28mm with M2 - finder or not?

[kemal_mumcu]

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.

 

[Rob-F]

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.

 

[szekiat]

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.

 

[Turtle]

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]

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.

 

[Laforet]

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.

 

[Tom A]

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.

 

[Doug]

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!

 

[oscroft]

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]

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]

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.

 

[FrankS]

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.

 

[ferider]

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]

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]

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.

 

[lic4]

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.

 

[Tom A]

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]

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. 🙂

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

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.

 

[Tom A]

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.