Peter A (NYC)
Established
I am wondering if the rangefinder in a Leica II is inherently accurate enough to focus a 50mm f/1.5 lens wide open at, say, six feet. Thanks!
Xmas
Veteran
camera quets site has comparitive details somewhere...
Noel
Noel
Peter A (NYC)
Established
Thanks, Xmas, but I'm looking for comments from users.
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
Yes - the effective baselength of 41mm is more than sufficient.
Not as accurate as the m3 by any stretch, but sufficient to your task.
Not as accurate as the m3 by any stretch, but sufficient to your task.
colyn
ישו משיח
Peter A (NYC) said:
The rf is more than accurate enough to focus even less than 6 ft.
Xmas
Veteran
Sorry thought you wanted sums, my f/2 50 and f/4 135 seem to be ok. But I dont use them in dim interiors, for that you need an M3. the rgfdr optics also need to be in good condition as well
http://cameraquest.com/leica.htm
Noel
http://cameraquest.com/leica.htm
Noel
Peter A (NYC)
Established
Thanks Brian, I will be using the same lens. The rangefinder is real dim, but it was aligned recently.
Xmas
Veteran
I use a Zorki 1, a clone and I think it is 1.5 like a II... It seems bright until you compare it with a M in dim conditions.
Noel
Noel
laptoprob
back to basics
How about a postwar IIf? 1,5 mag rangefinder like the Bessa T. Will focus anything properly as long as the lensmount fits!
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Erwin Puts (The Leica Lens Compendium, Hove Books, 2001) has a table on p. 228 that shows the rangefinder base needed for each lens. The 50mm f/1.4 is shown to require a 17.9mm base length, or for the most critical work, 23.3mm. Rogue_Designer, above states the II has a 41mm effective base length. So that is quite a bit a margin to the safe side!
Brian is correct that the II does not have the 1.5X magnification, which was begun with the III. But 1.5X isn't really needed for a 50mm lens, even a fast one. It would have become necessary with lenses such as the 85mm Summarex, from 1943, or even the Thambar, begun in 1935. The model III, with 1.5X magnification, came on the scene in time for those lenses, starting in 1933.
So, bottom line: you are covered, Peter.
Brian is correct that the II does not have the 1.5X magnification, which was begun with the III. But 1.5X isn't really needed for a 50mm lens, even a fast one. It would have become necessary with lenses such as the 85mm Summarex, from 1943, or even the Thambar, begun in 1935. The model III, with 1.5X magnification, came on the scene in time for those lenses, starting in 1933.
So, bottom line: you are covered, Peter.
Peter A (NYC)
Established
Thanks everyone!
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
Peter, you might consider replacing the half mirror of the R/F. Made a world of difference to my IIIc when I had a bit of Edmund's mirror put in, having got the piece from Oleg Khalyavin.
Because depth of field is always greater behind the plane on which you focus, it makes sense to focus just a tiny bit in front of the subject. In a straight on head shot at close range, if you focus on the nose the eyes will certainly be sharp.
Because depth of field is always greater behind the plane on which you focus, it makes sense to focus just a tiny bit in front of the subject. In a straight on head shot at close range, if you focus on the nose the eyes will certainly be sharp.
jamiewakeham
Long time lurker
Xmas said:
Your Zorki 1 has a 1.5x RF? Mine is definitely 1.0x, though there may well be different variants.
Only my opinion, but I have to confess that I've just sold my Jupiter-3 (50mm f/1.5) because I found it hard to focus close-up and wide-open with the Zorki, especially in very low light (which is when I tend to use it most; if the light wasn't that low I'd probably be using an I61 L/D instead). I'm thinking of replacing it with a J-3 for my Kiev which has a much greater EBL.
Wonder why the Kievs didn't make CameraQuest's list? I love that finder!
Jamie