das
Well-known
IMHO, the Voigtlander Bessa R4s were a fantastic concept, something most of us (including me) did not appreciate at the time of their production run. Now they seem to have tripled in value. Although I really wanted a Bessa R4A, beggars cannot be choosers, so years ago I snatched up a reasonably priced R4M. I'm not the biggest fan of Bessas overall, but the wide angle frameline views of the R4 really make this a unique and very useful machine, especially for travel.
And, again IMHO, don't sleep on the 21-35mm f/3.4-4 Konica Dual Hexanon. It's always been expensive, but it is ridiculously sharp, useful for most situations, and absolutely perfect for the R4. Hopefully, some manufacturer will bring back the multi focal length rangefinder lens.
.
And, again IMHO, don't sleep on the 21-35mm f/3.4-4 Konica Dual Hexanon. It's always been expensive, but it is ridiculously sharp, useful for most situations, and absolutely perfect for the R4. Hopefully, some manufacturer will bring back the multi focal length rangefinder lens.
.
Last edited:
jszokoli
Well-known
I've done a quick search but I'm not finding a definitive answer to if a Leica 21mm Super-Angulon will hit the shutter of a Bessa R4m.
I kind of remember that it was an issue...
Joe
I kind of remember that it was an issue...
Joe
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Agree with the OP’s thoughts here. The R4 and the R3 had some great thinking. Unfortunately, there were things that made them less great to use than either the Zeiss Ikon or a Leica M - silly things like how they hang from a strap.
They have become very expensive now though and the R3 ‘itch’ is more than covered by my 0.85 MP that I picked up well used and run in.
They have become very expensive now though and the R3 ‘itch’ is more than covered by my 0.85 MP that I picked up well used and run in.
shawn
Veteran
I had that combo, well R4A, as well and agree that the Konica is a very sharp lens. It blocked a pretty fair amount of the viewfinder though which kind of put me off from the combo.IMHO, the Voigtlander Bessa R4s were a fantastic concept, something most of us (including me) did not appreciate at the time of their production run. Now they seem to have tripled in value. Although I really wanted a Bessa R4A, beggars cannot be choosers, so years ago I snatched up a reasonably priced R4M. I'm not the biggest fan of Bessas overall, but the wide angle frameline views of the R4 really make this a unique and very useful machine, especially for travel.
And, again IMHO, don't sleep on the 21-35mm f/3.4-4 Konica Dual Hexanon. It's always been expensive, but it is ridiculously sharp, useful for most situations, and absolutely perfect for the R4. Hopefully, some manufacturer will bring back the multi focal length rangefinder lens.
View attachment 4854992
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
From what I know humongous 21 lenses do block build-in VFs. Not something good for quick framing.
Just M was hard for me to keep after original M experience. Too clumsy.
A was big reason to deal with short cuts made from production based on cheap Cosina SLR chassis.
Just M was hard for me to keep after original M experience. Too clumsy.
A was big reason to deal with short cuts made from production based on cheap Cosina SLR chassis.
das
Well-known
Yeah, the R series was definitely designed with the smaller wides like the 21mm f/4 and 25mm f/4, and the 35mm f/2.5 in mind. I don't find that the viewfinder blockage with the Konica 21-35 is a dealbreaker. Much quicker to use IRL than an external viewfinder. And imho, most external viewfinders are also not giving you very accurate framing or reflect the actual resulting distortion.
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
I would love to see the return of the CV Bessa rangefinder series of cameras.
I wonder if Kobayashi-san still has all the tooling?
Chris
I wonder if Kobayashi-san still has all the tooling?
Chris
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Yep, although I tend to prefer smaller lenses altogether and particularly on rangefinder cameras. I have a couple of MDa’s - the M4 variant - and I quite like those with a wide and external vf. Then, stop down and zone or hyper focal focus. Fast and fun - immersive in the environment and not trying to make it work.
Edited to expand - not having a rangefinder at all removes the temptation to use it. It’s a good lesson if nothing else and MDa’s are/were genuinely cheap when I got them.
I also like scale focus cameras from time to time.
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
I do occasionally get tempted by the thought of an R2S but then I see the price tags on them now and the temptation runs away
Especially since they put an 85 rather than 105 frame line on it...
Especially since they put an 85 rather than 105 frame line on it...
das
Well-known
Agreed, it totally should have had the 105 frameline, that was the iconic Nikon RF telephoto.I do occasionally get tempted by the thought of an R2S but then I see the price tags on them now and the temptation runs away
Especially since they put an 85 rather than 105 frame line on it...
Cascadilla
Well-known
It probably would have needed to be a slow 105 if they had done that since the rangefinder base length on the R series isn't that long.I do occasionally get tempted by the thought of an R2S but then I see the price tags on them now and the temptation runs away
Especially since they put an 85 rather than 105 frame line on it...
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
A little bit of care and f/2.5 wouldn't be that hard to deal with.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
The RF accuracy chart says a hard no:
I find the M240 and a (known good) Canon 135/3.5 hard enough, and the chart gives that combo a 111% "rating". I wouldn't fancy my chances at 173%.
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
Eh, if I had trouble, that's what hyperfocal distances are for.
Zuiko-logist
Well-known
Interesting chart. Thanks for sharing.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Someone on here made it but I can't remember who, off-hand. It's missing a couple of rangefinder bodies but it's a bloody useful reference.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Interesting chart, though I think reasonably conservative. You get a bit back for having more time to focus, a bit more for not shooting close up, a bit for good looking guy and a bit more for accepting a bit loosely goosey. Still useful.
Shooting a 1.4/75 n the dark, or even a 50, wide open is a game of chance. In full sun at 20m it’s sort of fine.
Funny thing is that I generally think of slr’s as better for long lens focus and rangefinder for 50 down, but when I’m shooting in a dark room with one small light one the other side, the rf is a clear winner for fast short teles - 50-85. Of course, that really needs digital to keep the shutter speed up even at 1.4
Shooting a 1.4/75 n the dark, or even a 50, wide open is a game of chance. In full sun at 20m it’s sort of fine.
Funny thing is that I generally think of slr’s as better for long lens focus and rangefinder for 50 down, but when I’m shooting in a dark room with one small light one the other side, the rf is a clear winner for fast short teles - 50-85. Of course, that really needs digital to keep the shutter speed up even at 1.4
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
It's also a tad imperfect as there's a huge difference in practice between something with a long baselength and a low mag RF but a short baselength and a high mag RF. Out of the two, I'll take a well-calibrated high mag RF with a short baselength over the alternative any day.