ZM Biogon 21mm f/2.8 on Cosina Voigtlander R4

outlawswang · 09-03-2008

Dear RFF members,

Have anyone tried the ZM Biogon 21mm f/2.8 on a Bessa R4M or R4A? How much the viewfinder is blocked with and without the hood, respectively?

Thanks!

back alley · 09-03-2008

i would guess there would be significant blockage.
the 25/2.8 takes up a fair bit of space.

ljsegil · 09-04-2008

But a great lens on the ZI. Don't know about the R4A however. Accessory viewfinder solves the rangefinder blockage problem, but then that is not why one buys the R4A, is it?
Best of luck,
LJS

Tom A · 09-04-2008

The 21f2.8 does block the finder of the R4 - about a 20-25% section is taken up by the hood. The smaller,round hood for the 25 does improve the situation marginally, but it is still visible.
If you dont need the 2.8 speed, I would recommend the 21f4.5 (best 21 ever in my opinion) or the Color Skopar 21f4. Both of these are small enough to clear the finders 21 frame lines. The 21f4.5 does show a bit of the hood, but not enough to impede using it. The VC Skopar 21f4 clears the frame-lines completely.

joachim · 09-04-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom A

The 21f2.8 does block the finder of the R4 - about a 20-25% section is taken up by the hood. The smaller,round hood for the 25 does improve the situation marginally, but it is still visible.
If you dont need the 2.8 speed, I would recommend the 21f4.5 (best 21 ever in my opinion) or the Color Skopar 21f4. Both of these are small enough to clear the finders 21 frame lines. The 21f4.5 does show a bit of the hood, but not enough to impede using it. The VC Skopar 21f4 clears the frame-lines completely.

Tom's advise is precise, good and accurate as always, but I want to add to the speed aspect he mentions. I went to Tuscany recently and did a lot of indoor shooting. As a slide film user (slow compared to what the B&W crowds are using), I was very happy to have a f/2.8 21mm instead of an f/4 or f/4.5 and an f/2.0 would have been even better. Church interiors can be very dark and tripods are typically not allowed. Before going, I didn't expect to need the speed.

outlawswang · 09-04-2008

Thanks for all the suggestions!!

I currently have a ZM 21mm f/2.8 and am thinking about getting a 2nd body so that I do not have to change lenses. R4M/A was a good choice but it seems not ideal. Maybe I will get a R3M/A for my 50mm and use the 21mm/ with external viewfinder on my current one.

By the way, I like ZM 21mm f/2.8. I am satisfied with its image quality. Its size has never been an issue with me.

More suggestions are welcome!!

Thank,

Hong-Ren

meven · 09-11-2008

I am also interested in this subject.

Tom, could you show us a picture of the ZM 21/2.8 mounted on the R4? And if it is not asking too much a picture looking through the viewfinder when the ZM 21/2.8 is mounted?

Thanks in advance.

fuwen · 09-19-2008

Any more inputs regarding using 21/2.8 ZM on R4? I am now seriously thinking of getting a R4. But not sure whether the matt black of R4A is nicer or the glossy black of R4M. Hoping for a chrome one but think it will not be coming.

fuwen · 09-23-2008

Just bought a R4M. Was thinking about whether to get the A or the M and this one came along somebody selling used.

Nice little black camera. To my surprise the 21mm frame lines are almost right to the edge of the finder, not quite the same as the diagrams indicated on the internet. 28mm frame lines are fantastic though, as I like to use 28mm.

Now I will need to find out the practical part of using a ZM 21/2.8 with this body.

Avotius · 09-23-2008

I am pondering picking up a R4a for my 28mm use and also because later on I want to get a zeiss 21. I am looking at the 2.8 version as I think 4.5 is too slow for my use and am very interested to see what people come up with.

fuwen · 09-24-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avotius

I am pondering picking up a R4a for my 28mm use and also because later on I want to get a zeiss 21. I am looking at the 2.8 version as I think 4.5 is too slow for my use and am very interested to see what people come up with.

Have tried the R4M with the ZM 28/2.8 and 21/2.8. The ZM 28/2.8 does block the frame lines a little, still good to use. The ZM 21/2.8 is not so ideal as it blocks a fair bit of the frame lines like what Tom had said. For accurate composition an external finder should be more ideal. For quick shot guess the build in frame lines of the R4 probably will be still useful. But a slower but shorter 21mm lens would be more ideal to use on the R4 than the ZM 21/2.8.

I thought the R4 finder is brighter but to me it is the same as my Rollei 35RF (Bessar R2).

fuwen · 10-01-2008

While I did find the ZM 21/2.8 blocks a fair bit of the finder when I was toying it with the R4M at home. Yesterday when I was out taking photos somehow the blockage did not bother me much. Being able to frame without external finder and the ease of determining which focal length to use (for yesterday was 21/2.8 and 28/2.8) seemed outweigh the finder blockage for the moment. Now hope that when I get back my photos there are no surprises at the right bottom corners for the 21/2.8 shots : ) !

Anyway, the build of the R4M significantly improves over the 35RF/R2, mechanical parts have less free play and feel snug, shutter noise noticeably softer, but focusing noticable to me more difficult than the 35RF/R2.

But Back Alley is right, ZM silver on R4M black is nice!

Dingo · 10-01-2008

As I said on other thread before, I think an R2 + L combination is the best solution, with frame lines from 90 to 35, using the whole viewfinder for 28, then 15 and 21 on the L with ext. viewfinders, that's it.

R4 is a good camera, but just not practical, not to mention the blockage issue.

fuwen · 10-01-2008

The only problem with L is that it cannot use lenses with M mount.

Tuolumne · 10-01-2008

Despite alot of excitement about the R4, I could just never wrap my mind around it, and this is another reason why. Why buy a camera designed for shotting wides if you have to put an external finder on it to shoot wides? Any RF will accommodate such a setup without incurring the cost of a new camera body.

/T

Austerby · 10-02-2008

I agree, which is why I chose the R3A - which works extremely well with wide lenses and external viewfinders as well as being brilliant with 40mm and upwards.

Doug · 10-02-2008

Part of the RF experience in general is the need to accept some visibility of the lens and/or hood in the viewfinder. Those RFs where the viewfinder is farther from the lens mount, like the Z-I for instance, have less of this intrusion. By its unique nature the Bessa R4 sees more of the lens in the viewfinder. This is more bothersome for some people than for others. If viewfinder intrusion bothers you, the R4 (except with the smallest of lenses) is just not for you.