how sloppy is CV 25 viewfinder?

[djon]

I have the old model viewfinder..didn't know to ask for the new one.

Does new version come standard with current 25 lenses or is this an extra price option?

My finder has the expected parallax issue, clipping at the bottom when close focusing, but it also clips at the bottom in middle distances.

Does the newer 25 finder work significantly better? I might reluctantly pay for one.

Is there a bright line at bottom, as well as top? It'd be nice if the finder showed the entire image when up close, rather than just blanking it out while providing a bright line at the top.

Is the newer finder better built than my cheesy plastic older model? Metal?

I do like the lens, paid ultra-low price at Koh Camera (for a mere $9 Mr. Koh threw in a perfect used screw-in Leica UV filter, ideal for this lens)...maybe the crude CV finder is payback for my bargain.

 

[Roman]

Well, I don't know the older 25mm CV finder, my SnapshotSkopar (which I bought used) came with the new finder.
It is made from plastic (though I would not call it cheesy - definitely 'nicer' plastic than on my (originally) silver Bessa L...)
The brightline is a rectangle, with quite a bit of room all around to the finder's edges; inside the rectangle there is a dotted parallax line at the top (none at the bottom). Have not checked for close-up accuracy, though.

Roman

 

[phototone]

If a auxiliary finder "clips" the view even when shooting at distance, I would suspect the alignment of the cold or hot shoe on the camera in question. Sometimes over the years, certainly if you have an older camera, these can become distorted, even though they look OK.

 

[djon]

"cheesy plastic" applies mostly to the shoe fitting. It will inevitably fail with old age and wear. It'd have been nearly as cheap to make it out of metal.... I sure do hope somebody comes up with something with a full-sized chip to make use of this lens as a real 25 when film's gone...say 2008. It's too slow for a 35-equivalent.

 

[Tin]

djon,

While I am answering your question directly, I can tell you my experience with this lens. I did not use the finder when I used my CV25 on the Bessa R2. I just treated the whole of the viewfinder area as a close approximation for the view of a 25 mm lens, and it seems to work for me even with eye glasses on. I shot 10 rolls of primarily landscape and cityscape pictures in my recent trip and I'd say that it was good enough for me. So I'll continue to use this lens without the auxilliary finder.

Tin

 

[pvdhaar]

I have used the 25mm on my Hexar RF using its entire 0.6x viewfinder rather than the external finder (the one with the brightlines). That's because it appeared to more accurately cover 25mm. The brightlines on the external finder corresponded almost exactly to the 28mm brightlines of the Hexar RF.

I recall posting here quite some time ago about the accuracy of the external viewfinder, and concluded that its brightlines are chosen very conservatively. This apparently is to make sure that whatever is in the frame ends up on film regardless of camera/flash shoe geometry.

 

[djon]

I posted some scans from the 25...minilab scans billed as "high resolution." These were my first shots from the 25CV and the first use of the particular lab, and I was disappointed in sharpnesss.

YesterdayI re-scanned using my Nikon V: MUCH better...like Canon SSC Vs digi 3.2. I'm excited about the potential in this lens. I'll replace the Indian images in Gallery with better scans when I have the time.

Reviewing 50 frames at various distances , the big issue is cropping from the right (or from the botton if vertical with lever down). I expected paradox when I shot so it wasn't an issue.

The particular Canon P's shoe is perfect with my Leica SBLOO (35mm) finder...35 would show a shoe alignment problem more than would 25. The problem is in the CV finder or my use of it (CV rear optic encourages slop...like a too-large rear peep sight on a rifle).

A 2mm black mask on the right side (facing the front of the finder) of the finder's large optic should prevent accidental cutting-off of feet etc. If I need more precision I'll simply use my F1's 24.

 

[Bertram2]

djon,

While I am answering your question directly, I can tell you my experience with this lens. I did not use the finder when I used my CV25 on the Bessa R2. I just treated the whole of the viewfinder area as a close approximation for the view of a 25 mm lens, and it seems to work for me even with eye glasses on. I shot 10 rolls of primarily landscape and cityscape pictures in my recent trip and I'd say that it was good enough for me. So I'll continue to use this lens without the auxilliary finder.

Tin

Compared to my non-brightline finder the outer edges RF look too tight, maybe usable anyway AND ideed keeping the parallax prob away! 🙂
I need the aux. finder anyway because I work with a level on the doubleshoe.
A level needs this finder, thus you can watch both with one eye at the same
time.

Regards,
Bertram

 

[djon]

Bertram, I complimented your 25 f4 Paris photos on another thread...I like the way you used the width without drawing attention to the effect of an ultrawide lens. I tired of weird lens effects years ago, with a Nikon mirror-lockup viewfindered 21 f4 on a Nikon F. Amusing for about one roll.

I also like the essay that accompanied one of your Paris sequences.

 

[Bertram2]

Bertram, I complimented your 25 f4 Paris photos on another thread...I like the way you used the width without drawing attention to the effect of an ultrawide lens. I tired of weird lens effects years ago, with a Nikon mirror-lockup viewfindered 21 f4 on a Nikon F. Amusing for about one roll.

I also like the essay that accompanied one of your Paris sequences.

Thanks for the compliments, glad you liked the 25mm shots. It took me a time to get that lens under control but from the beginning on I loved most that this lens is a super wide but the pics do not looks so. One of the reasons I was never tempted to buy a 21mm which is really looking super wide.

I should add that I use wides only if I reall need them, I mean if if I cannot make a photo with less angle. And for cityscapes I really need the 25mm. Wider only for indoor, crowds or any locations where you can't expect much room or distance.

If the angle is not needed i don't use it but ry to concentrate wit 50 r 75 on a crop which tells the story. But I still too often step into that " let's get it all !" trap.

I got this confirmed again when I shot from the Tour Montparnass, the 50mm shots are much better than the 25mm shots, whic cover more space but loose too much detail.

50mm
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=15155&cat=5110&page=1

25mm
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=13707&cat=5110&page=3
Notice that without that foreground it would be just boring !

Creative use of wides ? Well it IS possible, but take care........ I am still a bit conservative at this point..
Regards,
bertram

 

[djon]

Bernard, I've concluded that the CV finder is simply too crude for my own primary purposes (I'll learn some new purposes...such as environmental portraits).

I've used a 24mm 2.8 SSC FD lens as a primary lens for my F1 since I bought it brand new 🙂 That lens is superbly rectilinear, the F1's finder is 99%% (most SLRs are sloppy)... I usually use a focusing screen with grid to keep verticals and/or horizons perfectly lined-up.

I did haul an F1 and (only) two lenses around Paris, so I understand the attraction of a much smaller and lighter rangefinder kit !

 

[djon]

...the MOST remarkable 35mm lens for architectural and "graphic-looking" work is, in my experience, the Canon FD tilt/shift 35. Mine was stolen :-( It's a very bulky lens, otherwise I'd replace it.

Because it is optionally an anamorphic lens (will widen images a little), I tried using it as a copy lens for a special purpose (normally I used a Nikon Micro Nikkor on a Forox animation camera).
It appeared to be just as sharp and rectilinear as the Nikon lens.