new to rangefinders! a few questions?

[phutro]

hello! i've recently been on the hunt for those extra few stops for taking night photos. in my journey i've stumbled across the nokton 35mm f/1.2 and i am in love with all that it promises. but i've a few question i hope you're collective knowledge can help me out with?

i'm looking at getting the bessa r4a body to go along but am wondering if you can focus properly / accurately with the nokton on (especially wide open) using the 35mm framelines, or if they're too small.

(for background, i use the nikon fm3a a lot and think myself to be pretty spot on focusing / discering what's it focus using that while at f/1.4)

also, what's the best place to purchase one from? i've seen varying prices between b&h & cameraquest.

also, how fragile are the bessa r4's? i'm very carefull with my cameras but am wondering about knocking it out of adjustment.

appreciate all the help! take care,

 

[photobizzz]

I have a R3a (for sale in the classifieds) and have owned a few Bessa R's. I found them to be pretty tough, I didnt go around hammering nails but never had any mis-alignment after a bump or knock. The 1:1 finder of the R3a would be better for focusing the Nokton wide open but has 40mm framelines (although it wouldnt be hard to visualize a few extra degrees)

 

[Riaz Mesbah]

Camera quest is the best place to buy new. the guy who runs the company is as upstanding as they get. he is the ONLY authorized importer in the states, and at least until a couple of years ago all CV gear came with a lifetime warranty (I assume that he still does.) all CV stuff from B&H, et. al. comes with no warranty. I have shot the 35 1.2 and it is amazing, that said the new 35 1.4 is probably a better deal, being that everyone I have talked to is saying that it is as good as the current leica 35mm 1.4. It is a small trade off in cost and speed for a big savings in size and weight, and i don't know about you but i like having the lightest possible gear bag and camera.

 

[payasam]

Given good vision and a clean screen, focussing with an FM3 will always be more accurate than focussing with a range-finder camera. However, a 35 mm lens should have enough depth of field to cover minor inaccuracies. The greater the finder magnification, the better.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Given good vision and a clean screen, focussing with an FM3 will always be more accurate than focussing with a range-finder camera. However, a 35 mm lens should have enough depth of field to cover minor inaccuracies. The greater the finder magnification, the better.

Without wishing to appear rude, I could not agree less, on the basis of both theory and practice.

Without any focusing aids, a reflex gives the 'least worst' position of focus; with focusing aids (such as a split-image 'rangefinder' screen or microprisms) the effective base length of the reflex is tiny. I'd back the positive split image of a rangefinder every time, especially with wide-angles.

On reliability, I've had most of the Bessas for review; my wife and I regularly use an R2 and T; and I've handled all of them. I've only had a rangefinder misalignment problem with one, and that was from new. The others get the same treatment as my Leicas and have not proven fragile.

The 35/1.2 is an excellent lens but I decided not to keep it because I already have the much smaller pre-aspheric 35/1.4. The only times I have had a problem with focusing the R2 have been with the 50/1.5 Nokton at full aperture, and then, seldom and only at close range. I had no trouble focusing the 35/1.2, as far as I recall, but then, I mostly used it on Leicas, not the R2. The T was fine.

I would not however consider an R4 for the 35/1.2, thanks to its very short effective base length. I have not tried the combination but given my experiences with 50/1.5 and an R2, I think you'd be pushing your luck.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[phutro]

Without wishing to appear rude, I could not agree less, on the basis of both theory and practice.

Without any focusing aids, a reflex gives the 'least worst' position of focus; with focusing aids (such as a split-image 'rangefinder' screen or microprisms) the effective base length of the reflex is tiny. I'd back the positive split image of a rangefinder every time, especially with wide-angles.

On reliability, I've had most of the Bessas for review; my wife and I regularly use an R2 and T; and I've handled all of them. I've only had a rangefinder misalignment problem with one, and that was from new. The others get the same treatment as my Leicas and have not proven fragile.

The 35/1.2 is an excellent lens but I decided not to keep it because I already have the much smaller pre-aspheric 35/1.4. The only times I have had a problem with focusing the R2 have been with the 50/1.5 Nokton at full aperture, and then, seldom and only at close range. I had no trouble focusing the 35/1.2, as far as I recall, but then, I mostly used it on Leicas, not the R2. The T was fine.

I would not however consider an R4 for the 35/1.2, thanks to its very short effective base length. I have not tried the combination but given my experiences with 50/1.5 and an R2, I think you'd be pushing your luck.

Cheers,

Roger

(i love this forum)

so the r4 is out (i plan on getting wide angle later, for which i can buy externeal viewfinders, for the time being this will be a fast kit only), leaving the r2 & r3. am i correct in that the r2, 3, 4 are identical in make (materials & etc...) differing only in viewfinder magnification & framelines? that said it seems like the r3 would be my best bet, offering most ease of focusing (aside from guessing where the 35 would be, doesn't seem very hard).

what does experience tell you guys while using the 1.2 on a r3, r2?

 

[payasam]

Focussing with a R/F camera does not depend on the lens mounted, and the accuracy of the triangulation may not be enough for fast or long lenses at near distances. Nearly all SLRs come equipped with focussing aids, despite which focussing may not be accurate if the lens mounted is slow or wide. Nothing is perfect, and that includes the experience on which I base what I say.

 

[Roger Hicks]

(i love this forum)

so the r4 is out (i plan on getting wide angle later, for which i can buy externeal viewfinders, for the time being this will be a fast kit only), leaving the r2 & r3. am i correct in that the r2, 3, 4 are identical in make (materials & etc...) differing only in viewfinder magnification & framelines? that said it seems like the r3 would be my best bet, offering most ease of focusing (aside from guessing where the 35 would be, doesn't seem very hard).

what does experience tell you guys while using the 1.2 on a r3, r2?

You've got it.

As I say, I used the 35/1.2 very little on an R2 and not at all on an R3. The shots I took were OK. But most of the shots I've taken with a 50/1.5 on an R2 have been OK too. I stopped using this combination because enough shots weren't sharp that I preferred using a Leica. I'd expect about the same with a 35/1,2, allowing for the shorter f.l. versus the wider aperture.

I didn't much like the R3, not least because 35mm is my standard f.l. If you don't mind the 40mm frame, or using an external finder, that's another matter. I seem to recall being underwhelmed by the R3 meter, too, but I had the camera when it came out, for review, and gave it back fairly smartly. Unlike the R2...

Cheers,

R.

 

[phutro]

one more question (i've nearly made up my mind on this matter), is there any difference (optically) between the black 35 f/1.2 & the chrome one?