Kosmokatten; I was wondering about charging battery? Hard? Do they have 110 volts American plugs?
I have the VC 15 and Zeiss biogon 25 and for the rest I think I'll take the Jupiter-12 35mm, Leica 'cron 50/2 and Elmarit 90/2.8. Everything nice and small.
I love the Jupiter-8 50/2 for portraits, but I think I leave that at home.
Michiel: I honestly couldn't tell. I was there back in the FILM days.
The standard on the newer hotels are European standard, 220V and two prongs but there are many hotels that might still run the old 110V. As do most Cuban homes and older hotels.
The Ricoh kit should suit you well for travel purposes. When I want some discretion, I love using the Ricoh, especially without the EVF as you look like a clueless tourist holding the camera out for focus . My CV15 and ZM25 see the most use, giving me the fields of view I'm used to.
That being said, here are some from Sydney using the CV35/1.2 II. It's a better lens than I give it credit for, and had to sub in for the ZM35/2.8 which needs to go to the shop for a lube.
Guys, a cross-post from a couple other threads, in case you're not following one of those - I posted my 21mm rangefinder lens shootout review, including some with the GXR: http://www.ronscheffler.com/techtalk/?page_id=130
The four lenses compared were the new Voigtlander 21/1.8, Leica 21/1.4, Zeiss ZM 21/2.8 and Leica 21/3.4 ASPH. On the GXR I think the 21/3.4 is the best performer for edge to edge performance, right from wide open. If you need speed, the Voigtlander is worth considering. While it's a bit soft towards the image edges wide open, it improves considerably by f/4. It's the best all-round solution, in terms of price/performance ratio, if you don't mind the size, which considering the built-in hood, is about the same length as the Voigtlander 35/1.2 II with its hood attached. It's also really nice on the NEX-7, but with a bit of purple fringing, though no more than any of the other lenses in the test.
Thanks a lot Ron! Great read! You have so much technical knowledge that it dazzles me sometimes
But it gives so much good information and still the choice is difficult for me. I always like the Zeiss rendering, but see also the advantages of the VC.
It is a pity you don't have the Carl Zeiss ZM 21mm F/4.5 C-Biogon as well because I was also considering that one because it seems to be so distortion free. (Great for my Windowdressing and Facedes series) But then you can't have everything. Luckely I do have 25 Biogon which is sufficient for most situations in that respect.
That's an outstanding review, thanks so much for all the time you took putting that together. While I'm a fan of the Zeiss look at heart, I've been coming around on the CV 35/1.2II recently. If the 21/1.8 shares it's rendering to a degree, I'm a happy camper. I've probably used the ZM25/2.8 more than any of my other M-mount lenses due to preference for the field of view on the GXR, but I often find myself wanting for more light or lens speed. It seems that the perfect addition to the arsenal for me right now would be the CV21/1.8, and that it should transition well if and when I get the new M-240.
By the way I completely agree with you regarding the built-in hoods. It's painful using filters on the CV15/4.5, I'm constantly smudging up the polarizing filter. The CV21 petals look even deeper But it's a small price to pay given the overall performance I suppose.
Michiel, my Zeiss dealer, Rob at the Rangefinder Store, here in Canada, said he would have loaned me the 21/4.5 if he had a demo copy of it, which he unfortunately didn't. I'm quite curious to compare it against the 21 SEM, though the 21/4.5 will not play very nicely on the M9. Back when I first got the M9 I briefly tried the 21/4.5 on it and there were a lot of issues. But I recall that early in the GXR release period there was some discussion about this lens and that it does work nicely...
Matt, it's been a while since I've really used the 35/1.2. I should take it out again and give it another spin, with some comparison against the 21/1.8. The hood petals on the 21 are much deeper than the 15. Back a while ago I recall there was a post on a forum where someone actually cut off the hood. It's probably possible with the 21 as well.
A photo from the GXR and 21/4.5 as posted in the review...
Looks good Ron! But the new VC is probably more versatile.
But no lens buying for me at the moment because I am preparing a trip.
Took the Elmarit 135 out to test again, because I am doubting to take it with me to Cuba. Because it is big and heavy. I think I might as well take the C/Y Zeiss 80-200 with an adapter for the Ricoh. Not heavyer but bigger and more versatile for when you need the longer reach.
That is one big lens and for the rest small lenses and the Sigma DP2M.
Michiel, personally I would not bring anything over 90mm for Cuba. I brought lenses in the 21 to 90mm range and the most used ones were wides to 45mm. And the X-pan of course.
I just traded away my Tele-Elmar 135/4, actually a great lens. Quite compact and balanced nicely on the GXR. Very sharp from wide open and overall nice imaging characteristics.
Yeah, your probably right.
I always tend to take to much with me and in the end you only use a few lenses.
And I do want to travel light. A fast lens may be? (Rokkor 58/1.2)
Michiel: not so much for the outdoor shots.
Plenty of light, even in the shade.
I did good with my fastest lens being an f2 and ISO 100 film. I even have some indoor shots with f2 and f2.8 and 160 speed film.
I know this is off topic and I beg a thousand pardons, but while I dally in SLR land for awhile, I do still pick up the GXR. I can't believe how small it feels after hefting around a D800 all day. The difference has made me rethink about how small is small enough; I could go a little bigger and would welcome a built in finder in the GXR (or some other M digital camera).
One thing I've missed... M mount sure has a selection of nice wide primes to choose from. My perception may be poorly informed but it feels like there are fewer choices in F mount. I ended up going to Sigma's newest for 35mm focal length. This comparison made me laugh. Or wince - not sure.
Built nicely, it is pretty big and heavy although the Nikon equivalent is about the same size and only 65g lighter. Neither will feel out of place on a full frame DSLR.
Back on topic: Rumours of Ricoh coming out with product that will "please their core user base" (paraphrased) haven't yet materialized into anything, have they?
But it's a small price to pay given the overall performance I suppose.