View Full Version : 28mm with M2 - finder or not?
kemal_mumcu
10-01-2008, 00:19
I'm considering buying the new 28mm/f2 voightlander for use on my M2. How practical is it to use the whole finder area for framing? I don't use glasses but it seems like one needs to do a bit of scanning around to really accurately frame this way. But I'd rather shave the expense and inconvenience of a separate finder if I could.
I'm curious about the opinions of other M2/28mm users on this one.
If you have a good feel for the 28mm angle of coverage, you can probably wing it with the M2 finder. Framing wil not be accurate, but it is not accurate with rangefinder cameras anyhow.You might try it, as there is nothing to lose but a few pictures. And you probably won't even really lose them-- they might just be framed a little loose. A lot depends on what kind of shots you take. If you still feel the need, you can always pick up the finder later.
its mostly ok if u're going to frame subjects >5m away. I use the old 1.9 on my M2 all the time. It only becomes tricky when i use it for indoor enviro portraits as i invariably end up with the odd bottle/cup/mug that i didn't want in my frame.
I find the 28mm frames on my MP are right at the edge where the black surround is, unless I squeeze my eye in close, so I would say that looking thru a .72 finder naturally is about smack on for 28mm. I use the MP3 finder in this way and it works perfectly. Not super accurate but plenty good enough.
Erik van Straten
10-01-2008, 03:53
The old Leitz SLOOZ allows very precise framing. When I say precise, I mean precise.
This is shot with a IIIg, Color Skopar 28mm f3.5 and SLOOZ finder. I've printed the whole frame.
Erik.
The M2 have a 0.72x finder alright, but the eyepiece opening is smaller than later models. I have found that the 35mm framelines are very conservative and the whole finder is about the true 35mm coverage at long distances. I would recommend a seperate VF.
I do have 28 finders and i occasionally use them, but more often than not i just estimate the angle of view and use the full "corner to corner" of the M2 finder. A very simple solution is to stick a piece of black tape over the frame illumination window ( the one next to the regular window) - this blocks out any frame lines, but leaves the rangefinder patch for focussing. Much cheaper than aux. finders too!!
Rangefinder cameras are never tha precise - angle of view changes with distance and some lenses are wider or more narrow than they say on the frontring!
I have been using the 28f2 Ultron on a M2 with the taped over frame illumination window with good results. I just leave a small pice of black "gaffers" tape stuck to the bottom of the Rapidwinder and when I stick the 28 on the camera, peel it off and stick it on the window. You can try it out by just covering the window with your finger and comparing with a 28 finder on another body.
I guess it depends on one's eyesight as well as expectations of acceptable portion of the field of view. For me, without glasses, I can scarcely see the whole 35mm framelines in my M2, and with glasses I need to scan around. And that's for only 63-deg angle of view. The 28mm lens is typically about 75 degrees, and there's just no way I could see that width in my M2, so I'd want an external viewfinder. In truth, I rarely use a 28 on my M2 partly for this reason, and prefer the Minolta CLE's .6x finder with easily seen 28 framelines.
But the suggestion is very reasonable that you might give it a try and see for yourself. If an accessory 28 viewfinder is called for, at least you can anticipate that its view will be big, clear, and bright!
I use a CV 28/3.5 on my M2, and I'm happy approximating with the full frame - but then, 28 is probably the FOV that I have the best feeling for anyway, it having been my most used FL over many years.
As others have said, don't worry about accurate framing, because you don't get that with RFs anyway, and if you get it wrong you're likely to err on the right side - you'll get more in the shot rather than cut things off.
I haven't tried Tom's trick with the gaffer tape, but it sounds like a good idea (whatever frame is in the VF is distracting) - I think I'll give that a go.
tedwhite
11-18-2008, 16:34
How about a 28mm on an M6? Would the viewfinder edges approximate what the lens will see? I have been slogging about today with my new (just arrived yesterday) M6 with .85 finder and rff'er Desert Shooter's 28/1.9 Ultron.
Also, a local Leicaphile, Matt Cook, dropped of an adapter this AM so I could use some of my screwmount lenses.
It is labeled thusly: "2.8-5cm Ernst Leitz GmbH Wetzlar Germany DBP."
I did not know such an animal existed. Does this mean that all - or most - of the framelines between 28mm and 50mm will come up when this adapter is fitted to the various lenses? (Obviously, I haven't had a chance to try it yet).
Beemermark
11-18-2008, 18:11
I never could do the whole frame on my M4 and used a separate VF. IN my M7, even without glasses, I find it easier to frame with the separate VF. You can guess estimate focus pretty good with a 28 and the external VF is great. Even when the VF is mounted I might still shoot with just the camera finder. It comes in handy to switch back and forth. You can get by without an external VF but if you get one I doubt if you'll regret it.
I just bought a nice used CV off of a fellow member and it's beautiful.
How about a 28mm on an M6? Would the viewfinder edges approximate what the lens will see? I have been slogging about today with my new (just arrived yesterday) M6 with .85 finder and rff'er Desert Shooter's 28/1.9 Ultron.
Also, a local Leicaphile, Matt Cook, dropped of an adapter this AM so I could use some of my screwmount lenses.
It is labeled thusly: "2.8-5cm Ernst Leitz GmbH Wetzlar Germany DBP."
I did not know such an animal existed. Does this mean that all - or most - of the framelines between 28mm and 50mm will come up when this adapter is fitted to the various lenses? (Obviously, I haven't had a chance to try it yet).
Ted, your M6 has the higher magnification .85 viewfinder so the M2 trick for the 28mm lens isn't going to work. The entire viewfinder of your camera is more like a 35mm view.
I think 28 works very well on an M2, using the 90mm framelines for composition (1/3rd). But then I hate external finders.
Roland.
Al Kaplan
11-19-2008, 06:11
That bayonet adapter for "2.8 to 5 cm" lenses dates back to the days before the M2 was introduced. It brings up the 50mm frame line only. The same with the 90mm adapter; it brings up just the 90mm frame line. The really old 135 adapters are so marked, but when the M2 was introduced the same adapter that brings up the 135 frame line in an M3 brings up the 35mm frame line in an M2. The M4 variants, the M5, and many M6 bodies (the ones with the ,72 finder) have essentially an M2 set-up.
You have a 50mm (5cm) adapter which can be used on any LTM lens but it only brings up the 50mm frame on older cameras.
tedwhite
11-19-2008, 06:34
Yeah, I figured out that no matter what lens I put the 2.8-5cm adapter on just the 50mm frameline came up, so it will work OK on my Canon 50/1.8, but that's it.
FrankS: I'm sure you're right about the viewfinder edges being 35mm, so apparently with the 28 I'm currently using I'll be getting wider than what I can see.
Oh, well, it's still a beautiful camera and will work with MY lenses (35, 50) just fine.
How about a 28mm on an M6? Would the viewfinder edges approximate what the lens will see? I have been slogging about today with my new (just arrived yesterday) M6 with .85 finder and rff'er Desert Shooter's 28/1.9 Ultron.
I use a 28mm on my M6 .85 camera, and I use the entire frame. It's not accurate, but I've come to find that I can work without the EXACT framelines - anyhow, .85VF are great!! I wish I had discovered them sooner.
I often use a M2 for my 28's. The solution is to tape over the "corrugated" rangefinder window (the frame lines disappear - but the rangefinder patch stays). Using the full "view" of the finder you get approximately 28mm field (depends on if you wear glasses, when it is closer to 30-31mm - without glasses and the eyeball mashed up against the ocular - it is close to 25-26 mm). With any rangefinder camera you have some inexactness with frames and coverage. The critical point is to always get a bit more than you see as that will allow you to crop later (adding is not that easy!).
External finders are sometimes necessary, but they do break the concentration as you move the eye from focus to framing. They also fall off and gets caught in straps!
You can of course have the 28/75 line pair added to your M2 - but the black tape solution is much cheaper - also a great conversation starter as Leica "experts" start in on you with "Why?".
kemal_mumcu
12-05-2008, 04:35
Hmmm.... Thanks to all for the replys. It helped me muster the courage to try the fınder-less setup first, then later if I just can't get used to it i'll go ahead and buy a finder.
As it so happens, heaven blessed me through a relative by supplying me with a free 28mm 2.8 zuiko for my OM camera. I'm stoked. I can't wait to get my hands on it. If the 28 works out to being a FOV that I like i'll go ahead and buy one for my M system.
Now, which 28mm should I buy for my little M2? The new Ultron F2 seems like an incredible deal. :)
mabelsound
12-05-2008, 05:15
I put on my contact lenses and use the whole frame. It's close enough, and I dislike accessory finders.
As for your new lens, I'd go for the Ulton or the Zeiss! I have the Zeiss and it's my favorite lens, currently. The Ultron I'm judging only by Tom's samples and other people's enthusiastic reviews on this forum.
Between the Ultron F2 and the Zeiss 28 f2.8 I would go for the Ultron. Not only is it less money, but the extra stop comes in handy - at least at this time of the year. Overall, the two lenses are equally good in most area, but were the Ultron shines is in close focus and at f2.
Al Kaplan
12-05-2008, 10:35
You might be able to locate an Olympus OM to Leica M adapter and just use your current lens on the Leica, at least until you decide that a 28 is right for you. Scale focussing with a 28 is no big deal ~ lots of depth of field.
tedwhite
12-05-2008, 16:38
I agree with Tom. Also, although the 28/1.9 Ultron (in black) is cheaper at $499 vs. $579 for the 28/2.0 Ultron, it's only available in M39 so add $55 for the adapter and you're within $25 of the F2, which comes in M mount.
Plus the F1.9 is big and heavy and takes a chunk out of the viewfinder's area.
I just got done using the F1.9 - borrowed from DesertShooter while his M6 was having a visit with Sherry Krauter - and it's definitely a very good lens, bu it is, as I said, big and heavy. After I returned it and fitted my 35/2.5 Color Skopar to my M6 the whole kit felt lighter and smaller, plus I love its focusing tab. And, the F2 also has the tab.
It's my next lens!
tedwhite
01-09-2009, 19:23
It is, in fact, my next lens. Bought the 28/2.0 Ultron from the bartender last night. Should be here Tuesday. Just loaded the M6 with Fujichrome Provia 100. Gee, this will be fun: using a new lens and a film I've never used before (last time I used a 'chrome film was 20 years ago, and it was Kodachrome 64). To make it "worse," I rarely use film with less than ISO400. Time, I guess, to cast out the old ways.
ted. please post some stuff with the chrome's. i haven't seen much work done with the 28f2 and chromes. Mine is still on my Bessa R4 - I am going to get another R4M for the 21f4.5 ZM Biogon though. It feels a bit left out at the moment (it is also grey and dismal here f2.8 and 1/60 with Tri X). Hope Bisbee is brighter.
Tom
Another vote in favor of a 28 w/ the M2's vf. I use a CV 28/3.5, and it's great on the M2. The full vf is close enough.
thomasw_
01-09-2009, 23:59
I think 28 works very well on an M2, using the 90mm framelines for composition (1/3rd). But then I hate external finders.
Roland.
What Roland said. Auxiliary finders add bulk, defeating the stealthy form of a RF. Additionally I found that if there is something that can snag the external VF it will. Be warned ;P
S.T. Wilson
03-11-2009, 13:59
I use a VC 25mm/4 without external viewfinder. Works fine for what I use it for.
I suspect that "born" Rf users are far more flexible with coverage than those who come in from the "cold" from SLR's. Shooting black and white - I dont mind "more" on the negative - it can be cropped! I have been known to use my 12f5.6 without a finder - just wave it in the general direction and shoot. Also works extremely well with the Bessa L and a 15f4.5!
The 25 is a tight fit, but one can always mentally 'add" a bit and get away with it. 21/15/12 will occasionally hold interesting surprises too - stuff at the edges can really get your attention at the light table or scanner.
MaxElmar
04-23-2009, 08:58
I started on RFs then went to SLRs for two decades or so - now back to RFs. I don't need 100% framing accuracy (that's what my F3HP is for) but I love a good bright line finder. They really help my composition. And the metal CV 28mm finder is fantastic, even with glasses. I find I need all the help I can get to make good compositions with wide angle lenses. Viewfinders look may nerdy, but they help me make better photos.
The bright line finders have their place. if you need tight framing and dont want to crop - they are good. I keep knocking them off the cameras though - and it gets expensive after a while.
This said, if i am using only one camera and one lens - and it is beyond the M2's frames to cope with - on goes the finder.
The VC 35 and 28 finders are superb - only competition is the Zeiss finders- which are the best of them all, but rather pricey.
My 35mm VC finder usually sits on a Nikon S2 and the 35f2.5 as a "walkabout" kit. The frame of the S2 is OK for 35, but with glasses the finder helps.
The VC Mini finder is good, rather "peep hole" look through it and it is so "mini" that it tends to get lost. Mine is somewhere and has been hiding for at least 6 month. One day it will appear out of nowhere.
kemal_mumcu
04-25-2009, 07:36
Just as a bit of a reply to my original post, I'm still considering a 28 for my M2 and I have been pondering for a while. (Half the fun is pondering, after buying the lens you no longer have anything to ponder about.) :D I did receive the freebie 28/2.8 for the Oly and I have really enjoyed the focal length. It's wide yet not overbearingly so. I find i can court the 28 all day long on the street and it doesn't feel too limiting. it's great for hip-shooting too. The Oly version is OK I guess, it's better stopped down but it's on the wrong mount. I have really come to like the M2 on the street for its quiet nature - especially here in the Middle East where people are very touchy about having their picture taken. I respect them but I find the M gives me a higher level of freedom and greater rapport for some reason.
Currently I'm working with a 40/1.4 as my main lens and want to replace it with either a 35/2 or a 28/2. This would be my main go-to lens for street work and exploring. I'm not willing to consider a 2.8 version on the M as I feel it would be too slow to be versatile. The 28 ultron in spec is great but I feel like I want to have a Leica lens as my main on my M camera. Call it silly but an M camera wants a M lens. The 28 summicron would be a real stretch financially. So I wait...and I use the 28 Zuiko in the meantime.
tedwhite
04-26-2009, 07:08
I used the VC 28/2 on my M6 without a finder, and out of a 36 roll there were only two frames where I needed to crop out a bit of extraneous material. Now I have the Ultron 28/1.9 on my Bessa R - same situation in terms of getting a bit more than what you see, and again I don't regard this as a problem at all. I initially did the two trees bit, where you move back and forth until you get each tree at the right and left edges of your camera's viewfinder, then snap the picture and note what's on either side of each tree (placed empty plastic flower pots in a row on each side of the trees).
Once you do that, you get a feel for what you're actually going to get.
I'd forego the Summicron and the external viewfinder, get an Ultron and save a bundle.
I suspect that "born" Rf users are far more flexible with coverage than those who come in from the "cold" from SLR's
As one who came in from the cold, I found it a mind-opening experience.
I was out with a friend today (he's a beginner and I'm giving him a bit of coaching) and we were talking about techniques for quick shooting - pre-set exposure, hyperfocal distance, approximate framing, and I still found all three psychologically hard to do with the metered Olympus OMs we were using. I have to confess I bored him a little by going on about how much better an M2 is for that kind of shooting (and I seem to remember suggesting that an M2 with a 35 is the closest thing to photographic perfection there is :) )
Benjamin
05-07-2009, 11:27
...I'd very much like to know which of the 28mm finders the people here feel to be the most accurate?
I've been looking at the old SLOOZ finder, but perhaps one of the newer VC finders is just as precise? Or the 25/28 Zeiss?
I understand the deal with the RF snap shot ethic, though I'd prefer to start with the most accurate finder as I feel that precise framing is possible with a rangefinder.
You can do it if you want to..
So yes. Which is the most precise, not the brightest, of the 28mm finders?
Any help would be much appreciated.
All the best,Benjamin
I suspect that "born" Rf users are far more flexible with coverage than those who come in from the "cold" from SLR's. Shooting black and white - I dont mind "more" on the negative - it can be cropped! I have been known to use my 12f5.6 without a finder - just wave it in the general direction and shoot. Also works extremely well with the Bessa L and a 15f4.5!
The 25 is a tight fit, but one can always mentally 'add" a bit and get away with it. 21/15/12 will occasionally hold interesting surprises too - stuff at the edges can really get your attention at the light table or scanner.
Interesting ... since I don't like external finders one these days i'll try the Cv21 on the M6 without using the finder to see what happens....
Benjamin - all the finders from CV/Zeiss?Leica will work fine. For brightness the Zeiss is the tops, but you have to contend with both 28 and 25 frames - at the same time.
The metal VC finder is my preferred "light weight" finder. reasonably close to what you get and very bright.
The 28/35 minifinder is fine, but I find the small magnification occasionally gives trouble. I use mine on Barnack Leicas as it is small enough to leave on the camera all the time.
If you can find one of the older Leica finders - they are OK - but they tend to have developed loose elements and also "desilvering" of the lines with age. The 21/24/28 finder from Leica is rather miserable at 21, ok at 24 and again miserable at 28 - as well as being big and rather clumsy.
It all depends on your budget - but with the metal VC 28 you should be OK.
Al Kaplan
05-07-2009, 16:39
I keep the 15 finder on my camera when using the 15mm Heliar but rarely look through it. I'm getting to that point with my 21mm Super Angulon too. After awhile you get to know ehat'll be in the frame without looking through the finder. Once I look through the finder I'm tempted to look through the camera's finder and focus using the rangefinder insteat of just setting the approximate focus by scale, and after all that futzing around with precise focusing and framing the picture is gone. It's better just to point the camera and shoot.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.