135mm lenses on R2?

[scottgee1]

Hi all;

Does the R2 have enough RF 'base' to correctly focus a 135/3.5 lens wide open?

If not, what's the practical limit for long lenses with this body?

TIA!/ScottGee1

 

[back alley]

since cv only makes a 90mm as it's longest lens i would use that as a guide.

i have read where some people have used a 135 on a r based body and it worked ok for them, but i don't think it was at close focus distance or wide open.

i have been meaning to test that out but have never quite got around to it.

joe

 

[iMacfan]

I'm not so sure that would be such a good idea. VC don't even include 135 framelines on the 1.0x finder in the R3a. I've also noticed that the focus point changes a bit as you move your eye from left to right - this is made worse by the VF not being right at the edge of the camera body. Of course, if you stop down, things should be not too bad.

David

 

[Tim]

I've got a Leitz Hektor 135/f4.5 ( a relatively cheap and hugely underated lens, btw) that I have used at various times on R and R2. Trying to use it at f4.5 and about 20-30ft distance is an exercise in frustration - you have to be VERY careful with your focus and even then it quite often just doesn't focus accurately enough. However it'd be fine stopped down to allow depth of field to cover the minor innacuracies in focussing - if that's what you want.
IMO it's a bit much for the short EBL of the Bessa's. Joe's right I think - there's a reason why CV make a 90/3.5 as their longest/fastest lens. And even that needs a bit of care with a Bessa.
For framelines, I use an externel VIOOH finder.
In theory, the R3a should be better as it's greater magnification gives a longer effective base length. But it's still no substitute for a longer rangefinder base. (I see this with my IIIf as well - short RF base + 1.5x RF magnification is not the same as a long base)
Roll on the Zeiss Ikon.

Here's an example. f5.6, quite a fast shutter speed (can't remember exactly what), Sensia 100, Bessa R, Hektor 135/4.5. The Kookaburra was about 25 feet away and in spite of taking a huge amount of care with focusiing it's still not quite right. Depth of field is really very narrow on these lenses........

tim

 

[scottgee1]

You've confirmed my suspicions. Clearly, it ain't gonna work. Tim, you picture was worth at least a thousand words. If, after all the care you took, that fine optic couldn't be focused . . .

I think we all know, in our heart of hearts, that our beloved RFs just weren't made for long lenses.

Thanks to all for your input on this!/ScottGee1

 

[back alley]

the 135 works on my canon p/7 without problems.

the camera just needs a longer base than the bessa offers.

joe

 

[scottgee1]

I stand corrected.

Should have said "our beloved Bessas".

😀 /ScottGee1

 

[former member]

Check out Bill M's Thread on the two 135mm Lenses for his Bessa.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=43211#post43211

It pushes the RF accuracy to the limit, but I could focus the 135 F4.5 Hektar with my Leica CL, hold position, take the lens and put it on the M3 and get agreement. Had to focus the CL very carefully. Both just had fresh CLA's.

Let's see when I get the rsults back from my Komura 200mm F4.5 used on the Canon L1. The Canon L1 has a viewfinder/rangefinder magnifier built in that has the FOV of a 135mm lens. BUT the RF mechanism needs to be well calibrated.