mjm6
Established
The recent discussions about the various camera bodies got me thinking, so I have a few questions, and I would love to hear what people think.
What would the best body be for a wide angle lens (wider than 35mm, but not wide enough that you can zone focus)?
What would be the best body for a normal lens (maybe up to 85mm)?
What would be the best body for a long lens (100mm and longer)?
My thinking is that almost any of the bodies from the IIx2 series on would be good for normal. It's an issue of the comfort of the viewfinder with glasses, and other details like that. I guess the question would have to be, which one has the most comfortable viewfinder in general, and second which one seems to be the best for eyeglasses wearers?
The long lens bodies would probably have to stop with last of the finders with the variable magnification, so that would leave out the P, and the two 7 models.
The wide angle body is where I am especially interested in opinions. The older bodies seem to be unfriendly to wide angle lenses, and starting at the V models, they all appear to cover 35mm nicely, but some may be easier than others, due to the eye relief in the optical system.
I would love to hear what people have to say about the various bodies.
---Michael
What would the best body be for a wide angle lens (wider than 35mm, but not wide enough that you can zone focus)?
What would be the best body for a normal lens (maybe up to 85mm)?
What would be the best body for a long lens (100mm and longer)?
My thinking is that almost any of the bodies from the IIx2 series on would be good for normal. It's an issue of the comfort of the viewfinder with glasses, and other details like that. I guess the question would have to be, which one has the most comfortable viewfinder in general, and second which one seems to be the best for eyeglasses wearers?
The long lens bodies would probably have to stop with last of the finders with the variable magnification, so that would leave out the P, and the two 7 models.
The wide angle body is where I am especially interested in opinions. The older bodies seem to be unfriendly to wide angle lenses, and starting at the V models, they all appear to cover 35mm nicely, but some may be easier than others, due to the eye relief in the optical system.
I would love to hear what people have to say about the various bodies.
---Michael
Last edited:
FrankS
Registered User
Oh, this one is easy! Leica CL with 25mm and external finder, M2 with 35mm, M3 with 50mm, and Canon 7 with 100mm (or in my case, 85mm f2 which is big and heavy so the camera body needs to be larger as well.)
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
By older, I assume you mean the bottom loaders, I find these to be fine with wide angle lenes & prefer the wide lenses on them, due to the squinty view at the F setting with the 50mm lens, even on the improved models , as I use external shoe mounted finders& leave the camera finder setting at 1.5x. so the effect is like the screw mount Leica & as accurate . On both of these cameras I do use an external 50mm finder, with that focal lenght of lens mounted, as their built in 50mm finder is very poor by todays standard (more so the bottom loading Canons).
Wayne R. Scott
Half fast Leica User
My opinion on best wide angle lens/camera combo that I have used is: Contax IIA with a Zeiss Biogon 21mm f4.5 and 21mm viewfinder. But I have lead a very sheltered life.
Wayne
Wayne
Nikon SP has built in "secondary" finder for the 28mm and 35mm lens. The Main finder is 1x magnification with lines for the 50, 85, 105, and 135. Using a 135mm F3.5 with it is easy.
I use a 135mm lens with my Canon 7 without problems. Wide-open with the 85mm F2, 105mm F2.5, and 135mm F3.5 is no problem. Going wider than 35mm is an issue with the Canon 7 as it does not have a built in accessory shoe.
Canon 7 w 135mm F3.5.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=2346&cat=3204&page=2
I use a 135mm lens with my Canon 7 without problems. Wide-open with the 85mm F2, 105mm F2.5, and 135mm F3.5 is no problem. Going wider than 35mm is an issue with the Canon 7 as it does not have a built in accessory shoe.
Canon 7 w 135mm F3.5.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=2346&cat=3204&page=2
The adjustable magnification of some Canon viewfinders is a joy for longer lenses. On my Canon IV the 1x setting is perfect for a 100mm lens and 1.5x fits a 135mm.
50mm, M3
50mm, M3
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
FrankS said:
Badabing-badaboom! I've had experience with all of those cameras, and have actually once tried a Leica CL with a 21mm & finder. I ditto it.
mjm6
Established
I guess I didn't qualify my statement to be limited to Canon or other comparable screwmount cameras because I figured that since I put it in the Canon Rangefinder secion, that's the kind of responses I would get.
I'm interested in the responses that have come in so far, but I'm much more interested in CANON bodies.
Sorry for the confusion...
---Michael
I'm interested in the responses that have come in so far, but I'm much more interested in CANON bodies.
Sorry for the confusion...
---Michael
Canon VIt (One for sell now in35mm classified) or VIL; 35mm magnification that is easy to see with glasses ~0.7x; 1x finder, auto-parallax corrected for 50mm + 100mm; 135mm "RF" setting. Also takes auto-parallax corrected 1x brightline finders.
Last edited:
X
xcapekey
Guest
m3 is the best for the 50/90
m2 has great unobtrusive lines for the 35
m4p or .58 bodies for the 28
m2 has great unobtrusive lines for the 35
m4p or .58 bodies for the 28
R
ray_g
Guest
Only Canons? This is easy:
Canon P for 50mm - I like the 1:1 finder.
Canon P for 100mm - the RF is accurate enough, and the frameline size is big enough to compose easily, due to the 1x mag. I don't really use anything longer than 105mm.
Canon P for wider than 35mm - You need an external VF anyway, so it doesn't really matter.
Canon P for 35mm - I don't wear glasses when I shoot. Sure the framelines are at the edges of the VF, but at least there are framelines.
Canon P because it looks pretty and cool, and because it is the only Canon body I have.
Canon P for 50mm - I like the 1:1 finder.
Canon P for 100mm - the RF is accurate enough, and the frameline size is big enough to compose easily, due to the 1x mag. I don't really use anything longer than 105mm.
Canon P for wider than 35mm - You need an external VF anyway, so it doesn't really matter.
Canon P for 35mm - I don't wear glasses when I shoot. Sure the framelines are at the edges of the VF, but at least there are framelines.
Canon P because it looks pretty and cool, and because it is the only Canon body I have.
back alley
IMAGES
the only canon body needed, really!
it's funny how the p is maligned for the 35 fov/fl and how that's my favourite lens.
makes no sense really.
joe
it's funny how the p is maligned for the 35 fov/fl and how that's my favourite lens.
makes no sense really.
joe
R
ray_g
Guest
The P is like an M3 with the 35mm frameline as a bonus. 
ScottS
Established
Well I've got a bunch of canons but no P, so I guess I'd do something like this:
Canon III w/ 25mm (my dimmest finder, and the least necessary with this one) -- substitute any of the II-IV series bodies here, substitute 28mm lens here)
Canon 7 with 35mm (my only Canon body with 35mm framelines)
Canon VI-T for 50mm (1x VF for 50mm)
Canon VT w/ 85mm brightline for 85mm (auto-parallax correction, 1x brightline, 1.5x RF for accurate focusing at f1.9
Basically for 85,100,135, the choice would be the 7 for the simplicity of an integrated finder, or the VT/VI-T for 1x view via the accessory finders.
Scott
Canon III w/ 25mm (my dimmest finder, and the least necessary with this one) -- substitute any of the II-IV series bodies here, substitute 28mm lens here)
Canon 7 with 35mm (my only Canon body with 35mm framelines)
Canon VI-T for 50mm (1x VF for 50mm)
Canon VT w/ 85mm brightline for 85mm (auto-parallax correction, 1x brightline, 1.5x RF for accurate focusing at f1.9
Basically for 85,100,135, the choice would be the 7 for the simplicity of an integrated finder, or the VT/VI-T for 1x view via the accessory finders.
Scott
back alley
IMAGES
scott,
do you have the canon 25mm lens?
what do you think of it.
and did that $10 ever show up?
joe
do you have the canon 25mm lens?
what do you think of it.
and did that $10 ever show up?
joe
ScottS
Established
Joe,
Yes, I've got the 25mm -- remember in NYC I put it on the IIIa after lunch. I like it. It's more compact than the CV 25/4 I used to have, and I have the option of using the RF with it since it's coupled (or, as always, I can scale focus). The biggest downside is I paid more than twice as much for the lens+finder as I sold my CV lens+finder for (although the Canon is still a quarter the price of the Leica M 24+finder). I haven't used the lens extensively yet, and I don't have any side-by-side comparisons w/ the CV, but I expect the usual vintage Canon vs. new CV differences apply here as they do with the 50 1.4 vs. 50 Nokton, etc.
I have not seen the $10 -- however, I cannot completely discount the possibility that it's lost in a pile of paid bills and/or other mail which may have arrived one of the weeks I was away. So it is possible that it arrived, although I have not seen it myself (and my wife doesn't remember it arriving either). It's also possible that it was lost in transit. Given that the $10 is only 5% of the apparent value of our later trade (i.e. we both had items for sale for $200 which we traded), I'm inclined to forget about it entirely -- maybe it will turn up when I finally get around to organizing some of my old mail, or maybe it won't.
Hey -- you could always help me resolve my lack-of-P problem -- I'll trade you an excellent Canon III for a P
Scott
Yes, I've got the 25mm -- remember in NYC I put it on the IIIa after lunch. I like it. It's more compact than the CV 25/4 I used to have, and I have the option of using the RF with it since it's coupled (or, as always, I can scale focus). The biggest downside is I paid more than twice as much for the lens+finder as I sold my CV lens+finder for (although the Canon is still a quarter the price of the Leica M 24+finder). I haven't used the lens extensively yet, and I don't have any side-by-side comparisons w/ the CV, but I expect the usual vintage Canon vs. new CV differences apply here as they do with the 50 1.4 vs. 50 Nokton, etc.
I have not seen the $10 -- however, I cannot completely discount the possibility that it's lost in a pile of paid bills and/or other mail which may have arrived one of the weeks I was away. So it is possible that it arrived, although I have not seen it myself (and my wife doesn't remember it arriving either). It's also possible that it was lost in transit. Given that the $10 is only 5% of the apparent value of our later trade (i.e. we both had items for sale for $200 which we traded), I'm inclined to forget about it entirely -- maybe it will turn up when I finally get around to organizing some of my old mail, or maybe it won't.
Hey -- you could always help me resolve my lack-of-P problem -- I'll trade you an excellent Canon III for a P
Scott
back alley
IMAGES
while that trade offer is tempting...
damn, i will either send another 10 or find something truly canadian and send it.
i am starting to doubt myself as this would be the only time money was lost for me.
there was a couple of filters from england that never appeared, though they were sent to me, not by me.
pardon my lack of memory re. that 25.
age is creeping up on me.
i have never seen a canon 25 go for cheap so i doubt my interest in one will ever be satisfied.
i need to play with my 28 more. i actually have a couple of pics from it that i like which is rare for me and a wide angle lens.
joe
damn, i will either send another 10 or find something truly canadian and send it.
i am starting to doubt myself as this would be the only time money was lost for me.
there was a couple of filters from england that never appeared, though they were sent to me, not by me.
pardon my lack of memory re. that 25.
age is creeping up on me.
i have never seen a canon 25 go for cheap so i doubt my interest in one will ever be satisfied.
i need to play with my 28 more. i actually have a couple of pics from it that i like which is rare for me and a wide angle lens.
joe
mjm6
Established
ScottS said:
Scott,
Can you elaborte on this a bit? I'm still learning the aesthetic of these older lenses, and would like to hear (and see, if there are samples out there) the differences in a modern lens from CV and the older Canon, Leica, or Nikon LTM counterparts.
I currently have a CV 35mm, but no vintage lens to compare it to, and I have a handful of old FSU 50mm's along with a Canon 50/1.9, a Nikkor 50/1.4 and soon to be a Canon 50/1.4. One of these days, I'll do an extensive comparison of the lenses I have... I'm espacially interested in the Canon vs. Nikkor lens comparison, which I'll probably have time to do in a few weeks.
Thanks,
---Michael
back alley
IMAGES
michael,
it's generally understood that most of the older canon lenses are lower in contrast but still have a high resolving power when it comes to sharpness.
i had a cv 35/2.5 lens that was very sharp and also very contrasty.
the canon 35's are nice and sharp but much lower in contrast. (except perhaps the 35/2)
joe
the higher contrast helps to add to the look of apparent sharpness of a lens also.
it's generally understood that most of the older canon lenses are lower in contrast but still have a high resolving power when it comes to sharpness.
i had a cv 35/2.5 lens that was very sharp and also very contrasty.
the canon 35's are nice and sharp but much lower in contrast. (except perhaps the 35/2)
joe
the higher contrast helps to add to the look of apparent sharpness of a lens also.