Leica M and Canon M39 finder blockage

[DHK]

I’m researching the 50 1.8 and 50 1.4. Does anyone have examples of what either of these look like through the finder of an M?

I don’t need 1.4 (or even 1.8 for that matter) but I keep reading the 1.4 is superb and 1.8 is excellent (compared to 2.8).

Thanks. Pictures would be helpful.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Any f1.4 lens is superb. As any 1.8 is excellent. 🙂.
But Canon 50 1.8 is superbly excellent. For two reasons.
First, it is possible to re-arrange focus tab to make it going from 3 to 9 on M. Instead of having it into VF on one meter.
Second, with 40-40.5 step up ring and 40.5 filter it doesn't need hood, because hood is build already.
As result of it, this lens is not intruding to 50 frames on common 🙂 M. But visible in VF.

 

[CameraQuest]

I’m researching the 50 1.8 and 50 1.4. Does anyone have examples of what either of these look like through the finder of an M?

I don’t need 1.4 (or even 1.8 for that matter) but I keep reading the 1.4 is superb and 1.8 is excellent (compared to 2.8).

Thanks. Pictures would be helpful.

lens finder blockage started being a topic when SLR people who were not used to shooting rangefinders started to expand their writings about rangefinders.

A historically none issue became an issue because the new rangfinder writers were not that adept at the subject matter.

whatever finder blockage may occur in practice is easily compensated for mentally by an experience rangefinder shooter.

Stephen

 

[benmacphoto]

whatever finder blockage may occur in practice is easily compensated for mentally by an experience rangefinder shooter.

Stephen

On an M with many lenses that is true.
However, put a Canon LTM 50mm f1.4 on a Leica IIIC-F and you'll find you're missing nearly half of the viewfinder.

The point of an RF viewfinder is the superior way of framing by being able to see outside of the frame lines.
With that area blocked it severely defeats the usefulness of having that beautiful viewfinder.

 

[DHK]

Any f1.4 lens is superb. As any 1.8 is excellent. 🙂.
But Canon 50 1.8 is superbly excellent. For two reasons.
First, it is possible to re-arrange focus tab to make it going from 3 to 9 on M. Instead of having it into VF on one meter.
Second, with 40-40.5 step up ring and 40.5 filter it doesn't need hood, because hood is build already.
As result of it, this lens is not intruding to 50 frames on common 🙂 M. But visible in VF.

Interesting. Can I change the orientation of the tab on my canon 28 2.8? Sorry I should have said this is for the m5, so, original .72 mag.

 

[Huss]

On an M with many lenses that is true.
However, put a Canon LTM 50mm f1.4 on a Leica IIIC-F and you'll find you're missing nearly half of the viewfinder.

The point of an RF viewfinder is the superior way of framing by being able to see outside of the frame lines.
With that area blocked it severely defeats the usefulness of having that beautiful viewfinder.

Try a Voigltander 50 1.1 on a Minolta CLE for blockage.. You can't even focus as it blocks the rf window!

 

[Mackinaw]

To answer your question, my Canon 50/1.4 doesn't interfere with the 50mm frameline on my 0.72X MP. Lot of space between the lens and the viewfinder frame.

Jim B.

 

[xayraa33]

The late Bob Schwalberg preferred the Canon 50mm f1.4 lens on his IVSb2 Canon camera.

From my real life experience It works better on these bottomloader Canons then it does on most LTM Leicas .

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Interesting. Can I change the orientation of the tab on my canon 28 2.8? Sorry I should have said this is for the m5, so, original .72 mag.

I never owned 28 2.8. Can't tell if focusing parts are same as in 50 1.8.
0.72 is the common, I guess. Just as in M4-2 where I checked 50 1.8.

 

[DHK]

Megaedit: deleted all that nonsense.

From what I see, the 1.4 without hood does not impede on the frame lines view.
Dimensions of 1.4 in mm: 55 x 41.7 (https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/s46.html)
Dimensions of 1.8 in mm: 48 x 38.5 (https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/s47.html)
Dimensions of 2.8 in mm: 48 x 39.3 (https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/s51.html)

I have a 2.8 (with haze.) The 1.8 and 2.8 are the same size. At close focus, the 2.8 is just at the corner of the 50 frame lines (if the corner existed.) This makes me think that the 1.4 will be in the way at close focus.

 

[a.noctilux]

I’m researching the 50 1.8 and 50 1.4. Does anyone have examples of what either of these look like through the finder of an M?

I don’t need 1.4 (or even 1.8 for that matter) but I keep reading the 1.4 is superb and 1.8 is excellent (compared to 2.8).

Thanks. Pictures would be helpful.

You don't need pictures for that matter.
As old lover of those Canon LTM lenses, I can say that those tiny 50mm don't protrude in 50mm frames ...
even on x 0.85 VF, a very small part but far from some Leica's own lenses.


Big surprise for me when I tried first time Canon LTM 1.2/50mm, this "blockage free" as opposed to the 1/4 "black-to-be-imagined" on 50mm frames.


This 1.2/50 is my go to when ultimate "framing to right low corner' is required with some kind of light gathering.


Thanks to the "short physical mount" of this old 1.2/50.

 

[splitimageview]

On an M with many lenses that is true.
However, put a Canon LTM 50mm f1.4 on a Leica IIIC-F and you'll find you're missing nearly half of the viewfinder.

The point of an RF viewfinder is the superior way of framing by being able to see outside of the frame lines.
With that area blocked it severely defeats the usefulness of having that beautiful viewfinder.

Of course, there is no seeing outside the framelines on IIIc-f, since there are none. 🙂

There is no blockage with these lenses on M bodies, not sure about the CL/CLE however.

Some blockage possible depending on the hood which may be attached.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

....

I have a 2.8 (with haze.) The 1.8 and 2.8 are the same size. ..

And they are often lens with haze. Especially 1.8. With haze which is not always removable.

 

[Fraser]

I have no problem with my 1.2 so I can't see how the 1.8 or 1.4 would cause any issue.
15fbpicM9canon50_01 by f4saregreat!, on Flickr

 

[Mackinaw]

Wow. An all-black Canon 50/1.2. Nice.

Jim B.

 

[Fraser]

Wow. An all-black Canon 50/1.2. Nice.

Jim B.

Cheers got it cheap a few years ago because of the common haze/oil on the aperture issue thats easily cleaned.

 

[jbharrill1]

50mm 1.8 on a Leica CL has pretty much no intrusion at all so I don't see it being an issue on an m body.

 

[weizenkeim]

I have made some pictures of the blockage or not blockage of the M9 finder w/ mounted Canon LTM 50mm/1.4. One view is with mounted lens hood the other without hood.

 

[weizenkeim]

these pictures shows a IIIb with the mounted 50mm/1.4 and the view through the finder with mounted lens hood. There is quite some blocking of the view but I don't mind. The RF window is not blocked and focusing is not a problem.

 

[DHK]

So I went for the 1.8. Got it from sheuido camera on eBay. I recommend them because it came in two days and they accepted an offer.

https://imgur.com/a/1YkbSDw

Ko.fe., how do I rearrange the focus to 3 and 9?