Is rangefinder coupling really necessary for wide-angle?

[tojeem]

Short version: Is rangefinder coupling really necessary for wide-angle, considering the depth of field is so wide? For cameras with small-and-nasty rangefinders (and when using Sunny-16), would it not be easier just to guess the focus based on the rough distance away that the subject is? Has anybody successfully done this for day-to-day shooting? Thanks 🙂


Longer version, for those who can be bothered reading:
My first rangefinder camera (Zorki 1) arrived in the post today, and I think I'm in love! I'm not too fond of the 50mm collapsible lens (Industar-22), though.

I'm considering getting a Voigtlander 15mm Heliar to replace it. There are two versions of the lens: The regular rangefinder-coupled version, and the older, non-rangefinder-coupled but significantly cheaper and (in my opinion) more practically designed version.

I'd much prefer the older one, but alas, there's no rangefinder coupling. Here are my thoughts:

• The rangefinder is so dim and small on the Zorki that it may just be easier to guess focus, based on the distance of the subject from the camera
• As it's so wide, I assume there would be so much in focus that exact focusing wouldn't be needed... I imagine it would be as simple as: infinity vs. 4-8 metres vs. 2-4. metres (Note: I want to do general purpose/street photography mostly, nothing close-up)
• I shoot Sunny-16, so more would be in focus with the smaller aperture. Again, wouldn't need the rangefinder.

So my questions are: Would I be right in thinking the above? Is the poor rangefinder focusing really worth having? Has anybody used "guessed focusing" for wide-angle photography before? Any tips/recommendations?

Any thoughts you can share would be much appreciated. 🙂 Thanks in advance.

-Stephen

 

[ruby.monkey]

From shooting with lenses from 28mm f/3.5 down to 12mm f/5.6, I'd suggest that you would live happily without rangefinder coupling on a 15mm f/4.5; indeed you might find that r/f coupling on such a lens actually gets in the way of fast and fluid handling.

 

[benlees]

It's nice but not necessary. I usually zone focus for wides in most cases. Helps a lot if you are shooting in the bright outdoors. With a 15mm you can almost set it and forget it.

 

[btgc]

You would need more or less exact focussing only for shots at aperture close to wide open and having main object close to minimal focus distance. If apertures are moderate to small and distance isn't very close then DOF will cover errors of your guess-focus. Works with SLR and 17mm.

Now it depends on what is you are getting this lens for. And, 15mm is superwide, rather than wide 🙂

 

[jbielikowski]

under 40mm at moderate apertures it is faster to guess than to focus.

 

[Calzone]

Why go ultra-wide?

I use to shoot a lot with a 28/3.5 Canon/Seranar. Basically I shot at either F5.6 or F8.0 and zoned focus using a Leica like a point and shoot.

Now I own a 28 Cron, but I need the RF for shooting wide open.

You don't have to go so wide to get the DOF: just stop down a little.

Cal

 

[Roger Hicks]

No. Not even with the 15/2.8 (and I've used it).

But it's curiously disquieting when you forget; look through the finder; and find that nothing happens when you focus. So, in a sense, yes. It's you (or me) not the lens.

If you can live with scale focus (and I have, since the 15 came out), yes, go for it. It's slightly uncomfortable but far from a disaster.

Cheers,

R.

 

[redisburning]

necessary? I suppose not. neither are a lot of things (such as filter threads or a lens hood mount).

would I buy a lens without RF coupling? no.

 

[semilog]

When I got the 21/4.5 Biogon-C I was surprised at how often I missed critical focus with zone focusing. The lens is so sharp that if you want to remotely approach its capabilities, accurate focus is essential.

If you don't care about critical focus, there's little point to using expensive lenses.

 

[Vics]

under 40mm at moderate apertures it is faster to guess than to focus.

That's why I love tab focusing on my Summaron!

 

[Roger Hicks]

When I got the 21/4.5 Biogon-C I was surprised at how often I missed critical focus with zone focusing. The lens is so sharp that if you want to remotely approach its capabilities, accurate focus is essential.

If you don't care about critical focus, there's little point to using expensive lenses.

True enough, but it's not that hard to learn how to judge distances for scale focusing, with more than enough accuracy for a 21/4.5 (or at least, I didn't find it so). My first two 21s were both uncoupled, first a 21/4 'mirror up' Nikkor and then a 21/4.5 Biogon. Unless I just plain forgot to focus, I almost never got anything out of focus.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Bobbo]

With a 15mm lens at f/4.5, the DoF is 2 feet (.6m) to infinity. At f/16, that's 9 INCHES (24cm) to infinity. I think you'll be fine without a rangefinder (just a hunch). Even with a faster lens, the DoF on a 15mm/2.8 lens is 5 feet (1.3m) to infinity (at a 0.023mm circle of confusion... or acceptable for an M8's cropped sensor... the above figures are for a 0.03mm CoC, or about right for 35mm film. The 15/2.8's figures for a film CoC is actually more like 4 feet to infinity). You really need a rangefinder with that DoF? I don't think so.

Even with a 28mm/2.8, the DoF is 15 feet (3m) to infinity wide open. Again, paying attention to the DoF scale will do you well. Shooting outside, I rarely even use a rangefinder for a 50mm lens. I know nothing I shoot will be outside a 1-5m range, so I set to my DoF scales.

BTW, the new version of the 15mm/4.5 is only an M-mount lens. You're stuck with the cheap one unless you buy an M-mount camera.

 

[haempe]

My first rangefinder camera (Zorki 1) arrived in the post today, and I think I'm in love! I'm not too fond of the 50mm collapsible lens (Industar-22), though.

I'm considering getting a Voigtlander 15mm Heliar to replace it. There are two versions of the lens: The regular rangefinder-coupled version, and the older, non-rangefinder-coupled but significantly cheaper and (in my opinion) more practically designed version.

Stephen;
if you wanna use the 15/4.5 with the Zorki, you have to buy the older one, because the coupled one is M-mount not screwmount.
For this lens is RF-coupling absolute not necessary, imho.

edit: different also: screwmount lens comes usually with finder; M-mount lens not.

 

[semilog]

True enough, but it's not that hard to learn how to judge distances for scale focusing, with more than enough accuracy for a 21/4.5 (or at least, I didn't find it so). My first two 21s were both uncoupled, first a 21/4 'mirror up' Nikkor and then a 21/4.5 Biogon. Unless I just plain forgot to focus, I almost never got anything out of focus.

Don't get me wrong, on the street I routinely use scale focus with lenses up to 35mm. But images that rely on really crisp focus are much more reliably obtained with a focusing aid - SLR, CRF, or AF. The difference in resolution between "nearly in focus" and "spot-on" swamps the difference between a good lens and a great one.

 

[thegman]

I've used the 15mm and 21mm CV lenses, the 21mm is coupled, but does not need to be really, the 15mm certainly does not need it.

With the 15mm, I just focused "near" and "far" and it was always fine, with the 21mm, I'm a tad more accurate, but it's barely required.

Before I got the 15mm, I sweated over rangefinder coupling, but the first roll of film I shot with it, I stopped worrying.

 

[stompyq]

I owned the older version 15mm 4.5. Just set the distance scale to 2m and nearly everything is covered by the DOF. it's only if things are closer than 2m that i even touch the focus ring. The only desirable thing about the newer one is that it can take 52mm filters

 

[39per1]

I use this, and save about 100 gr. on weight....

Leica MDa & Voigtlander Super Wide Heliar di Davide _non so cos'è l'AccaDiErre, su Flickr

Wide opened (f 4,5) all in DOF from 1mt (about 3 feet) to infinite....
Here pics:
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=15&w=34389581@N07&z=m

 

[Roger Hicks]

Don't get me wrong, on the street I routinely use scale focus with lenses up to 35mm. But images that rely on really crisp focus are much more reliably obtained with a focusing aid - SLR, CRF, or AF. The difference in resolution between "nearly in focus" and "spot-on" swamps the difference between a good lens and a great one.

Honestly, I'm not convinced. Not with a 21mm at f/4.5, let alone smaller apertures -- and I'm pretty critical. How inaccurate is your estimated focus going to be? Even 30 cm (a foot) out at f/4.5 and 2 metres (7 feet) ain't gonna matter.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Eric T]

No rangefinder coupling is needed for my CV 15mm f/4.5 lens. Focusing would just slow me down and it is unnecessary. I just estimate the nearest distance I want in focus and set the lens there. Even at f/4.5, I have great depth of field. It turns my M8 almost into a point and shoot.

 

[Jim-st]

No rangefinder coupling is needed for my CV 15mm f/4.5 lens. Focusing would just slow me down and it is unnecessary. I just estimate the nearest distance I want in focus and set the lens there. Even at f/4.5, I have great depth of field. It turns my M8 almost into a point and shoot.

+1 on that. What I can see, the CV15 can see.

Better, sometimes

Ho hum..

Jim