R3A for wide angle lenses

[nils]

Hi all,

as a newbie to both this forum and serious rangefinder photography I need some advice concerning the usability of the R3A 1:1 finder. I use SLR for more than 20 years now, mostly with 35 and 25mm lenses. Now I want to use a similar lens combination with a rangefinder, which comes closer to my current idea of picture making. I have some experiences with 40mm lenses from a couple of older rf models, such as oly 35rd, yashica gx, and others, and I'm at ease with it. A 40/25mm combo would be fine, thus.


Here is my problem: I like the idea of picture taking with both eyes open using the 1:1 finder (although I haven't yet tried it), OTOH I am very concerned about getting used to auxiliary viewfinders. Now I am looking for a suitable viewfinder/lens combo to fullfil my needs. Besides others some options include:

- R3A with 40/25mm lenses, with aux vf
- R3A with 40/28mm lenses, no aux vf
- R2A with 35/25mm lenses, with aux vf
- R2A with 40/28mm lenses, no aux vf

In short: how can one use the benefit of the 1:1 vf (which is originally designed for the longer focal lenghts) in combination with wide angle lenses?

Hope you get my point. Any opinions and arguments please 😕

 

[rover]

Interesting, the 1:1 finder is very nice. Do you wear glasses? If not the R3a with 40 and 28 with VF would be my choice. Getting used to an aux VF isn't that bad and if you choose to add a 75 or 90mm lens in the future the R3a would be a better choice for those lenses.

Note that the CV 25mm lens is not coupled to the RF so you will have to zone fucus it. I personally would rather a coupled lens and would tend towards a 28 or 21 for that.

 

[nils]

Quick replies, thanks! 🙂 I do not plan to add a 75mm or even longer lens, but maybe a 21 or 15mm in the far future. And I don't wear glasses. If I get you right it is impossible to guesstimate the framing of 28mm even with the R2A? If so, there is definitely need for an aux VF and I have to learn how to work with it. I could stick to the R3A, enjoy the finder with 40mm (what about 35mm?) and forget all the rest. But the M6 and ZI both have framelines for 28mm with very similar VF magnifications... So why not use the R2A with 28mm or even 25mm? 25mm should approx match the R2A finder's full extent (it is told for the ZI at least) and the same should be true for 28mm and the R3A finder. In my idea the latter has an advantage for it allows a proper framing without framelines but with both eyes open: the "framelines" are given by the extent of the VF in your right eye while you can see the whole scene with your left eye. What do you think, am I totally wrong with my estimates?

 

[aizan]

if you know the field of view of the lens, you can use the r3a with both eyes open. the learning curve is steeper than using seperate viewfinders, and may not be to your liking, though you can save a bit of time by not switching between the rangefinder and viewfinder. i find this technique most useful with 28 to 35mm lenses since they have less depth of field and larger apertures than wider lenses; you'll still find the rangefinder useful. for wider lenses, there is no penalty for using an accessory viewfinder because you can just scale or zone focus.

 

[aizan]

it's not impossible to guess the 28mm field of view on an r2a by using the viewfinder's edges. it won't be parallax corrected, but is workable. it won't work with 25mm, because the viewfinder blocks your view. the zeiss ikon is a special case because of the extra large eyepiece. with one eye closed, the r3a's maximum would be 35mm, not 28.

 

[nils]

it's not impossible to guess the 28mm field of view on an r2a by using the viewfinder's edges. it won't be parallax corrected, but is workable. it won't work with 25mm, because the viewfinder blocks your view. the zeiss ikon is a special case because of the extra large eyepiece. with one eye closed, the r3a's maximum would be 35mm, not 28.

clear answer, this helps a lot. thank you!

 

[sockeyed]

I just posted a review of my initial impressions of the r3a. The 40mm framelines fill the viewfinder, so it's not even possible to see what you're getting with a 35mm. My thought is that if you want an r3a, you should go with the 40mm and maybe the 25/4, which is a great lens that I have as well. It's very easy to use.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Seriously consider a T. The best rangefinder of the lot. Then install the rangefinder shoe doubler and fit two viewfinders.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[aizan]

That's a good suggestion. While not ideal for moderate paced shooting, it is perfect for fast and slow situations. A trigger winder may be helpful with the former.

 

[nils]

Thanks again for your helpful advices!

Seriously consider a T. The best rangefinder of the lot. Then install the rangefinder shoe doubler and fit two viewfinders.

Cheers,

Roger

Roger, I agree the T should be seriously considered, and I already did. It's a very different approach compared to my initial idea, still. What I am actually looking for is a body with two fairly distinct wide angel lenses (25/35 or 28/40) which can be used with a single VF/RF ...

That's a good suggestion. While not ideal for moderate paced shooting, it is perfect for fast and slow situations. A trigger winder may be helpful with the former.

Don't understand that, aizan. How can two different devices (RF plus VF) be perfect for fast situations?

What do you think about the usability of the R2A combined with the 40mm nokton and an additional 28mm using the 35mm framelines as an approx for the 40mm lens and the viewfinder's edges for the 28mm? The former was already discussed here: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2253 . Maybe you have some additional information about the 35mm frameline / 40mm nokton accuracy?

 

[sockeyed]

I believe that the 40mm fits almost exactly in the middle between the 35mm and the 50mm in terms of angle of view, so looking at the 35 & 50 framelines should show you where the 40mm framelines would fall in an r2a.

 

[aizan]

How can two different devices (RF plus VF) be perfect for fast situations?

I define a fast pace as when you only bring the camera up to your eye to compose and snap. You could have preset exposure and zone focused, or either scale focused or adjusted exposure as you brought the camera to your eye.

A moderate pace is when you don't really want to be arsed with switching between the viewfinder and rangefinder, like a portrait or something. When you want to take it nice and slow, it's not an issue. You could set exposure in between for all it matters.

 

[nils]

I believe that the 40mm fits almost exactly in the middle between the 35mm and the 50mm in terms of angle of view, so looking at the 35 & 50 framelines should show you where the 40mm framelines would fall in an r2a.

It is said that the 35mm framelines cover 100% of the field of view of the 40mm lens but only 85% of the 35mm. Do you have any expirience how this effects the practical use of the 40mm with the R2A?

I define a fast pace as when you only bring the camera up to your eye to compose and snap. You could have preset exposure and zone focused, or either scale focused or adjusted exposure as you brought the camera to your eye.

A moderate pace is when you don't really want to be arsed with switching between the viewfinder and rangefinder, like a portrait or something. When you want to take it nice and slow, it's not an issue. You could set exposure in between for all it matters.

Ok, sounds reasonable. From this point of view there is no need for a RF at all, at least for fast street shooting as I mainly do. I could go with the L and scale focus. Hmmh, strange idea ... 🙂

 

[aizan]

True, though if you use 35 and 28mm lenses, you'll appreciate a combined rf/vf in low light. I mostly work at a moderate pace in low light, so my best options are these three: .58x leica m, zeiss ikon, or hexar rf (in descending cost). With shorter lenses, an L or T is all you need, though it's sometimes good to have the T's high mag rf and trigger winder capability.