sepiareverb
genius and moron
A 15mm is extremely wide. So wide that with a small lens one (me) will often get their (my) fingers in the frame without being aware. I shot the Contax G 16mm lens and gave up using it when I had to wear gloves because that made my fingers too big for the field of view. Too many frames wasted.
Don’t discount a Leica/Minolta CL: compact, repairable, and if a meter isn’t on your list quite affordable. No 28mm framelines, but can use most any M or LTM lens, especially if the meter is out of the picture.
PS: if you end up jonesing for that Pentax glow there is a 43mm Pentax lens in LTM which is a gem, and makes good use of the 40mm framelines on a CL...
Don’t discount a Leica/Minolta CL: compact, repairable, and if a meter isn’t on your list quite affordable. No 28mm framelines, but can use most any M or LTM lens, especially if the meter is out of the picture.
PS: if you end up jonesing for that Pentax glow there is a 43mm Pentax lens in LTM which is a gem, and makes good use of the 40mm framelines on a CL...
Out to Lunch
Ventor
The CV 4.5/15 Super Wide-Heliar is an excellent lens. I'd go for a younger Bessa. Prices have gone up. You'll need an external viewfinder.
Lucadomi
Well-known
Personally I would go with the Hexar RF for 28mm.
Lucadomi
Well-known
Or just don’t do it. So much money saved.
Just joking (kind of..)
Just joking (kind of..)
markjwyatt
Well-known
My rangefinder kit is a Contax iia; Voigtlander SC Skopar 21mm f4; Zeiss Opton 50mm f2 Sonnar; Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm f4 Sonnar (plus a Kiev 4a), viewfinders, filters, etc. Whole kit <$1000 with CLA (I got pretty lucky on the camera itself).
The 21mm f4 is an amazing lens.
https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=157638541@N07&view_all=1&text=Voigtlander
The 21mm f4 is an amazing lens.
https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=157638541@N07&view_all=1&text=Voigtlander
aizan
Veteran
Speaking of Contax, the Voigtlander 25mm in Nikon S mount is $300 new with the viewfinder on the auction site. The R2s goes for $600.
css9450
Veteran
There is merit to this suggestion. The OP already has a Pentax; a fine camera in my opinion. Does he have a reason for wanting a RF?
I remember why I bought my first RF. It was just to try them, as a gear junkie. There is a certain kind of accomplishment getting perfectly good photos from equipment much older than myself. RF, TLR, leaf shutter, folders... it didn't really matter which. I don't ever recall specifically thinking, "what I really need is a RF".
Jeremy Z
Well-known
My advice: Stick with the Canonet and use your Pentax SLRs for the other stuff. SLRs are just better for all practical uses not served by your Canonet. (ex. quiet shutter)
No messing around with finders, easier focusing, etc.
On the other hand, I'm a sucker for fixed lens rangefinders, scale focus cameras, etc. Cheap as chips, truly quiet and inexpensive.
No messing around with finders, easier focusing, etc.
On the other hand, I'm a sucker for fixed lens rangefinders, scale focus cameras, etc. Cheap as chips, truly quiet and inexpensive.
BillBingham2
Registered User
not an rf
Yes, but it's just as much fun. Learing to estimate three distances accuratly, focus as you raise the camera to your eye!
B2 (;->
ibot
Newbie
I see where you are coming from – I was even thinking about that!
Taking photographs and fiddling with gear, that's a hobby for me. Do i need a RF? No, but I want one ;-) SLR may be more general purpose cameras, I think the different handling of a RF will influence my photography in a positive way. If not, I guess I can resell and recover some money.
That being said – I just went with a Bessa/Heliar combo for wide shots and a Canon P with 50/1.4 for the rest. Currently waiting for acceptable weather to run a roll or two through them.