New Ultron 35/1.7 or Nokton 1.5 close focus question

[k__43]

So I'm considering an Ultron 35 Version 2 and I have one thing that makes me hesitate. As far as I see it it focuses closer than the RF coupling.
(The same goes for the new Nokton 50/1.5)

Can anyone tell me if that is annoying? I mean I like focusing at the closest side of the scale and usually go as close as possible and then rather move myself. Now with that "feature" I might end up thinking I focused too close and then rather not going to the closest possible distance out of fear I could go too far (too short that means).

how problematic is that or do I overthink this too much?

 

[Erik van Straten]

When you do not choose the closest side of the scale, but 0.7m, there will be no problem. You can mark this point with a tiny mark, nailpolish or something like that. At 0.7m the coupling of the rangefinder stops, I don't know why.

With the 50mm this problem does not exist. This lens goes to 0.70m and stops there.

Both are super fine lenses.

Erik.

 

[SaveKodak]

My 28/2.8 Biogon focuses to .5m. It's not an issue. YOu can tell when the RF is no longer responsive and you yourself will be aware of the limitation of the RF. When selecting MFD just set it to .7 and go. Or if you're using an M 240 or other live view cam, you have the option of focusing closer. It's a feature, not a bug, as they say.

 

[rscheffler]

I have the new 35/1.7... you just have to pay attention to the RF patch. You'll see it stop moving even though the focusing ring is still turning. This way you'll know you're no longer RF coupled.

I suppose Cosina could have included a small 'bump' to increase resistance momentarily when reaching the minimum RF coupled distance, like some other RF lenses (IIRC Nikkor 50/1.4, WATE), but I haven't found it to be a significant concern in day to day use. Just something to keep in mind when working near 70cm.

The 35/1.7 is an excellent lens and I wouldn't let a minor concern like this steer you away from it.

 

[pechelman]

i echo the comments from the others about using lenses closer than the .7m mfd of a rangefinder. Just watch the patch where it stops responding. Also, on the 240/246, I've noticed that the RF seems to couple just a wee bit closer than .7m according to the focal scale on the lens. I've not actually measured it, but that's what it looks like on the patch. It makes sense to me that the RF arm would have to have a little bit more engagement beyond .7m to make sure there's good response at that distance between the lens cam and RF arm.

 

[ferider]

Reg the 35/1.7: to focus with the finder, put the lens on 0.7m focus distance, and rock your body back and forth.

It's nice to be able to focus closer, in particular with LV. Like this:

 

[pechelman]

and another old school alternative to using liveview to focus on objects closer than .7m;

for example if you have a lens that focuses down to .5m, use a 1m long camera strap. Then, use your thumb to pull the strap away from the camera and in front of it, sort of like a slingshot. That will appx .5m just infront of your thumb since some of the 1m length is shortened below .5m due to the width between the lugs.

 

[k__43]

Thank you everyone!
The strap measurement trick was given to me already before.
I'm just not sure how my friends will react when I poke them in the nose with my strap around the thumb 😀

With the 50mm this problem does not exist. This lens goes to 0.70m and stops there.

Thanks for clearing that mistake of mine.

 

[ray*j*gun]

I don't follow this issue. I have a 35mm Ultron 1.7 LTM and it only shows .9 on the focus scale? Are we saying it actually focuses closer?

 

[ferider]

I don't follow this issue. I have a 35mm Ultron 1.7 LTM and it only shows .9 on the focus scale? Are we saying it actually focuses closer?

The new, M-mount version does, Raymond.

 

[ray*j*gun]

Ah, thank you ferider.

 

[k__43]

So I got one and the problem does annoy me a bit but not as much as I would have thought.