I also have a Nokton 35/1.2, which makes nice pictures and is fabulously built, but it's so big and heavy that I seldom bring it along unless I know that's the only lens that will do. I'm seriously thinking about replacing it with a 35/1.4 Nokton or Summilux.

::Ari
 
If I had an R-D1 I would use my 24mm ASPH. That way I could use my 35mm aux. finder. Those finders always cover a little less than the lens does, so it shouldn't be too far off from the 36mm equivalent of the 24mm lens. I should think the same argument applies to the 25mm. I might like the 21mm with its 31mm FOV, but not sure I'd like shelling out for, and keeping track of, yet another aux. finder.

On a film camera, the 40mm FOV seems very versatile. There's no doubt I'd also use my 28mm, with its 42mm equivalent, as a general walk-around lens.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top