Like My R4M, But Itching for Longer Lens....

W

wgerrard

Veteran
Local time
2:49 AM
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
2,451
I've been using an R4M for several weeks, with 50, 28, and 21 lenses. So far, so good. I enjoy it. But, I fear I'm getting an itch to use a longer lens. The framelines on the R4M top out at 50mm.

Is the rational thing to buy a longer lens and the corresponding finder?

Or, can I rationalize the purchase of a "new" used body, something that comes with framelines for a longer lens and that will accept the lenses I use on the R4M?

Reducing hassle is, for me, a great way to rationalize spending more money than I really need to spend. AE would also be nice, but not essential.

The Hexar RF seems very appealing, if I could find one with a price that hadn't ballooned. I'm also concerned about the apparent lack of parts and repair facilities. Does anyone CLA these things? (I'm a klutz and won't risk fixing anything that cost me more than $10.)

What Leicas, if any, have framelines in the 28-90 range? I haven't seriously considered buying a used Leica, but I'd certainly start considering.

What else is out there?
 
Rationalize away, dear boy. The very short effective rangefinder base length of the R4 is marginal even with a 50/1.5 (I'm not even keen on a 50/1.5 on an R2), so it's focusing a 75, 85 or 90 at full aperture and close distances that I'd worry about if I were you.

If you can possibly find the money, and want just the one body, a new M will show you exactly why it's as expensive as it is: today I've been shooting a 75/2 on an MP at the close focusing limit.

Otherwise, get a second body. Nothing is as convenient as using 2 bodies, 2 lenses. My favourite (film) combo is 35/75. If I could afford another M8 it would probably be 24 or 25/50 (but I don't own a 24 or 25). Go for an R3 alongside the R4.

With Leicas, you need an M4-P or later to get 28mm, and you need the 0.58 or 0.72 viewfinders. That's from memory: no doubt if I am wrong I will be corrected immediately and vociferously. Personally I'd not buy a Konica because of the reparability issues you mention, but I may be overly cautious. The Zeiss Ikon is a nice camera too, again with a 28mm frame as far as I recall.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Last edited:
An alternate approach is to use SLRs for anything longer. Say an OM-1 with an 85/2 and a 180/2.8 would give you great coverage without a ton of weight.

I used everything from an 85 to a 135 on my Bessa T (a great low cost alternative for you) as it's rangefinder EBL was much longer than the average Bessa (read any others).

Keep your 4 for wide stuff (25, 35, 40, 21) and use an SLR for 85 and up.

B2 (;->
 
another body will also mean, you have two cameras ready without the need of changing the lens.
These are not such big bodies.
An r3a would be the nicest to complement the wide setup i guess.
unless you can afford a leica m3 -ish.
 
I am pretty happy with Zeiss Ikon 28-35-50-85. Soon will get a 35 and I'm "done." Hell you could put a 21 on it and just scale focus. Yeah, I'm pretty happy.
 
Roger, I could rationalize my way to a used MP, and maybe a new one if I sold off the Bessa and my other toys. (I much prefer having one body versus two.).

I'd welcome input from MP users with eyeglasses. I have crummy eyesight and wear glasses.
 
The best RF on the market if you wear glasses is the new Zeiss. Also the best RF/VF I've ever seen in a 35. I like the RF/VF better in manys than my MP's.
 
with the zi, it's like looking through a bay window.

think of your r4m and think larger, brighter, easier to see through.
 
wgerrard said:
X-Ray: Why is the Zeiss better than the MP with a .58 finder?
Click to expand...

The eye relief of the Zeiss is excellent and the MP is OK but not like the Zeiss. You can still see the entire set of frames with thicker glasses with the Zeiss. I generally don't wear glasses but when I do the Zeiss is spectacular. The Zeiss has a much longer effective RF base length vs the .58 in the Leica. With the .58x you're getting closer to the Bessa R4 base length rather then increasing it. Increasing the base length will improve focusing accuracy with longer and faster glass. As the frame lines move inward with the lower magnification so increases the difficulty of composing with longer lenses and the focusing accuracy goes down. In general I find the Zeiss easier to focus under poor lighting and can with greater accuracy. If you could look through both you would immediately see the difference.
 
back alley said:
with the zi, it's like looking through a bay window.

think of your r4m and think larger, brighter, easier to see through.
Click to expand...

Exactly! I've used Leica M's almost all my career and was absolutely knocked out by the Zeiss RF/VF and for that matter the entire camera.

Some folks turn their nose up at the ZI and say it isn't built like a Leica. I have 3 new MP's and IMO the new Leicas aren't what they used to be. The Zeiss is lighter and made of aluminum alloy which makes it much nicer on the neck. It has the best RF/VF IMO and a superb dead on the money AE. The sync is 1/125 and the top speed is 1/2000. It's quiet (sounds more metalic due to a metal shutter but the same DB level as a MP) and accurate. I leave mine on AE and have had virtually no missed exposures. Ergonomics are excellent and the price is 1/3 of a new Leica.
 
I think either an R3 or an M3 would be a perfect compliment to your R4 camera. There's not much difference in price between these two, comparing a new Bessa and a not-unheard-of deal on an M3. Both cameras have pretty high magnification- both are really best for 50mm or longer lenses. I'd use the 21mm through 35/40mm on the R4, and 50mm and longer. I actully shoot mostly with a pair of M3's and use them with auxilliary finders for wide angle lenses. The base-length and finder on the M3 is positively a dream with 50mm, 90mm and 135mm lenses. I think the same is true of the R3 cameras, although I've only played with one briefly.
 
x-ray said:
Exactly! I've used Leica M's almost all my career and was absolutely knocked out by the Zeiss RF/VF and for that matter the entire camera.

Some folks turn their nose up at the ZI and say it isn't built like a Leica. I have 3 new MP's and IMO the new Leicas aren't what they used to be. The Zeiss is lighter and made of aluminum alloy which makes it much nicer on the neck. It has the best RF/VF IMO and a superb dead on the money AE. The sync is 1/125 and the top speed is 1/2000. It's quiet (sounds more metalic due to a metal shutter but the same DB level as a MP) and accurate. I leave mine on AE and have had virtually no missed exposures. Ergonomics are excellent and the price is 1/3 of a new Leica.
Click to expand...
Which is also why I can't yet jump on the digital bandwagon.
 
Thanks for the Zeiss info. My glasses are compressed progressives. Definitely not thin, but not Coke-bottle thick, either. Middling, I guess. The only frameline in the R4 that gives me any trouble is the 21, where I often can't readily see into 2 of the 4 corners.

I'm not a diopeter user because I need to wear the glasses all the time and I'm not inclined to starting flipping them on and off to take pictures.
 
wgerrard said:
Thanks for the Zeiss info. My glasses are compressed progressives. Definitely not thin, but not Coke-bottle thick, either. Middling, I guess. The only frameline in the R4 that gives me any trouble is the 21, where I often can't readily see into 2 of the 4 corners.

I'm not a diopeter user because I need to wear the glasses all the time and I'm not inclined to starting flipping them on and off to take pictures.
Click to expand...
My glasses are the same and I wear them all the time. On my ex-R3 I could not see the 40mm framelines. On the ZI I can easily see the 28, of course, all the way up to 85-90. Happiness.
 
kshapero: Yesterday, I took my DSLR on a walk in the woods around a small lake with a restored mill. It was noon, blue sky, and bright sun. Pretty harsh. I left it in Program mode just to see what would happen, and shot close to 80 images, without fiddling with aperture or shutter speed. Maybe not the best time to take pictures, but there you go. Exposure was off, significantly, on all but a two or three images.
 
wgerrard said:
kshapero: Yesterday, I took my DSLR on a walk in the woods around a small lake with a restored mill. It was noon, blue sky, and bright sun. Pretty harsh. I left it in Program mode just to see what would happen, and shot close to 80 images, without fiddling with aperture or shutter speed. Maybe not the best time to take pictures, but there you go. Exposure was off, significantly, on all but a two or three images.
Click to expand...
And your point is....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom