New CV cameras and 40mm/1.4 lens!

[plexi]

Clipped from av CVUG post:

"1) Bessa R3A

- Auto exposure (aperture-priority)
- 1.0x magnification
- Includes a 40mm frameline
- Available from October, 50,000 yen
- Resembles the Epson RD-1

2) Bessa R2A

- Auto exposure (aperture-priority)
- 0.7x magnification
- Available from December, 50,000 yen
- Resembles the Epson RD-1

3) Voigtlander 40/1.4 in M-mount

- As compact as the CV 35/2.5 Pancake II
- Uses a new lens hood

4) Voigtlander Light Meter II

- Clip-on light meter, similar to previous model, but more compact and flatter"


A 40mm/1.4 sound great!

[rover]

Well, I just did some google work and was not able to find any english language results for the R3a. If it is the same baselength rangefinder with just an increased magnification I may not be happy.

[Peter]

A CV lens in 40mm! Why does Cosina have to do this to me! I must have it but what should I tell my wife!

[Kris]

Tell your wife that you're donating a couple of your R2 to a poor guy named Kris in Australia who would otherwise eat only bread crumbs for months to afford Paterson System 4 for developing MACO PO 100c films into B&W slides.

Muahahahahaahhaahhaa!

Without longer RF baselength, I'm safe. No desire at all to acquire new R3A or whatever it is called.

[Huck Finn]

A compact 40/1.4 lens? Oxymoron.

[taffer]

There's a pic of the R3a on this photo.net thread:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-...?msg_id=009WNm

Honestly I see some similarities on the top plate profile with the Zorki 4, acknowledgement arrives at last to KMZ engineers !

If that lens on it is the new 40/1.4, well, doesn't look huge but may not be tiny either, maybe about the same size of a Canonet lens, and that's pretty compact indeed.

[Peter]

Originally posted by Kris
Tell your wife that you're donating a couple of your R2 to a poor guy named Kris in Australia who would otherwise eat only bread crumbs for months to afford Paterson System 4 for developing MACO PO 100c films into B&W slides.

Muahahahahaahhaahhaa!

Without longer RF baselength, I'm safe. No desire at all to acquire new R3A or whatever it is called.

Just spoken with my wife, I got a choice to make. The SD IV film scanner or the lens. I chose the scanner!

[Peter]

No way I would get the new Voigtlander RF cameras. From what I see there is marginal changes over the R2. I have no use with AE and the base length of the new cameras seem to be the same as the R2.

[back alley]

are the shutters different?
electronic and quieter?

i read that somewhere.

joe

[plexi]

As the magnifiation is higher, the effective RF baselenght is longer. It should improve focusing a little..

[JohnL]

I have a question on this, never having used an R2, or any CV camera for that matter, but I am definitely interested ...
How serious is the problem with the base length? Obviously a longer base length gives greater focusing accuracy, but RFs are generally used with normal or wideangle lenses - no one expects them to be useful with more than very moderate tele lenses. I imagine the R2 can focus well enough with even fast 50mm lenses. Am I right? Can it focus accurately with a 75mm lens, 90mm, 135mm?
Sorry for ignorance on this topic.
John

[Peter]

I use to have the CV 75mm/2.5 and I have no problem focusing it.

[JohnL]

Apparently the price of the bodies is 75000 yen. The lens is 50000 yen. These numbers translate to about $700/500 or a little less.
John

[peter_n]

I do like the sound of that CV 40mm/f1.4. I mean that would be a perfect "standard" lens. Please, please, please let there not be a tab on it! I bet there is though...

[rover]

John, regarding the baselength, the R2 does focus fine, but it is stressed to focus a long lens close up. I can focus the 75 Heliar without a problem at normal distances, but close to the minimum focusing distance and/or wide open a noticably more amount of care is needed. Now this may sound funny, but my 35 Ultron (f 1.7) focuses more easily than my Rokkor 40/2. I don't know why, but it does.

The thought that goes through my mind is that by failing to increase the physical baselength of the rangefinder, they are forcing their customers to make a choice. Are you going to shoot wide angle lenses or normal/tele lenses? If you want to go wide, with a 1.0 magnification R3a, then you can only use wide angle lenses with an accessory finder, booooooooo. Truely, Leica will remain king, though I still think they are for a different customer base.

A really fast 40 would be nice though for available light photography. How would a 40/1.4 (Nokton?) look between 35 and 50mm Summicrons?

[peter_n]

A really fast 40 would be nice though for available light photography. How would a 40/1.4 (Nokton?) look between 35 and 50mm Summicrons?

My thought exactly. I have a 35mm/f2.5 and a 50mm/f2.8. Both fantastic lenses but I'm about to start on a long (3 year) project that is all indoors and this lens looks like it might just be the answer to my prayers. For me, it really depends on how this lens will perform at f1.4...

[Pherdinand]

"A compact 40/1.4 lens? Oxymoron." - Why do yu think so? Look at any manual (or even autofocus) 50mm f/1.4 SLR lens. It's quite compact. 40mm is not that far from there - and there's no need for retrofocus tricks in the case of rangefinder lenses.

Of course, "compact" could mean something completely different to you than to me

[peter_n]

I've read that the lens has a similar front/back dimension to their recent 35mm Pancake 2. That would be compact!

I'm hoping that they don't plaster the front of the lens with silver chrome, like they do with some. Doesn't help in the reflections department.

[Huck Finn]

Pherdinand, you have a good point & I may have been too hasty in responding. Wider lenses are more compact than standard lenses, so the 40 mm length should help make it more compact than a 50 to begin with. I was reacting to the definition of compact in the post: "as compact as the 35/2.5 pancake II."

That Voigtlander lens is only 23 mm long!

Let's look at the length of some Leica lenses:

35/2 = 34.5 mm
35/1.4 = 46.2 mm

50/2.8 = 37.6 mm extended/21.6 mm collapsed (storage position)
50/2 = 43.5 mm
50/1.4 = 52.5 mm

To make a 1.4 lens of longer focal length (40 mm) as compact as an already compact 2.5 lens (1.6 stops slower) of shorter focal length (35 mm) would be a miracle IMHO.

To build a lens just one stop faster (1.4 vs 2), Leica had to increase the length about 20 - 25% on both the 35 & the 50 - with the greater increase on the wider angle lens, which is the one closer in focal length to the rumored 40.

If Cosina could build a 40/1.4 at the same length as the 35/2. I think that would be remarkable. But as you point out, this would still be quite compact.

Cosina has accomplished miracles before, so I'm prepared to be duly impressed. However, until I actually read some facts, you'll have to consider me to be a doubter on this rumor.

[JohnL]

Thanks to both of you for info. Below 35mm you need a separate finder except for low magnification Leicas, I think, and they only go down to 28mm, if I recall correctly. For "real" wideangle, below that, its either accessory finder or guesswork. The nice thing about a 1x finder, I would think, is that you could keep both eyes open.
John

[Huck Finn]

John, a 1x finder would be very nice.

Konica Hexar RF also includes 28 mm framelines in its finder. I understand that the Bessa finder approximates 28mm, so that too can be used without an auxiliary finder - although the auxiliary finder has to be much easier to use.

[Huck Finn]

Originally posted by Huck Finn
Pherdinand, you have a good point & I may have been too hasty in responding. Wider lenses are more compact than standard lenses, so the 40 mm length should help make it more compact than a 50 to begin with. I was reacting to the definition of compact in the post: "as compact as the 35/2.5 pancake II."

That Voigtlander lens is only 23 mm long!

Let's look at the length of some Leica lenses:

35/2 = 34.5 mm
35/1.4 = 46.2 mm

50/2.8 = 37.6 mm extended/21.6 mm collapsed (storage position)
50/2 = 43.5 mm
50/1.4 = 52.5 mm

To make a 1.4 lens of longer focal length (40 mm) as compact as an already compact 2.5 lens (1.6 stops slower) of shorter focal length (35 mm) would be a miracle IMHO.

To build a lens just one stop faster (1.4 vs 2), Leica had to increase the length about 20 - 25% on both the 35 & the 50 - with the greater increase on the wider angle lens, which is the one closer in focal length to the rumored 40.

If Cosina could build a 40/1.4 at the same length as the 35/2. I think that would be remarkable. But as you point out, this would still be quite compact.

Cosina has accomplished miracles before, so I'm prepared to be duly impressed. However, until I actually read some facts, you'll have to consider me to be a doubter on this rumor.

I have to admit that I am duly impressed! They were able to make this lens even more compact than I thought they would be able to.

However, it is not as compact as the 35/2.5 P II - although it is built in the same style. At 29.7mm in length, it is about 30% longer than 35/2.5P II - which is to be expected given the longer focal length & faster speed, but not what was advertised. To give a frame of reference with another 40mm lens, here is a side-by-side comparison of it & the Rollei 40/2.8.

CV 40/1.4 = 29.7mm/43mm filter/55mm wide
Rollei 40/2.8 = 30.5/39mmfilter/56 mm wide

So. looking at the two 40 mm lenses, the new CV 40/1.4 would not appear to be the ultimate in a compact lens. Both are about 30mm long & about the same width at the widest point, but the Rollei 40/2.8 tapers to a 39 mm filter size while the CV 40/1.4 is about 10%wider. I should note as well that Rollei has a permanently positioned built-in lens hood included in its length, while the extra lens hood for the CV will add length & width.

What is miraculous is that Cosina could build a lens that approximates the size of another of the same focal length, but the CV is 2 stops faster! And it is far more compact than any lens of comparable apeed.

[Gerold]

interesting musings, very interesting !

[rover]

Interesting indeed. I wonder how it compares to other 40s? I haven't seen the dimensions of the f2 Leica C or Minolta Rokkor CLE, but they are both very compact, and that is only 1 stop slower than the new CV 40. Perhaps there is something to the 40mm focal length, closeness to "normal," that allows optical engineers to design more compact lenses?

[Kris]

Darn I've got the idea of selling my 35/2.5 and 50/1.5 to get this 40/1.4

Two lenses, 40/1.4 and 75/2.5 with the same filter diameter 43mm sounds really good. Bessa R2 35mm framelines gives 100% coverage of 40mm also sounds good. Must not give in to this tempation...must...not...give...in....ARRGGHHHHHH