35/2.5 Skopar for low light work?

[Nick]

Anyone have experience using the 35/2.5 for low light work? I'm settled on purchasing a Bessa, but am leaning towards the R2a because I wear glasses and had difficulty in-store with the framelines.

Can anyone comment? Or should I lean towards the faster 35/1.7 Ultron?

[Bryan Lee]

You cant go wrong with the 1.7 just do some searchs for endless information about it. I usualy carry 2 bodys one with a 2.5 and one with a 1.7 for lower light and 90 in my pocket. I guess thats about the 20th time I said that though.

[gbb]

Hi, Nick

I have and use the cv 35/2.5 for low light work, and it's doable, but could of course use the extra stop. It's a matter of tradeoffs: size/weight/price and which other lenses you'll eventually want. The great thing about the 2.5 is its size and weight: you'll never hesitate to bring the camera along, which is a big plus for me, since that was why I wanted an rf. Others who own the ultron will chime in re size and weight, and it may be the difference isn't that important. I've also heard that the ultron is lower contrast, so take that into account.

Good light and good luck,

GBB

[caila77]

I wear glasses too and I think that Cv is quite usable, also in low lights. 35 1.7 is better (for sure) and you can payn 1 stop (circa). Note that the Cv tents to close the low lights (if compared with canon 35/2 at the same aperture) so I prefer 35 1.7 or a canon 35/2 (very compact and with a good reputation also at low f)

[je2a3]

Available light sample picture taken by the CV 35/2.5 lens in a Bessa-R body. IIRC wide open [f 2.5] @1/30, Tri-X EI ~800 souped in Diafine.

[peter_n]

I have both the f2.5 and the f1.7 CV 35mm lenses. Both are excellent, the f2.5 is very contrasty and the f1.7 not so much. I would choose the f1.7 for low light (I did :)) and don't believe the complaints about its size - it is actually quite small. It takes 39mm filters and the f2.5 takes 43mm filters.

[aterlecki]

I have both the f2.5 and the f1.7 CV 35mm lenses. Both are excellent, the f2.5 is very contrasty and the f1.7 not so much. I would choose the f1.7 for low light (I did :)) and don't believe the complaints about its size - it is actually quite small. It takes 39mm filters and the f2.5 takes 43mm filters.


I'm pretty sure the 35/2.5 C takes 39mm filters. It is only the 35/2.5 P in the M mount that needs the larger 43mmm filters. Or have I been misinformed?

[lawrence]

>the f2.5 takes 43mm filters.

My 35mm f2.5 takes 39mm filters...

Lawrence

[peter_n]

I'm pretty sure the 35/2.5 C takes 39mm filters. It is only the 35/2.5 P in the M mount that needs the larger 43mmm filters. Or have I been misinformed?Good point and I retract! My f2.5 takes 43mm filters - I have the original pancake version. Sorry for the confusion... :o

[jja]

For low-ight 35/2.5 pics, see my two contributions to this thread:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14533&page=1&pp=40

It's a wonderfully compact lens, but you will always want more speed for low light work, no matter how doable f2.5 may be. That was my experience, so I sold it.

[Nick]

I finally picked up an R2a today, along with the 35/1.7.

Thanks to everyone for your feedback and suggestions. I look forward to testing this lens out as the week progresses. :-)

[peter_n]

Sounds like a great combo Nick. Good luck with the new kit! :)