thawkins
Well-known
How many of you Leica shooters out there use a 35mm lens without the goggles? It appears that the entire rangefinder area is about the size of area the 35mm lens covers. I am doing some shopping for said lens but don't want the fuss and weight of the goggles if I don't need them. Tell me what you think.
yossarian123
Sam I Am
I've done it from time to time, mostly when I don't care greatly about framing accuracy. Seems to work better with a 40 summicron. Do you have a 35mm lens now that you can shoot a roll or two with to see how it feels?
FrankS
Registered User
You'll need to scale focus the lens.
thawkins
Well-known
Don't understand why I must scale focus.
FrankS
Registered User
Oh wait, I'm sorry. I assumed your question was about using a goggled Summaron without its goggles. Please disregard.
If a 35mm lens has goggles, once they are removed, the RF focusing of the camera is inaccurate.
If a 35mm lens has goggles, once they are removed, the RF focusing of the camera is inaccurate.
Range-rover
Veteran
When I had my M3 and 35mm it worked fine. plus the added bonus of the frame
being for a fifty you can pick up the finer details in the scene your focusing on and
the pictures look sharper.
Range
being for a fifty you can pick up the finer details in the scene your focusing on and
the pictures look sharper.
Range
dabick42
Well-known
I regularly use an M3 with an ungoggled 35mm Summicron and just make a small allowance beyond the 50mm frame lines.
With practice, this is accurate enough for most usage, but you can always carry a clip-on 35mm viewfinder or multifinder for those occasions when more accuracy is required.
In my experience, goggles, while useful, are by no means essential...
With practice, this is accurate enough for most usage, but you can always carry a clip-on 35mm viewfinder or multifinder for those occasions when more accuracy is required.
In my experience, goggles, while useful, are by no means essential...
Vics
Veteran
You know, the goggles are nearly weightless and as for bulk, the camera is still easier in and out of the bag than it is with, say, a DR Summicron 50mm. I use a goggled Summaron and I love it. Besides it has a true Buck Rogers look.
I have, although peering around the edges of the frame gives me a bit of eye fatigue. But it's reasonably close. The 40mm is probably a better fit for the entire viewfinder window, as mentioned above.
Monochrom
Well-known
Hi, the m3 magnification leaves the 35mm lens too diffcult to use...
And the goggles are nor precise to frame nor comfortable to use...
Nowadays i sold my m3´s and made myself an m1 with rangefinder
anyway someone wrote about using a 40mm lens, and it works great, but when you want precise framing for architecture or other composition you may get disapointed a bit.
Thye m3 with the chroem rollei sonnar 400mm lens is a beautiful combo!
And the goggles are nor precise to frame nor comfortable to use...
Nowadays i sold my m3´s and made myself an m1 with rangefinder
anyway someone wrote about using a 40mm lens, and it works great, but when you want precise framing for architecture or other composition you may get disapointed a bit.
Thye m3 with the chroem rollei sonnar 400mm lens is a beautiful combo!
JMQ
Well-known
You mean Rollei 40mm?
gwg
Established
I've tried but in the end found it too inaccurate for my use with a fast 35mm. As I didn't want to invest in another fast 35, I got a Summaron 35 2.8 with goggles for daytime shooting and absolutely love it. That way I can deal with framing inaccuracy/fatigue when I need the speed, but can enjoy the better view (I actually quite like both the view through the goggles and the way the M3 looks with them) during the daytime.
kshapero
South Florida Man
I use the CV 40mm lens most of the time on my M3 w/o goggles.
Austerby
Well-known
I've occasionally come across comments recommending that the M2 is the camera to use for 35mm lenses in preference to the M3. I have both and use 35mm lenses on both.
Whilst the M2 has 35mm specific framelines I've always found that a 35mm lens on an M3 is a perfectly acceptable combination provided that you accept the loss of the margins around the frames in the viewfinder to help compose the shot.
Yes, the M2 is designed for the 35mm lens but the M3 is just as capable with some tolerance from the user and you do have that useful extra magnification in the viewfinder which compensates.
In many ways I find the Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 lens works better on the M3 than it does on my M2 for these reasons.
Whilst the M2 has 35mm specific framelines I've always found that a 35mm lens on an M3 is a perfectly acceptable combination provided that you accept the loss of the margins around the frames in the viewfinder to help compose the shot.
Yes, the M2 is designed for the 35mm lens but the M3 is just as capable with some tolerance from the user and you do have that useful extra magnification in the viewfinder which compensates.
In many ways I find the Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 lens works better on the M3 than it does on my M2 for these reasons.
hendriphile
Well-known
If you wear eyeglasses, the extra eye relief provided by goggles makes it easy to view the whole VF without mashing the camera against your face.
Quite right! I think it also depends on the individual's facial details. I have a hard time seeing the whole 35mm frame in my M2 even without glasses, so I love the goggled Summaron that shows me a good bit around the outside of the frame, even with glasses. And the goggles look cool IMO. Fortunately for those who need more speed, there are the goggled Summicron and Summilux.