Baselength/Focus accuracy of Fixed Lens RF (esp. f1.7 40mm)

[Ljós]

Hello all,

the main thrust of my question is: how accurately (repeatably) can you focus fixed lens RF with f1.7 40ish lenses, given that the cameras are properly aligned and CLA'd? I have read quite a bit here and other places on the net, and funny enough, notwithstanding heated discussions about baselengths and viewfinder magnification of Leica, Bessa and ZM etc., there is hardly any talk (or specs) about the EBL of the likes of Olympus SP, RD, Canonets, Hi-Matics etc.

Just from comparing a Leica CL and, say, a Olympus SP, it looks like the baselengths are ROUGHLY the same, and we know that the CL can accurately focus a 40mm f2 (though not as comfortably as a M2 or let alone M3.)

Where I "come from":
believe it or not, until a week ago I had no clue there was such an embarrassment of riches regarding 40mm focal length lenses in the world of fixed RFs.
One of the reasons I got myself a Leica M2 was to be able to use the 40mm f2 Rokkor - no regrets with this lens 🙂 (I use it with the 40mm CV finder... Since I wear glasses I can't readily see the M2's 35mm framelines, let alone see what's outside the framelines.) I am thinking about selling my Leica stuff, getting two serviced Olympus OM-1n and 28mm f2, 50mm 1.4 and maybe a short tele at some point. And to cover "my" favorite focal length (40mm) with properly overhauled Olympus RD or SP (same 49mm filter thread.)
The Olys with their leaf shutter should be even quieter than the M2. BUT: if focus wide open or at f2 were to be hit or miss -- that would be a deal breaker for me. I do my own black and white darkroom work (but I am woefully backlogged.... don't ask...), and I rarely enlarge my 35mm stuff beyond 5x7 inches (13x18cm) - that's why I think my Leica setup might be overkill for what I am doing. Also, with these small enlargements, I might not need the last possible ounce of lens sharpness.

So, what is your take: are you comfortable using your fast fixed lens rangefinders wide open? Can you "nail" focus on the (nearest) eye of the person you are portraying?

Thanks in advance for your input!
Ljós

 

[ferider]

Hi Ljos,

for 40mm it hardly matters since even a short EBL (like the CL) can accurately focus the fastest 40 out there.

The only fixed lens I have that matches your description is the Olympus SP, that is easy to handle, even wide open and close up.

On a different note: I love my OM Zuikos (including the 28/2, and 50/1.8 MIJ). But optically, they are no match to modern CV/Leica lenses (like the 28/1.9 or 40/1.4). On the other hand, if you don't print beyond 8x10, it won't matter.

Best,

Roland.

 

[Ljós]

Thanks for the reply, Roland.
Good to know that you can comfortably focus your SP wide open!
Yes, I would be ok with taking a backseat to the performance of the newer and newest glass, used on a RF with longer baselength. As long as focus would end up were I wanted it, I would be fine with that. So thanks for your input!

The background story to my considerations is, that I bit the bullet and had my Rolleicord Vb overhauled by a very good technician, and I plegded 🙂 to use medium format more. Instead of trying to hunt down the magic bullet of greatest possible sharpness/"quality" with 35mm gear, I want to keep my 35mm stuff affordable, "good enough", small, lightweight and quiet. I considered getting an overhauled Nikon F2 and the CV 40mm f2 pancake - gotta love the F2 - but hey: the Olympus system is so much smaller (and quieter), and I think mixing 40mm Olympus rangefinder and OM, all with 49mm filter threads just makes sense.

 

[Beemermark]

I have never had a problem focusing a 50/1.4 Summilux or a 90/2 Summicron on an M body (and I have one with a 0.58x VF) or even the Hexar body. While much has been written about effective RF base length and VF magnification I've never really had an issue with any combination. Learning how to focus is more important to a good photograph than the equipment is.

 

[stompyq]

For what it's worth my canonet QL17 is much much easier to focus than my former CL+40mm summicron-c. The CL finder was clear and the RF patch was bright but i never felt comfortable accurately focusing it. It took me longer while with the canonet i could nail focus in one go very quickly.

 

[Armoured]

Not meant at all facetiously, I think the answer is to try a camera or two out; they're not that expensive and can probably be resold for similar price (or heck, give away a cheap one). I honestly don't think a good 70s-era RF will have trouble accurately focussing even wide open with their 40s, but best to try it for your use. At minimum focussing distance, may be noticeable depending on technique/subjects (if either move slightly, and if subject and camera are both fixed, well, time for a tripod).

I've been using a Himatic with the 1.7 for years, never noticed an issue with this for my use (and they're very durable). One thing I've noticed with all the fast lenses I've seen on this class of camera (but by no means exhaustive): they are quite prone to flare, even to what may seem like modest backlight (i.e. not just sun in the frame); finding hoods that don't block the finders not always easy. This shouldn't be surprising, lens technology has changed and these were simple designs even then; they had to compromise somewhere on price and other.

But there may be other issues in practical use that bother you more than the wide-open focus issue; you'll just have to try a few to see. But I've no doubt that given the variety in this class, you'll find one you like if you like 40mm. (Lately I've been having real difficulty using 50mm I like 40mm so much).

 

[Ljós]

Thanks for all the input so far!

And yes, the proof is going to be in the pudding ;-) I am going to have an Olympus 35RD coming my way, after a thorough CLA. And then I will use it along my M2 with 40mm Rokkor. But it is interesting to check with the combined user experience of RFF.