I must say, I’ve really been enjoying the AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8. It’s given new life to my D90, and is helping me work through my “Rangefinder” phase. I’m still not out of the woods yet, though.
It seemed as though the solution to my rangefinder dilemma might have been the Fujifilm Finepix X100, the launch of which I’ve been following closely. However, the recent disaster in Japan eclipses the release of this ground-breaking product.
Damage to the Fujifilm plant in the Sendai region has indeed delayed the launch of the X100, the significance of which pales in comparison with the degree of human loss. I was anticipating getting my hands on one of these gems to see how it compares with the rangefinder feeling I’ve never experienced. But I can’t bear to dwell on such triviality given the chain of events unfolding in Japan.
Still, I was able to read some postings from those lucky enough to purchase the X100, even if it was at twice the retail price. It seems from these postings that the X100 gives the Leica X1 a run for it’s money. It’s three stops faster; one optically, two by ISO capability. It has a built-in optical or electronic viewfinder. And it’s well over $1,000.00 less (at its suggested retail price). At about the same price as a Voigtländer Bessa R with lens, it’s competing in mindspace with that camera, a true rangefinder and a good one at that.
The one thing I can’t seem to wrap my mind around however is the manual focus. I’ve learned that it’s a drive-by-wire affair, being electronically controlled by the focus ring on the lens rather than mechanically. The one thing I was really looking forward to in this fixed-lens camera was a silky-smooth, nicely damped, direct focus. Or, at least a similar experience to the silky-smooth undamped direct focus of my AF NIKKOR 20mm f2.8D. But again, if I had the camera in my hands, I might find the overall experience to overshadow this minor flaw. Certainly even with the DBW approach, it represents the best manual-focus experience for a fixed-lens digital.
But will it satisfy my want for a rangefinder?
I think at this point I can safely say no. Neither would a Leica X1, Canon G12, Nikon P7000 or Olympus Pen E-PL2 with the 17mm pancake lens and VF-1 finder for that matter. No, I think this needs to be a true rangefinder. And my Nikon D90/prime lens combo is nothing to sneeze at.
Speaking of which, I seem to be becoming a collector of normal lenses. I have a both a Canon FD and an Olympus OM 50mm f/1.8 normal lens, and I’m thinking of ordering a Minolta MD Rokkor 50mm f/1.7 to fit my SRT201. (The only genuine Rokkor lens I have is the 100mm f/3.5 macro, which is a little on the large size.) This is purely for collectible reasons, although the SRT201 is still quite serviceable.
But my gratifying experience with the AF-S NIKKOR 35mm and penchant for a rangefinder has me exploring prime lens options for my working cameras.
The Nikon 28mm f/2.8 and 35mm f/2.5 E-series lenses look very promising indeed. The Nikon (not NIKKOR) E-series lenses are compact, economically-priced versions of NIKKOR lenses. The 28mm would be 42mm on APS-C (the “ideal” normal focal length) and the 35mm would be a “traditional” normal at 52.5mm. These are essentially pancake lenses, much more compact than the NIKKOR versions, albeit with what seems to be a minor sacrifice in quality. Good manual-focus street lenses at reasonable prices compared with newer offerings.
Yes, I think the rangefinder is definitely on the back burner. Perhaps I’ll go with a used film version in the near future. Certainly though, Japan needs to get back on its feet before before I can entertain such triviality.
No comments:
Post a Comment