40mm framelines

[tom_f77]

Ok, how about a discussion in an area where the Voigtlanders unarguably have the edge over the Leicas 😱 , since the other one is getting a bit heated 😉

I've only had my 40/1.4 a few days, but it's already becoming clear that I'm going to want a body that provides a 40mm frameline in a finder as clear and bright as the one in my R2. I have a roughed up old CL which has the right frames, but for easy focussing it just doesn't cut it.

The obvious choice is an R3a. I like the idea of the 1:1 finder, having used the 1:1 accessory finders for 50 and 75mm lenses. BUT those finders give you a frameline that just hangs in space, and I'm wondering whether that it the R3a, where there's reportedly only just room in the finder for the frames, will provide the same effect. ie does it really work for both-eyes viewing, or do you end up with a 1:1 view that doesn't include anything outside the frame?

One of the things I like about the R2 is the big area outside the frames to keep track of what's happening there. So I keep wondering whether I'd be happier with a Rollei 35RF, which is basically an R2 with a 40 frameline. Robert White does have a real deal going for the body, sonnar 40 and trigger winder...

Then again to be honest I'd rather have a non-tarted up R2, so I've even wondered whether one might find a creative technician who could modify an R2 with some rangefinder parts from the Rollei 35RF to give the best of both worlds...

Maybe I'm just crazy. What do you think?

Tom

 

[rover]

Yes, viewing with both eyes in a 1:1 finder does work. It takes some getting used to, but it works. The 40mm framelines in the R3a are pretty close to the edges of the finder, so you can see outside the frame, but not very much so. Viewing with both eyes, the framelines do "float in space." Also, if you wear glasses you will have a tough time seeing the 40mm framelines in the R3a. I didn't think it was a problem, but I could not see the entire frame when I was wearing my glasses. I think the style of glasses makes a difference because others reported they couldn't see them at all.

What about using the R2 with the 35mm framelines. I did that with a 40/2 CLE. The 35mm framelines cover pretty close to 100% of the 40mm field of view and only @85% of the 35mm field of view. If you compose inside of the 35mm framelines knowing that anything outside of them will not be captured on the film you should be fine.

And yes, you are crazy. 😉

 

[tom_f77]

Yes, viewing with both eyes in a 1:1 finder does work. It takes some getting used to, but it works. The 40mm framelines in the R3a are pretty close to the edges of the finder, so you can see outside the frame, but not very much so. Viewing with both eyes, the framelines do "float in space."

That's good to hear. I don't wear glasses, so it will probably work well for me. And I like 50's as well, so no doubt I'd appreciate it...

What about using the R2 with the 35mm framelines. I did that with a 40/2 CLE. The 35mm framelines cover pretty close to 100% of the 40mm field of view and only @85% of the 35mm field of view.

This is of course good advise, and I'm already trying it out... But I do have a tendency to get too close and chop bits off people as it is. I used to do quite well with a 35mm lens on the 40mm framed CL...

Anyway, I've always been of the school of thought that says retention of GAS can only be harmful in the long run, and so as long as there's nobody around who will be offended..... 🙄

I live alone right now, so I can release as much GAS as I like without causing any problems, and I know nobody here is going to mind. 🙂

And yes, you are crazy. 😉

Yup. But that other thread has reminded me how much money I've saved by staying Leica free so far... :angel:

Tom

 

[Huck Finn]

. So I keep wondering whether I'd be happier with a Rollei 35RF, which is basically an R2 with a 40 frameline. Then again to be honest I'd rather have a non-tarted up R2 . . .
Tom

". . . tarted up"?! Why, kind sir, I must protest. 😛 LOL. As the owner of a Rollei 35 RF, I don't see much difference between its looks & a Contax G2 or any of the other Rollei 35 mm cameras, but to each his own. 😀

More importantly, I think that the 35 RF is the perfect camera to use with a 40 mm lens. The .7 magnification makes the 40 mm frame lines very viewable for a traditional rangefinder approach to shooting pictures - with or without glasses. It is the lower magnification alternative to the R3A - just as Leica has its lower/higher magnification options. Since Cosina came out with the 40/1.4 Nokton, I think that the Rollei is a more desirable alternative than it was when it came out because there are now a full range of 40 mm lenses at f/1.4, f/2, & f/2.8. And of course, the price is lower now too - a lot lower. 😉

Is it basically an R2 with 40 mm frame lines? Yes, it is, but it does have one significant improvement over the R2, The R2's minimum focus distance of 0.9m was improved to 0.7m for the Rollei, meaning that Leica & most CV lenses can be rangefinder coupled to their full up close capabilities on the 35 RF.

There are also the 80 mm frame lines. When Popular Photography tested the CV 75/2.5, they found that its focal length is actually 77 mm. In my experience, this lens works beautifully with the 80 mm frame lines of the 35 RF. Combined with any 40 mm lens, it makes a very compact & functional 2 lens kit.

 

[tom_f77]

". . . tarted up"?! Why, kind sir, I must protest. 😛 LOL. As the owner of a Rollei 35 RF, I don't see much difference between its looks & a Contax G2 or any of the other Rollei 35 mm cameras, but to each his own. 😀

I retract with apologies! Really I just meant that I prefer my tarts to wear black. 😉

Lots of good food for thought in your post as well; I am inclined to agree about the magnification/framelines issue, although I do see the attraction of the 1:1 finder as well... I had forgotten about the close focus change; another good point.

The price for the 35RF IS really good at the moment; you get the lens and winder for not much more than the R3a alone. And I do still hanker after a real sonnar, so maybe it would save me from 50/1.5 hunting...

And I guess if I couldn't learn to love the silver finish I could just wrap the whole thing in gaffer tape and it would look just like my old R...

I am obviously going to have to think about this for a bit... 😕

Tom

 

[Huck Finn]

Now, a tart dressed in black, that is something to lust after. 😎

Tom, I don't think that the 40/2.8 Sonnar - a superb lens in its own right - is a substitute for the old 50/1.5 Sonnars, whether by Zeiss, Nikon, Canon, or the Russians. The old 50 Sonnars excelled as protrait lenses, using the minimal depth of field at full aperture to isolate the subject. Combined with their creamy bokeh, these lenses could make some stunning protraits.

The 40 Sonnar can best be described as a candid lens - useful for catching people in the act of doing whatever it is that people do. It is sharp & it too has nice out-of-focus character, but you won't limit the depth of field at f/2.8 the way you can with a lens that is 2 stops faster. In contrast to the 50 mm lens, it is vey compact even with the attached hood, making any camera nice to carry around when it is mounted on it.

A final note is that the silver finish makes it a nice platform for an old chrome Sonnar when you add one of those to your collection. GAS just never seems to go away. 🙂

 

[Doug]

The Rollei would be a good choice even if you have to tape-over the markings! And black is inconspicuous too. The 1:1 external finders are great to look through, but suffer parallax error. Having a built-in finder with the right framelines that you can see well outside of, with parallax correction, beats 1:1 in my opinion.

Another fairly obvious choice to look at is the Minolta CLE, what a little sweetie that is! The viewfinder magnification is low at 0.6x, but it offers 28mm frames too.

 

[tom_f77]

Thanks to both of you for more interesting thoughts, even though some of it is likely to GASify me even further...

I am pretty safe from the CLE though, as I already bought a Hexar RF for the 0.6x finder and 28mm frame. That's kind of steering me away from the R3a as well, since it means I also have an autoexposure body.

I suppose really the thing to do would be to control myself in the framelines department for now and keep using the R2 35mm frame with care, and look for that real 50 sonnar... But I'm still tempted by the Rollei package. I used to have a Rollei 35T and always wished it was an S. That lens on the M cameras would just be great.

Sigh.

Now about those old Sonnars. Am I right in thinking that the Canon and Nikon 1.4 lenses also count? I am sure I remember reading about them as developments of the 1.5s, and maybe even that the Nikon was optimised for wide open/close up use and the Canon the other way around. Which I suppose makes the Nikon the ideal portrait sonnar, considerations of price and availability aside? Or does it actually mean exactly the opposite as you maybe want gentler performance for intimate portraits and a sharp general purpose 50 rolled into one?

Tom

 

[rover]

The Canon 50/1.5 is a Sonnar design, not the 1.4. It is a small, very well made lens. I am still shooting my first roll with mine. They are not easy to find, and have been commanding $300 to $400 recently on ebay, but have a great reputation. The Nikon 50/1.4 is also a Sonnar design lens. It is more optimized for wide open, close shooting, and harder to find still then the Canon. There were not a lot of CZ Sonnars made in LTM mount. There is some risk of one being a fake, a J9 dressed in Sonnar cloths, but deal with a reputible seller and you should be fine.

 

[tom_f77]

There were not a lot of CZ Sonnars made in LTM mount. There is some risk of one being a fake, a J9 dressed in Sonnar cloths, but deal with a reputible seller and you should be fine.

Thanks. I think I was advised here that the CZ LTM Sonnars, like the Jupiters, had the same true focal length as the Contax mount versions, and only the Canon and Nikon ones were exactly to LTM specs so that they would focus truly accurately at all distances.

I've got a CZJ f2 collapsible sonnar on a Kiev - that's how I know I want one that works that well on my R2 etc.

I do know where there's a Nikon 50/1.4 that's been hanging around a while. I'm not surprised, at the price, but I suppose it might be worth making an offer...

Tom

 

[Huck Finn]

Thanks to both of you for more interesting thoughts, even though some of it is likely to GASify me even further...

I am pretty safe from the CLE though, as I already bought a Hexar RF for the 0.6x finder and 28mm frame. That's kind of steering me away from the R3a as well, since it means I also have an autoexposure body.

Tom

Tom, to help with your GAS attack, even with the lower magnification, the Hexar RF still has a longer effective base length & will provide more precise focusing than the R3A. The only thing that the R3A will allow you to do better than the Hexar is shoot with both eyes open. Me? . . . I shoot with both eyes shut. 😱

BTW, you can find some nice discussions of the various old 50 Sonnars at www.dantestella.com & www.davidde.com.

 

[tom_f77]

Yes - I think with your help I've cured my frameline GAS, if only by diverting it in another direction. Thanks for the links as well; I remembered where I read what I thought I remembered and tracked them down earlier this morning, and a few other relevant bits.

I think if I fall any way it will be in that direction. I've made some queries about the lens and dropped a hint about the price (I think a polite one...) so I'm waiting to see what happens now... 😉

Tom

 

[jbtran]

Hey, guys!

I just noticed yesterday that B&H has lowered their price for the Rollei 35RF from $600 to $500. The manual winder accessory (QW35) for the 35RF is still ridiculously overpriced at $400, though.

 

[tom_f77]

I think if I fall any way it will be in that direction. I've made some queries about the lens and dropped a hint about the price (I think a polite one...) so I'm waiting to see what happens now... 😉

Tom

Well, thanks for all the ideas, but another body with 40mm framelines is definitely off limits now; that offer has been accepted, so my 50mm frames will be seeing more use from now on 😀

I thought about offering the 40/1.4 in trade, but it seems daft when I've hardly tested it yet and it will be fun to compare it with the 50/1.4 🙂

Tom