msbarnes
Well-known
Is manual focusing a 120 SLR/TLR with WLF "generally" easier than focusing a 35mm SLR? I ask because from my experience 35mm SLRs (Leicaflex, Nikon F2, and Olympus OM1) have been more difficult to focus than my Rolleiflex. However, I've only been limited to 50 f2 lenses and wider.
If the specifics matter, then I'm debating between a Hasselblad 500cm with an 80/2.8 lens and a Nikon F2/F3 with a 50/1.4 or 50/1.2 lens. I want an SLR to focus closer than 1m without attachments. A 35mm RF lens comes to mind, but an SLR has the framing advantage.
If the specifics matter, then I'm debating between a Hasselblad 500cm with an 80/2.8 lens and a Nikon F2/F3 with a 50/1.4 or 50/1.2 lens. I want an SLR to focus closer than 1m without attachments. A 35mm RF lens comes to mind, but an SLR has the framing advantage.
x-ray
Veteran
Not trying to evade the question, it really depends on your eyes and the focusing screen.
I can't focus a Leicaflex very well and had three of them back in the 70's. That was one of the reasons I traded them for M's again. Nikons I have no problem. I've been a nikon user since about 1970. With the correct screen for the lens in use its no problem. I used Rollei SL66's for nearly 30 years in my work and had the newer Rollei screens and they were a breeze to focus. I now use Hasselboad and in my 501cm I have their bright screen which I can't remember what they call it and it's easy to focus. My older 500cm had the stock screen from the 80's and it was ok but not as easy to focus. I've had a variety of Rollei TLR's over fifty years with GG to new bright screens. The new screens from several sources are easier to focus.
Medium format vs 35 Slr, it's a tossup. It depends on your eyes and the screen.
I can't focus a Leicaflex very well and had three of them back in the 70's. That was one of the reasons I traded them for M's again. Nikons I have no problem. I've been a nikon user since about 1970. With the correct screen for the lens in use its no problem. I used Rollei SL66's for nearly 30 years in my work and had the newer Rollei screens and they were a breeze to focus. I now use Hasselboad and in my 501cm I have their bright screen which I can't remember what they call it and it's easy to focus. My older 500cm had the stock screen from the 80's and it was ok but not as easy to focus. I've had a variety of Rollei TLR's over fifty years with GG to new bright screens. The new screens from several sources are easier to focus.
Medium format vs 35 Slr, it's a tossup. It depends on your eyes and the screen.
Bill Clark
Veteran
I have a Nikkormat purchased in 1972 and I find it can be focused easily and it is pretty quick!
But you're correct, as a medium formst camera, can be easy to focus with the larger screen. At least that is what it seems to me. Sometimes I can have a problem with light shining on the screen, especially outdoors.
Each formst has advantages.
But you're correct, as a medium formst camera, can be easy to focus with the larger screen. At least that is what it seems to me. Sometimes I can have a problem with light shining on the screen, especially outdoors.
Each formst has advantages.
Swift1
Veteran
From my experience, 35mm SLRs (assuming pentaprism finder with proper eyepiece diopter) have generally been easier to focus than medium format cameras with waist level finders.
The Hasselblad doesn't really focus closer than 1M without additional equipment.
The Hasselblad doesn't really focus closer than 1M without additional equipment.
msbarnes
Well-known
Thanks. I was wrong about the MFD...I still want one though!
x-ray
Veteran
Look for a clean Rollei SL66. It has a built in bellows and extremely bright focusing screen. The 50- 120mm are designed to reverse and mount directly on the bellows with no adapter. The mount directly as the front filter/hood bayonette is the same as the rear mount that normally mounts to the camera. They have instant return mirror, 8 degrees of tilt to the front standard for DOF controll, mirror lockup, double exposure, take 120&220 in the same back and you can get lenses from 30mm to 1000mm. Lenses are Zeiss and are the same formulas as Hasselblad of the same generation. I don't remember how close with the 80mm that I could get but reversed I think I could do about 1:1.
I had 3 SL66's that I used professionaly for nearly 30 years. I figured once that I put around 25,000 rolls through each before any repairs. In the end they still had life in them but I went digital in my work and had to move to Hasselblad. Hasselblads are excellent but having used them for many years and Rollei, Hasselblad was way behind Rollei in features and performance. The two things that kept Rollei from overtaking Hasselblad were a lack of good marketing and sales force and the focal plane shutter that synced with strobes at 1/30. Eventhough Rollei/Zeiss had an 80 and 150 with a shutter for fast sync on the SL66 they Never caught on. For my work which was under studio conditions most of the time the 1/30 was no big deal. I did buy an 80 with leaf shutter and used it very little.
The SL66 is a touch bigger than a 500cm but nothing like the RB67 Mamiya.
I had 3 SL66's that I used professionaly for nearly 30 years. I figured once that I put around 25,000 rolls through each before any repairs. In the end they still had life in them but I went digital in my work and had to move to Hasselblad. Hasselblads are excellent but having used them for many years and Rollei, Hasselblad was way behind Rollei in features and performance. The two things that kept Rollei from overtaking Hasselblad were a lack of good marketing and sales force and the focal plane shutter that synced with strobes at 1/30. Eventhough Rollei/Zeiss had an 80 and 150 with a shutter for fast sync on the SL66 they Never caught on. For my work which was under studio conditions most of the time the 1/30 was no big deal. I did buy an 80 with leaf shutter and used it very little.
The SL66 is a touch bigger than a 500cm but nothing like the RB67 Mamiya.
x-ray
Veteran
Another option might be a 120mm macro planar on a Hasselblad or a Pentax 6x7 with the 135 macro. Both Re stellar lenses.
You mggt research the close focus of the 105mm f2.5 on the Pentax. I used them for aerial work but can't remember the closest they will focus.
You mggt research the close focus of the 105mm f2.5 on the Pentax. I used them for aerial work but can't remember the closest they will focus.
Swift1
Veteran
Just get an inexpensively Zeiss Proxar close up lens for the Zeiss 80/2.8
They actually work quite well.
Swift1
Veteran
The Pentax 105/2.4 focuses 1 meter. There is a 100/4 Macro that focuses down to 44 cm.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
I don't really think there is much of a difference. There are so many different variables to consider - what lens, what screen, what condition the mirror is in/how in spec everything is in relation to the film plane, etc.
Generally though I find critical focusing with a WLF much easier than with eye-level prisms, and on old cameras where prisms may not be in the best condition or were not very bright to begin with this may be even more noticeable. I tend to prefer to use the WLF on my 35mm cameras as well, especially when doing close up work.
Generally though I find critical focusing with a WLF much easier than with eye-level prisms, and on old cameras where prisms may not be in the best condition or were not very bright to begin with this may be even more noticeable. I tend to prefer to use the WLF on my 35mm cameras as well, especially when doing close up work.
pvdhaar
Peter
I tend to agree, but only when using the flip-up magnifier.. Without the flip-up magnifier, my viewing distance from the ground glass is too far to make out critical detail.
mfogiel
Veteran
You need to keep in mind several factors: FL of the lens against its max aperture against the contrast at this aperture against accuracy of the lens/film plane distance with the lens/mirror/ground glass distance. Never assume that what you see is equivalent to what you get (in focus) on the negative, you need to check every camera/lens combination.
In my experience, the easiest rigs to focus up close are:
Nikon F3 HP+DK17M+ Any of the Zeiss Makro Planars (f 2.0)
Pentax645n/Contax 645( with Maxwell screen) with any lens from 75mm onwards.
Pentax 67II with lenses from 90mm onwards.
In my experience, the easiest rigs to focus up close are:
Nikon F3 HP+DK17M+ Any of the Zeiss Makro Planars (f 2.0)
Pentax645n/Contax 645( with Maxwell screen) with any lens from 75mm onwards.
Pentax 67II with lenses from 90mm onwards.