Lens sharpness in fixed lens rangefinders

[Chuck A]

Hi All,

Wow, I put a roll of B&W C41 film through both Olympus rangefinders that I just bought. One is an SP and one is an RC. I wanted to just be able to take the film to Walmart and get it developed and a CD cheaply to test the cameras. I didn't expect a whole lot. A few folks said that the lenses were sharp but after looking at scanned images on the computer, I gotta say that they are really sharp. They seems to be as sharp or sharper than the Canon prime and the Canon L lens that I own. 😀

These are great little cameras and I had forgotten how much I liked focusing a rangefinder and even winding the film. What a joy! 😀 Here are some examples. I know that you can't see the sharpness in a downsized post but trust me.

I am having a blast.

 

[Todd.Hanz]

Oly's are very freakin' sharp! Here is one with a Yashica 35CC, 35/1.8 fixed lens.

 

[Bertram2]

As usual stunning results from both cameras! ! The Oly blows me away and the Yashica has even a bit of cron touch, very pleasing and also a very carefully done scan work, compliments. If I were not such a boring old GAS-free fart I had bought both already but I simply find it irritating to own more cameras than I use. And wouldn't it been a sin to let them get moldy on the shelf ?
Best,
Bertram

 

[Chuck A]

I have a question. How do the lenses of the fixed lens rangefinders compare to the Voitlander and Leica lenses for sharpness and microcontrast? It has been a long, long time since I have used a Leica lens and if they perform better than this I am going to be spending some more cash. I am finding myself drawn to the look of these lenses.

 

[doubs43]

If you can find one in working condition, the Fujica V-2 has an outstanding 45mm f/1.8 lens that will compare with the very best.

Walker

 

[back alley]

think -- law of diminishing returns...


jm2c

joe

 

[Chuck A]

think -- law of diminishing returns...


jm2c

joe

I guess I am not tthe brightest bulb and I am not sure exactly what you mean. Can you elaborate?

 

[back alley]

sorry, maybe i have it wrong...

how much better can another lens be and at what cost?
is the difference in quality in line with the difference in price?

i'm sure that leica glass is 'better' than my canon glass but is it worth the difference in cost?
not to me, i could not justify it, especially on my salary.

also, a consideration for me is, am i as good as my present equipment? if not will more or different equipment make me better?

joe

 

[Chuck A]

sorry, maybe i have it wrong...

how much better can another lens be and at what cost?
is the difference in quality in line with the difference in price?

i'm sure that leica glass is 'better' than my canon glass but is it worth the difference in cost?
not to me, i could not justify it, especially on my salary.

also, a consideration for me is, am i as good as my present equipment? if not will more or different equipment make me better?

joe

I understand what you are saying. 😉 I was curious if Leica or Voitlander glass is much better than what I am seeing in these fixed lens rangefinders. If not there is still the consideration of better bodies with interchangeable lenses.

As far as the quality of equipment goes. I am looking for good equipment that "gets out of my way" I want my camera to be easy to use and become an extension of my imagination that I can bond with. Todays digital cameras are not that way. In my opinion they can impede the creative process. What I am finding in these rangefinders are cameras that allow me to work. I am wondering if better camera bodies will be smoother working and better at this. As far as lenses go, if the fixed rangefinder lenses are as good as the interchangeable ones then I have a workable system now. I wil probably try an interchangeable lens rangefinder again to see if I like it better. 😛

Anyway, thanks for the comments.

 

[doubs43]

how much better can another lens be and at what cost?
is the difference in quality in line with the difference in price?

i'm sure that leica glass is 'better' than my canon glass but is it worth the difference in cost? not to me, i could not justify it, especially on my salary.
joe

Joe, I couldn't agree more which is why I'll use any lens that does the job satisfactorily. While it's nice to own the "best" that money can buy, I can't afford the cost of Leica glass unless I stumble across a bargain. That's why I'll stay with the Leica lenses I already own and not envy those who have newer.

One point I'd like to make though is that the difference in price between Leica and other brands isn't just the glass but the exactling quality of the mounts the glass resides in. When other lens have loosened, wobbled and fallen in pieces onto the floor, the same useage of a Leica lens will have barely broken it in. That kind of quality costs. Still, Leica needs to be aware that they can price themselves right out of business.

Walker

 

[back alley]

one thing that rarely gets mentioned is the wages of the people who make this stuff.
materials and future use aside, the wages + benefits add greatly to the price.

i have canon lenses that are very old and made with incredible and long lasting quality.

joe

 

[doubs43]

one thing that rarely gets mentioned is the wages of the people who make this stuff.
materials and future use aside, the wages + benefits add greatly to the price.
i have canon lenses that are very old and made with incredible and long lasting quality. joe

The labor and benefits undoubtedly add a significan amount to the cost of anything made in Europe today. That's an excellent point.

As for Canon lens, the Japanese had a thriving optical industry long before WW2 and turned out some of the finest optics in the world. That fact still isn't common knowledge among the general public. One reason for the lack of world exposure was that much of their optics were strictly for military use and thus wasn't available to civilians. That changed after WW2 and their reputation began it's assent when David Douglas Duncan mated Nikkor lens to his Leicas and used them to cover the Korean War. The quality of his pictures opened some eyes.

Walker

 

[Bertram2]

one thing that rarely gets mentioned is the wages of the people who make this stuff.
materials and future use aside, the wages + benefits add greatly to the price.

i have canon lenses that are very old and made with incredible and long lasting quality.

joe

The wages are only a indirect factor, the direct factor is the manufacturing process.
The Leica workers don't get more money than other comparable employees in Germany .
But if there is no automation at all in the process and Leica needs 5X more time for building and (most of all !) QM of a lens than the this will indeed add greatly to the price.
To pay the employees with 1/5 of the normal wage would not be the solution
tho this is exactly the shit we hear all day long from some politicians now.
.
It's all the stupidity of a management who still produces a handcraft product
in Germany , others have gone to Czech Rebublic or Slowakia 10 years ago and no move further east to Ukraine an Russia.
There are enuff folks well trained and qualified for optical production, many unemployed. No problem to update them on the Leica quality standard.
Those who say now they want no Leica assembled in Russia must pay the current prices. Very simple, nonetheless too difficult for the Leica management, which was maybe also driven by wrong ideas of the investors. :bang:

Best,
Bertram

 

[Bertram2]

I have a question. How do the lenses of the fixed lens rangefinders compare to the Voitlander and Leica lenses for sharpness and microcontrast? It has been a long, long time since I have used a Leica lens and if they perform better than this I am going to be spending some more cash. I am finding myself drawn to the look of these lenses.

A lens is better if YOU find it to be better. Not if some data sheets or other people say so. So simply watch these pics you've shot with the Oly and make your own conclusions.
I find the Oly and Yashica lenses wonderful.
Best,
Bertram

 

[Solinar]

These are great little cameras and I had forgotten how much I liked focusing a rangefinder and even winding the film. What a joy! 😀 Here are some examples. I know that you can't see the sharpness in a downsized post but trust me.

I am having a blast.

As long as you are having a blast, that is what counts. Yes, they are great little cameras and for under a hundred bucks even more so.

I went through a sharpness phase myself and the G. Zuiko on the 35SP is astounding even wide open. Color fidelity and microcontrast are pretty good, too. Now if I could only hold still and set the focus properly at f/1.7.

In truth, all of the top of the line fixed-lens rangefinders had lenses which were more than good enough. It's hard to go wrong with a well made prime. I thought this to be the case in the late 80's and through out the 90's when zooms became the norm. I still do.

Make sure that get that Yashicamat every now and then, too. It's another camera that delivers a lot of bang for minimal bucks.

 

[Chuck A]

A lens is better if YOU find it to be better. Not if some data sheets or other people say so. So simply watch these pics you've shot with the Oly and make your own conclusions.
I find the Oly and Yashica lenses wonderful.
Best,
Bertram

Well, because it has been so long since I used any other rangefinder lenses, I was curious if any folks on the forum have both and have compared them. I will make my own conclusions for sure, but what is the use of having all of this knowledge and experience available to us if we don't use it. 😉

I bought these cameras because I wanted to try some rangefinder photography again and didn't want to sink much cash into it until I experimented a bit. I didn't expect the lenses to be this nice. 😛

I am more interested in just sharpness as well. I love a good sharp lens but different lenses have different looks to them and I am trying to get a feel for this. I am drawn to the look I am getting from these lenses and was wondering how they compare.

 

[Chuck A]

As long as you are having a blast, that is what counts. Yes, they are great little cameras and for under a hundred bucks even more so.

Make sure that get that Yashicamat every now and then, too. It's another camera that delivers a lot of bang for minimal bucks.

I have done some of my best work with the Yashicamat. I really enjoy the square format as well. I am currently going through my negs and scanning them. I will be redoing my Pbase site and will include more work from the Yashicamat there. I haven't had the time to work on it lately.

 

[doubs43]

A lens is better if YOU find it to be better. Not if some data sheets or other people say so. Best, Bertram

This is a point that has been made by various writers over the years and it's as true now as it was 75 years ago. It's fun and it's interesting to compare lenses with resolution charts and such but the results are only valid for the specific examples of a lens being tested. The lenses one serial number lower or higher may test completely differently.

I admire the work of Dr. Paul Wolf who worked for the Leica (E. Leitz) company before WW2 and took marvelous pictures with pre-war uncoated lenses that most photographers today would not use day-to-day. Any quality lens made today would run rings around his equipment if compared using contrast and resolution charts. And yet 65 or 70 years later, his pictures still look fresh and impressive.

The lesson, I think, is to use what you have to it's best advantage and forget what "other" lenses can do.

(This advice is coming from a SERIOUS GAS man so take it for what it's worth!) 🙂

Walker

 

[Bertram2]

Well, because it has been so long since I used any other rangefinder lenses, I was curious if any folks on the forum have both and have compared them.

I see. I haven't shot Leica M lenses myself but I have knowledgeable friends who do so and I know their results, not 5 or ten pics, some hundreds I've seen, most shot with 35 asph, 35 pre asp and modern 50mm cron.
I personally would second Solinars opinion, "more than good enuff" is well said.
This can refer too only to results of other photogs.
I think it takes a looong time of personal practice to be able to really compare lenses, but if both are on a top level sometimes you could not decide ever which one you like more.
I shoot a Nokton and a very fine J8 sample since a while parallel and still I could not say which one is "better". I love them both and the Oly and Yashica fixed lenses seem to be on par.
It's been a good idea to choose one of them to find out if shooting RF is what you like.
If 40mm or 50mm is all you want maybe a Oly is all you need to have RF fun.
Going wide a Bessa L with 15, and 21 or 25 is the ideal completion, also easy to use and "affordable enuff" . 😉
best,
Bertram

 

[Bertram2]

It's fun and it's interesting to compare lenses with resolution charts and such but the results are only valid for the specific examples of a lens being tested. The lenses one serial number lower or higher may test completely differently.
Walker

That's a proven fact and that is what makes the "tests" of all the many selftaught experts so ridiculous and worthless.
Following the rules of statistics and working like a scientist you must test at least 50 or 100 samples within a production time of 2 years to get to a valid result which tells something about the average performance. And watching the minima and maxima you will see what the QM of the manufacturer is worth.

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