Is rangefinder coupling really necessary for wide-angle?

[santino]

for the 15m Heliar rf coupling is ridiculous - by zone focusing @ 4.5 your image will be sharp from 0.9m to infinity (!!!) + the "original" Heliar comes with the viewfinder!
Don't believe the hype, save some $$ by getting the old Heliar, it's the same optics.

 

[semilog]

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.

So I thought.

Testing might be called for, but what I can say is that I've been surprised and mildly disappointed by the number of almost-sharp images I've gotten when zone focusing with the 21. This may be a technique issue, too. Perhaps I'm not judging distance as well when composing for the 21 as I do when composing for the 35. Time will tell, but until then I'm glad to have a CRF.

 

[Calzone]

So I thought.

Testing might be called for, but what I can say is that I've been surprised and mildly disappointed by the number of almost-sharp images I've gotten when zone focusing with the 21. This may be a technique issue, too. Perhaps I'm not judging distance as well when composing for the 21 as I do when composing for the 35. Time will tell, but until then I'm glad to have a CRF.

I tend to zone focus a lot with a 28 Cron, but when I have the opportunity, meaning time to focus, I do because this can only result in a better picture IMHO to distinguish and add clarity to my subject.

To me it will make a better shot, but of course a 21 has a lot more DOF than a 28. I understand what you are saying.

Cal

 

[excellent]

Depends what YOU like.

 

[EdwardKaraa]

I agree with semilog. If you're shooting digital, or scanning your film at high resolution, the DOF scale becomes useless. This is more evident with sharp lenses, of course. I usually use the DOF scale 2 stops below the working aperture: if I'm shooting at f8 I would use the scale for f4.

 

[charjohncarter]

I do it sometimes, but like someone said above to be really sharp you have to be right on. This is scale focus with a 35mm. It really isn't that easy above water (to be very sharp) and especially not easy under water. Try estimating distance and converting with a mask on while submerged:

 

[bigeye]

Maybe at 25mm+ coupling becomes useful? It's pointless on the 15mm, which is basically an always in-focus lens.

I've tested the scale SWC (21-24mm equiv) with the chimney finder on the back, focusing on the film plane with magnification just to see DoF characteristics. It was difficult getting anything out of focus, which gave a lot more confidence with the rig.

I agree with Roger's comment about initial unease with it. You do have to think about set up and letting go, but it is liberating once you accept it.

 

[Bobbo]

I agree with semilog. If you're shooting digital, or scanning your film at high resolution, the DOF scale becomes useless. This is more evident with sharp lenses, of course. I usually use the DOF scale 2 stops below the working aperture: if I'm shooting at f8 I would use the scale for f4.

Or you could just go HERE and make your own DoF scale for your lens based on a smaller CoC.

Since the OP is shooting on a Zorki, I don't see a big problem with the factory DoF scales, however, and definitely not enough to spend more on a lens with a coupled rangefinder (which isn't available for his camera, anyway, so the entire discussion is pointless).

 

[FrankS]

Zone focusing is liberating, as is pre-setting exposure, and firing away. Perfect for the street.

 

[JayM]

At 28mm maybe, at anything wider I doubt it. Anything that is slower than f/2 I don't really use in low light so coupling doesn't really make a difference in that regard.

It's probably worth mentioning though that I don't do much selective focus when I photograph other than "things that are close" and "things that are not close." My daily use lenses have at most two positions that I put the focus ring in.

I have yet to take a photograph utilizing this method only to say "damn if only I'd taken more time to focus" when looking at the end result. (Totally different story when it comes to shooting fast "not so wide" lenses in low light)

Your mileage may vary.

edit: Yeah, presetting exposure is the way to go. I mean I regularly check light readings when I am walking around and nothing is happening near me, but once things start rolling I go with my gut. I think metering each time you take a photo or diddling around thinking about your camera/lens/aperture/shutter speed is just as dangerous as chimping when you're in a quick moving environment.

I would of course take my time in situations that allowed it 🙂

 

[tojeem]

OP here. Thanks very much for the replies, everybody. It's been very helpful.

I've decided I will go with the un-coupled lens (I realise this is the only option for my current camera, but I'm thinking in general terms of and for future cameras).

Feel free to post more if you have anything to share, I'd like to hear as much about this as possible. 🙂

Thanks again,
Stephen

EDIT: Also I've just discovered amongst my dad's old camera collection a lovely Leitz external rangefinder. Should more accurate focusing be needed I'll simply use that.