Lens sharpness in fixed lens rangefinders

[doubs43]

I once read a test about the Rollei TLR lenses and the Yashicamat and Mamiya competitors. AFAIR one of two l Xenotars was quite bad and so the tester considered this to be a damanged sample . 😀
At this point the nonsense gets obvious : tho this is not very probable for all who know Xenotars solely using the rules of logic you also could say the bad one was the normal assembly quality and the good one was an extraordinary well assembled one.

That's all nonsense , these folks have no clue what they are doing, at least related to their methods. But there are so many photogs out there who are HUNGRY for that pseudo scientific stuff, isn't it nice thus getting confirmed you own the best stuff you can buy for money ? I prefer to trust my eyes, I don't need any performance I cannot see.
😀
Best,
Bertram

I got quite a chuckle out of your statement about logic. It's absolutely true, too. Every manufacturer - without exception - has turned out examples of their products that are defective. Not with intent of course, but it happens. Sometimes we'll see a product re-tested when the first example doesn't perform to the expected level.

Your final sentence sums it all up nicely; "improved" performance we can't see is of no value whatsoever.

I've mentioned this elsewhere but years ago a writer (Bob Schwalberg?) wrote a beautiful article contrasting controlled testing, performance and practical application. It was quite radical for the time and I can remember saying "WOW! This guy isn't pulling his punches!" I wish I could find a copy of that old "Modern Photography" article.

Walker

 

[Chuck A]

That's a proven fact and that is what makes the "tests" of all the many selftaught experts so ridiculous and worthless. ...

But there are so many photogs out there who are HUNGRY for that pseudo scientific stuff, isn't it nice thus getting confirmed you own the best stuff you can buy for money ? I prefer to trust my eyes, I don't need any performance I cannot see.
😀
Best,
Bertram

I agree that there is alot of testing going on that is not done well, but that doesn't make the discussion of lens sharacteristics moot. I frequently test lenses just as it seems you do, not by shooting test charts but by using the lens for a while and comparing the results to other lenses.

I owned an M2 and a 50 collabsable a long time ago and that is the exent of my experience with rangefinder lenses. I enjoy hearing other knowledgeable photographers evaluations of the lenses they own. It helps me figure out what I might want to try in the future. In fact, I bought the Olympus cameras because of recommendation from users right here. I would not have had any idea what to start with without the help.

As was said, the Olympus lenses may be "good enough" but right now they are my sole recent experience with rangefinder lenses and I am interested what other folks have to offer. I certainly am not trying to buy the best there is or have someone validate my purchase. Just look at my bag. It certainly doesn't contain the cream of the crop. But I do pick and choose my equipment by what will give me the best bang for my buck. I am excited about the results I obtained with these camera and wondered if this was the norm. It is as simple as that.

 

[FrankS]

Wow! That cat practically leapt off the bed at me! That's sharp and the contrast is perfect!

 

[Chuck A]

Frank,

I enjoyed your gallery. Especially Garden Bench, Coffee House Blues, Dog and Boy, Misty Lake and Perfect Day. Lots of heart with a dash of wit for good measure. Thanks for posting.

 

[FrankS]

Thank you, Chuck. So I had your visit your gallery in response and jsut loved What the Rain Reveals #1. You've got a great eye. Many photographers would have walked right over your subjects and declared, "There's nothing to photograph here!"

 

[doubs43]

As was said, the Olympus lenses may be "good enough" but right now they are my sole recent experience with rangefinder lenses and I am interested what other folks have to offer.

Chuck, in my experience the Olympus Zuiko lenses are far better than just "good enough". I've owned OM's since 1973 and the lenses I have for them are certainly superb. The pictures taken with your Oly RF are excellent and I especially like the cat. Your camera is certainly capable. I agree with Frank: You do have a good eye for photographs.

If my posts concerning lens testing have given you the idea that I don't think testing and what others experience is important, I apologize. That wasn't my intent at all. Testing has it's value and what others discover about their equipment can be informative. Just don't get wrapped around the wheel and forget to take pictures. 🙂

Walker

 

[bmattock]

Having proper tools is important, so good cameras and excellent lenses are important.

Knowing how to use those tools counts for a lot, too. There are good photographers who use Holgas and lousy photographers who use Leicas.

If I could only choose one - good tools or good ability - I'd choose ability. If you can't get your exposure right, it hardly matters if the happy pink blob of Aunt Julia on the right was taken with a Nikon or a Halina. It would be like giving me a bottle of fine single-malt scotch. I'd just pour it over ice cubes and mix it with coke. In some countries, that would get me radished on the spot, to say nothing of debagging.

However, if you've got the mastery over your tools part in good order - or at least working towards it - then fine tools are icing on the cake. Better tools in the hands of better photographers make for better photographs.

Once you cross into the 'zone of excellence' in terms of camera equipment, use what works best for you and you'll be happy with the results. By happy chance, there are several parts of the zone that live outside the high-rent district. In my humble opinion, the Japanese fixed-lens rangefinders from roughly 1958 to 1972 are inside the zone of excellence and outside the zone of second mortgage on the house.

My advice to everyone - get your hands on a properly-working classic fixed-lens rangefinder, use a lens hood and proper filters, shoot B&W, and keep your optics clean.

This is where I do my happy dance. I'm not sure why.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[StuartR]

Hi Chuck -- great photographs. I think you are already making the most of your equipment, so if you upgraded, you probably would notice a small difference. As for fixed lens rangefinders, my experience is that they are usually very sharp, but they don't necessarily have the nicest character to them. The cheaper ones tend to be sharp, but have harsh out of focus areas and they tend to vignette more prominently wide open. An exception would be the Hexar AF, which has a fixed 35mm f/2 lens that is as good or better than almost any 35mm lens.

Another thing -- I think you will see more of a difference between the old fixed lens types and the interchangeable lenses if you shoot color. The newest rangefinder lenses will be higher contrast and will have more saturated colors. Whether that is important to you or not is another matter.
In any case, in another thread I just posted a comparison of 9 lenses for Leica M...they range from the latest and the greatest to old canon screwmount rf lenses. They are very close, and the differences are more in character than anything else (unless you want to enlarge very very large).
http://www.stuartrichardson.com/cuwo.htm

 

[Solinar]

The Oly 35SP is undoubtedly one of the finest fixed-lens 35mm rangefinders ever built. At around $50 to $90, it is still a best buy.

The G. Zuiko, shown here, has outstanding color fidelity and performs as well as my Rollei 40mm Sonnar with an HFT coating. Wide open the G. Zuiko is still surprisingly sharp. Color images seem almost 3 dimensional.

The metering system is as good as both of my Gossen hand-held meters when used in their reflective mode. The spot-meter feature is bang on.

In the critic's corner, even though the camera was released in 1969, it has 1960 ergonomics that may throw some modern photogs. Metering is done in EV' values. It uses a two finger operation to change shutter speed, because the shutter speed escapements are still fully housed within the lens barrel. The 35RC and 35RD had their shutter mechanics located in the body, which is quieter. Unlike the later 35RC and 35RD, the aperture ring is located behind the shutter speed ring which allows one to turn the both rings in unison, if need be.

An interesting point was brought up regarding character. When compared to an older collapsible 50 Summicron or even a less complex Tessar design, complicated out of focus areas are a bit harsh with the G. Zuiko. True as that may be, the G. Zuiko is still a superb optic.

 

[Iskra 2]

I agree with the various accolades for the old rangefinder lenses. 🙂 Newer lens designs have different abberations 😛 old Tessars and others can hold their own from an artistic standpoint. 🙂

When it comes to bodies though, one feature is sometimes overlooked and that is low light metering. Having once owned a Canon Q17 and experiencing firsthand the inability to meter low light levels I gave it away. :bang:

My recent use of a Yashica Electro has shown me the extraordinary low light metering capabilities of the electronics. 🙂 Also, the shutter is almost inaudible. 🙂

Mine is a GT and it gets the 'looks'. :angel:

Not many pics yet but I am using it more. Regards

 

[Chuck A]

I spent a few hours yesterday photographing at a large local car show. Mostly people stuff to put the cameras through their paces. 😀 I had the SP, RC and my XT digital along. I was really trying to get a feel for the RC and SP. I photographed for about an hour or so with each.

The only complaints about the SP were:

1) No readout in the viewfinder for the SS and aperture in auto mode or manual for that matter. In auto you have no idea of what settings are being used, except to guess by the EV number given.
2) The viewfinder was a bit cramped and it was slower to frame because it was harder to see the framelines with your eye to the finder.
3) The travel on the shuter release is really long and takes some getting used to.
4) Shutter speeds on the lens are difficult to change quickly.
5) The strap lug placement is annoying. The camera tilts backward in use. I see the Bessas have a similar arrangement.

Thats about it for the SP. It did pretty well but the RC was much more user friendly for me. The SS and aperture readout in the vf is great. You always know your settings. The vf has less mag and the framelines are easier to see. I could put this camera to my eye very quickly, focus, frame and get the shot. It was faster than the SP in this regard. Also, the ss dial on top of the camera was great.

The RC problems are few:
1) No focusing lever on the lens. Camera is very small and it can be hard to find the lens to focus without the lever. I may add one, any ideas how?
2) f/2.8 lens. Not a terrible problem, but not as nice as f/1.7.

That is really about it. The RC is a great little camera that fits me very well. I must say that while both viewfinders are equally bright and clear the RC is easier to frame with. Both these lenses seem equally sharp. BTW, in the first post the first 2 photos are with the RC the last with the SP.

One other fixed lens model that intrigues me is the Minolta 7sII. I would like to try one of those. 😕

I am sure that I will eventually upgrade to an interchangeable lens rangefinder. It seems from some use that one major concern for me will be seeing the framelines quickly and easily in the vf. 🙁 While a lower mag vf is a bit harder to focus it is much easier to frame. Now that may not be true if you are using the widest angle frame. I am going to have to look at a few of these cameras and see which viewfinders I like best.

I must say that for fun and convenience digital is great. Waiting for film was never my strong point. A digital version of the RC with an APS sized sensor and better metering would be superb. BTW, how is the vf in the R-D1. I wish that it wasn't so expensive at this point. I have not seen any VC cameras to evaluate the viewfinders. Nobody in this area carries them. :bang:

Thanks for the help and replies. 😀

 

[back alley]

No focusing lever on the lens. Camera is very small and it can be hard to find the lens to focus without the lever. I may add one, any ideas how?

i think it was here on rff that i recently read this...a small rubbery stick on knob, furniture protectors...not really sure what they are called.

 

[peter_n]

When it comes to bodies though, one feature is sometimes overlooked and that is low light metering. Having once owned a Canon Q17 and experiencing firsthand the inability to meter low light levels I gave it away. :bang:

I have a QL-17 and this doesn't bother me - a pic taken in low light is attached. I always carry a light meter anyway and I've never actually used the meter in the Canonet - I've always used the cam as a manual. Works for me. 🙂

 

[Doug]

The RC problems are few:
1) No focusing lever on the lens. Camera is very small and it can be hard to find the lens to focus without the lever. I may add one, any ideas how?
2) f/2.8 lens. Not a terrible problem, but not as nice as f/1.7.

One solution for a focusing tab is a plastic tie, your choice of color and size. 🙂 Cinch it tight, cut off the excess, and then trim any remaining sharp edges.

I'd add two more gripes:
a) Aperture ring is narrow and right against the body; hard to adjust, and the focus ring is right there too. Slender fingers would help...
b) Rangefinder focus spot is not sharply delineated, it has fuzzy edges. But this is typical for this sort of camera. More sophisticated RF designs have optics that display the spot with a sharp border that allows it to work as a split-image RF as well as coincident-image RF. Leicas and Bessas for example.

 

[Chuck A]

I guess that I could add one more and that is a low ss of 1/15th of a sec. You have bulb for longer exposures though. The SP goes much lower.

 

[Iskra 2]

My Lazy/Fun/Stealth Camera

My Lazy/Fun/Stealth Camera

I have a QL-17 and this doesn't bother me - a pic taken in low light is attached. I always carry a light meter anyway and I've never actually used the meter in the Canonet - I've always used the cam as a manual. Works for me. 🙂

Now that I fixed the rangefinder on mine I carry it around on the floor of the truck and use it as a quick/easy/stealth shooter. I took a couple of recent shots using zone focusing and held the camera at waist level to shoot. The subject was apprehensive when I had the camera at eye level and then relaxed when I dropped it down. Roll isn't finished yet so I can't tell if I framed it properly. The GT isn't very obtrusive at waist level.

 

[ErnestoJL]

Back to the initial message of this thread, I think that technical data of lens will tell you how much the lens can do in terms of resolution and contrast, but the real test would be done under normal shooting situations. One thing is to have a fixed camera with a steady focusing test pattern and developing with near perfect conditions. This would tell the trutrh about any lens under an ideal situation, but the reality is that no one of us faces every day that so called perfect conditions. Say a foggy day and almost freezing, but the picture is there, just in front of you, right now, so focusing is good, not perfect, film is cold, light is dim....where the hell did the n lines per mm gone? Almost nowhere, it is a good lens is as good as the photographer and the situation allows it (lens) to show what is it capable of.
So, I think that unless the lens is really cheap, almost any lens can do very well. Thats also what makes me feel Ok having no Elmars or Sonnars in my collection! I´m still far way from what my lens/cameras can do!

 

[Iskra 2]

a pic taken in low light is attached.

Peter, nice shot, it looks as if your pic was taken from a low angle. Did you frame it or just point it?

 

[Iskra 2]

Thats also what makes me feel Ok having no Elmars or Sonnars in my collection!

Ernesto, why spend large amounts of money for exotic lenses which will only provide marginally better performance in most cases? And, who takes their expensive collector lenses out into the bad weather?

If my cameras and stuff aren't happy on the floor of the truck they look for a new home.

My Electro may be in that category. The rangefinder came apart on a ride 🙁 and the now repaired camera will get one more chance. 🙂

 

[cp_ste.croix]

my gsn gives me amazing results, and for $30 i am more than happy. the only thing that has me thinking about Leicas is the ability to have more than 1 focal length (the gsn is 45mm and my canonet is 40mm)

i cannot reccomend one of these cameras enough as an inexpensive way to get great results!