Leica Newbie; M6 0.85 or 0.72

B

bmsermd

Member
Local time
5:57 PM
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
28
Hello,

After so many years of admiring from afar, I have finally decided to take the plunge and purchase an M6. (Currently shooting a D700 and Mamiya 7II).

I will primarily, if not exclusively, shoot 35mm without flash.

After a fair bit of reading and research, I am settled on a classic M6, but left debating between the 0.85 and 0.72 finders.

Clearly the 0.72 is more readily available on the second hand market and more affordable.

My question is, is it worth holding out for and spending more money on the 0.85?

Advice and/or opinions much appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
 
I have a three lens setup, 35mm, 50mm and 90mm that I use with my .85 M7 and it works great. But as you are starting out, get the .72. There is more availability at a lower price. And if you want to get .90, you only need to get a 1.25x finder magnifier. These work quite well, are readily available and are a lot cheaper than the .85 M6. I even use one on my .85 to turn make for easier use of the 90mm. The magnifier on .72 makes the 28mm frameline unseeable. The 35mm frameline is just within sight. More like a SLR with 100% view. Works very nicely if you step up to 50, 75 or 90mm though.
 
Thanks for the input to date.
I have shot the 0.72/35mm combo with fairly good results.

My consideration for the 0.85 comes primarily from reviews, and specifically from the Ken Rockwell review, which is heavily in favour fo the 0.85. And I quote "As actually tested, has far more real-world accuracy with all lenses than the 0.72x finders."
 
Having shot with both the .85 is better with the 50mm lens, no question. It is better with the 90mm also, another common length. It is a more difficult with the 35mm as opposed to the .72 which is better with the 35mm and also has the 28mm. Much depends on what you will shooting. If you intend to shoot landscapes get the .72 as that will have the 28mm frameline. There is also some question about the wearing of glasses with each viewfinder. I, who wear glasses, do not find one better than the other.
 
The focusing accuracy of the 0.72 finder is overkill for a 35mm lens. No problems at all. I can focus my Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 II @ f1.2 and minimum focus on my Hexar RF (0.60 finder) with no problems at all.
 
not to open a can of worms on a much-discussed topic here, but i find that the RF patch on 0.85 my M6 seems to flare more often than on my 0.72 M7. it doesn't really bother me in practice but it may be a consideration...
 
bmsermd said:
My consideration for the 0.85 comes primarily from reviews, and specifically from the Ken Rockwell review, which is heavily in favour fo the 0.85. And I quote "As actually tested, has far more real-world accuracy with all lenses than the 0.72x finders."
Click to expand...

I think you should get the 0.72 precisely because Ken said get the 0.85.


I'm kidding . . .

I shoot a 0.72 and its great with my 35 setup. I also shoot the R-d1 with its 1:1 and prefer it with my 50
 
jonmanjiro said:
The focusing accuracy of the 0.72 finder is overkill for a 35mm lens. No problems at all. I can focus my Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 II @ f1.2 and minimum focus on my Hexar RF (0.60 finder) with no problems at all.
Click to expand...

To expound on this focusing issue a bit:

Every Leica or compatible can focus a 35mm lens without issue, even very fast ones. Problems start at 50mm f/1.0, where some cameras rangefinder base lengths are too short for sufficient accuracy. Of course, there are other factors that eliminate such combinations for practicality; for example, no one I know would put a Noct on a CL. :) The viewfinder would probably be nearly blocked.

The 0.85 viewfinder can focus virtually all lenses without issue. This RF Accuracy chart was posted some years ago (before the M9 came out, so it doesn't appear.) If you look at the column for MP 0.85 compared to the column for MP (which is 0.72) you'll see that the only focal length/speed that is borderline with 0.72 is 135mm f/2.8 (and there aren't to my knowledge any 135/2.8 lenses that don't already come with magnifying goggles for focus accuracy.)

So it really comes down to this: is the shooter an eyeglass wearer, and what focal length is preferred for wide: 28 or 35. Also, the price difference between 0.72 and 0.85 bodies. Of course one can always use an aux finder for 28mm if needed, or a magnifier to convert the 0.72 into ~0.85 as previously mentioned.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have both and like them both. I like the .72 better for 35mm though. The framelines are pretty close to the edge of the finder for 35mm on the .85, making it hard to see them in one glance. Usable if needed, like the 28mm lines in the .72, but not ideal. I like my .85 for 50mm work.
 
Thanks so much for all the above info.

Only because someone mentioned it, Im not an eyeglass wearer.

Still perceive myself to be nearly exclusively shooting 35mm.
 
bmsermd said:
Thanks so much for all the above info.

Only because someone mentioned it, Im not an eyeglass wearer.

Still perceive myself to be nearly exclusively shooting 35mm.
Click to expand...

Then if you also rarely go longer than 50mm consider the 0.58, which has the 35mm framelines on their own.
 
If you're shooting mainly 35 get the 0.72x mag VF. I use both 0.72 & 0.85x finders and the 0.85 is useful for the 50/1, 90/2 and 135/4. Anything else and it's the 0.72 and I have good eyesight, mind.

The other thing about not using a 35mm with a 0.85x VF is that you can barely see around the 35 frameline with that magnification. That's a problem because an essential part of the rangefinder experience is to see what's going on inside the frame in the context of what's going on outside it.

I think for your first RF the middle ground is the safe ground, that's what I did and I still use two 0.72x bodies.
 
I have the 0.85 to use with my fast lenses, either 35 or 50
It is true that the 35mm framelines are a little bit on the edge of the viewfinder, but it does not bother me and dont feel that it affects composition at all.
I feel 28mm too close to 35mm so the extra framelines of the 0.72 are not a loss to me.
For wide angle its better to go with external VF (although I have not use a 0.58)
The 0.85 is a great choice if you can get one.
 
I actually find the .58 perfect for the 35mm, I never understand why the .85 is so popular when RF lenses tend to be more popular in the wides rather than the +50's, I don't know if that's actually born out by sales, but wide focal lengths seem to be talked about far more here than longer lenses. So with my .58 the full frame is more or less my 25mm, my 35 is perfect and I haven't noticed any inaccuracy with my 50, which just leaves me needing a finder for the 21. I also have the magnifier for when I'm shooting with the 50 for longer periods but it's probably unnecessary for the focus. See if you can try one out.
 
Already said in the post but I will say it also .72 unless you are always going to shoot 50 or longer. I had an m6ttl .85 and used it with a 35mm it works ok but the frame lines are right on the edge, I would rather have the 28mm framelines also.
 
Tricky. I use an M3 (0.91) and an M2 (0.72). I can focus a 90mm accurately on the M2, but with difficulty and only by using the split-image method rather than the coincidence method. The M3 is far easier. On the other hand, the 35mm framelines don't have much relief on the M2 and would be really crammed on a 0.85.

If I were buying an M6 I'd have the 0.85, but I don't wear glasses and have no interest in 28mm lenses (I drop straight to 21mm). I use the 50mm about as much as the 35mm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom