Al Kaplan
Veteran
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.
T
tedwhite
Guest
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!
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!
T
tedwhite
Guest
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.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
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
Tom
Bingley
Veteran
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_
Well-known
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
I use a VC 25mm/4 without external viewfinder. Works fine for what I use it for.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
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.
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
Well-known
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.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
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.
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
Well-known
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.) 
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.
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.
T
tedwhite
Guest
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.
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.
oscroft
Veteran
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
Registered Snoozer
Just to save from starting another thread..
Just to save from starting another thread..
...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
Just to save from starting another thread..
...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
Last edited:
nico
Well-known
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....
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
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.
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
Veteran
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.