Small rangefinder with Zeiss/Leitz-alike lens

Hi,

Much as I like the Jupiter-12 I don't think it could be described as a contrasty lens and so more modern ones will look contrasty beside it.

BTW, I did a series of test of the XA and Leica Summaron (both lenses are 35mm and f/2.8) side by side with the same film, processing etc and I can't say I noticed much difference.

Regards, David
 
Huss said:
Minolta CLE. Tiny, interchangeable Leica M mount lenses (which are tiny). Auto exposure + manual.

CLE_zpsl7htyv70.jpg
Click to expand...

It looks sexy with that 90mm.
 
https://www.cameraquest.com/com35s.htm

Stephen's page on compact RFs. (Raise your hand if you have NOT ever visited this page, all.)

Almost as small as anything mentioned, and usually in great shape, is the Hexar RF. Especially with a pancake 35 Skopar. The Retina II's fold into your pocket, but are 50mm and a bit squinty.

I'll go further left afield (to the halcyon days of the GDR!) to applaud Werra. I've had a decent Werramatic and now have a wonderful Werra III. Great VF, reliable meter, Zeiss 50 2.8 Tessar, and the coolest cocking mechanism ever. Too bad the RFF gallery doesn't allow searches for Werra as brand, but you can find a few Werramatic images. I'll also plug the Baldamatic, a sweet little 60s RF with a 45 2.8 tessar-like Baldanar--and let others chime in with their fave 50s-60s German compacts...
 
Yashica GX. 40mm f1.7

DX coated Yashinon is perfect contrast for B+W film.
AE with a pair of modern Silver 1.5v batteries.

It's inexpensive and seriously a nice tiny machine.
I have a silver and Black one. Gave a black on to my Niece that I bought here for $75 lat spring.
 
Contax T. I have the T2 with the same lens.

Contrast is matter of taste and processing. If you shoot b&w, the choice of film, developer, scanning technique etc have more influence than lens.

lrochfort said:
Hello all,

Over the past couple of years I've owned a Minolta 7SII and an Olympus XA2 in an effort to find a small camera. Unfortunately I don't like the images from those lenses, I find them too contrasty and and "harsh". I also realised I don't like zone focus cameras.

Could you please suggest small rangefinders with lenses that produce results similar to Zeiss and Leitz lenses? Ideally around 35mm focal length. A built-in meter and maybe some auto-exposure would be helpful, but not at all essential. Definitely rangefinders though, no zone focusing.

I suppose I'm looking for a Rollei 35 with a rangefinder and aperture priority auto-exposure!! And a partridge in a pear tree.

Thanks all!
Click to expand...
 
Contax T is a high quality rangefinder that fits comfortably in a shirt pocket. If you cannot find one or it is priced to rich for your blood (both are a distinct possibility.) then the Retina IIa is the way to go.
 
The Werra III is about the same size as any 70s RF, but has a much longer effective base length. Normally comes with a Zeiss 50mm Tessar 2.8 which has quite low contrast and old school coatings. Is actually interchangeable in spite of it having a leaf shutter but the other lenses are rare and expensive. Very underrated camera that IMO has a build quality actually better than the Rollei 35. Some versions come with a selenium light meter, but all are fully manual I'm afraid and are a little quirky in operation.

Honestly I think the Leica/Zeiss look is a bit of a myth, I would look at lenses individually rather than basing decisions on brand name alone. I have a great condition Canon QL17 GIII that goes toe to toe with my Zeiss and Rollei lenses, just with a touch lower contrast. I would say that any 70's RF would make a good choice and giving results practically indistinguishable from far more expensive kits (and often with more features at a smaller size) providing it is in good condition.
 
Hi,

I think a lot of the old lens myths are probably based on various peoples' interpretation of the meter reading; the age and condition of the lens; development and printing and so on. All highly variable and liable to affect the results.

I often wonder what state older lenses are in when photo's showing "the look" are put up on forums. Given the number of people who believe that top of the range models from top makers don't need any maintenance, I wonder what would happen if their lenses and cameras were serviced by the factory and restored to the original specification...

Just my 2d worth.

Regards, David
 
A 3rd vote for the Contax T. Has a Zeiss Sonnar 38mm F2.8 lens, Aperture priority, RF focus, metal body, and lens that fold into body. It was the "Rolls Royce" of compact cameras when it came out in the mid-1980s.

Check Dante Stella's excellent review.
 
Very small - I will second the Olympus 35RC.

Small - again, got to go with the Minolta CLE and the tiny 40m Rokkor-M. You will not find a better baby Leica. Plenty of cheap Canon/CV screw and M lenses to add wider or smaller focal lengths (28mm and 90mm being ideal).

I use both as travel cameras regularly.

James
 
lrochfort said:
Hello all,

Over the past couple of years I've owned a Minolta 7SII and an Olympus XA2 in an effort to find a small camera. Unfortunately I don't like the images from those lenses, I find them too contrasty and and "harsh". I also realised I don't like zone focus cameras.

Could you please suggest small rangefinders with lenses that produce results similar to Zeiss and Leitz lenses? Ideally around 35mm focal length. A built-in meter and maybe some auto-exposure would be helpful, but not at all essential. Definitely rangefinders though, no zone focusing.

I suppose I'm looking for a Rollei 35 with a rangefinder and aperture priority auto-exposure!! And a partridge in a pear tree.

Thanks all!
Click to expand...

You will have to define what you mean with "similar to Zeiss and Leitz". I mean, what look do you want. By the way, not everyone believes that Zeiss and Leitz made the best lenses of all time, i would say that Agfa and Schneider did some impressive lenses; in america Kodak made some really really really good lenses and japan has lots of legendary lenses.

If you want results that are not "harsh" you will have to define if you want high resolution with low contrast or if you are looking for smooth bokeh.

Many of the 35mm fixed lens rangefinders have excellent lenses, but their qualities differ.

What i'd say it's a yardstick would be the lens on the Yashica Electro 35 series, the 45/1.7 Yashinon-DX. Maybe not the best, but a good benchmark.

As for the Rollei 35, it is an overrated ergonomic nightmare. I was glad to sell my german-made zeiss-equipped Rollei 35 to a collector. There are many better cameras than it for actual shooting.

As for the Oly XA, the lens was always going to be compromised in some way or another due to the requirements of making it too compact.
 
nongfuspring said:
The Werra III is about the same size as any 70s RF, but has a much longer effective base length. Normally comes with a Zeiss 50mm Tessar 2.8 which has quite low contrast and old school coatings. Is actually interchangeable in spite of it having a leaf shutter but the other lenses are rare and expensive. Very underrated camera that IMO has a build quality actually better than the Rollei 35. Some versions come with a selenium light meter, but all are fully manual I'm afraid and are a little quirky in operation.
Click to expand...

This. The Werra 3 is a good alternative to the Rollei 35. Another would be the Minox 35 series, although they are a bit delicate.

Actually i didn't find the Rollei 35 build quality "high"; i was expecting better build quality from a Rollei camera -- Rollei i consider the best of all the german makers in terms of build quality. The vitomatic cameras have higher build quality, as well as the german Kodak cameras.
 
Rioch 500GX or Chinon 35eeII - both about the same size as the Oly RC, metered manual and shutter or aperture priority respectively. Cheap as chips. I always found these both produced relatively muted colours and lovely tones with fast film indoors.
 
Second the Hexar AF.

My copy is dead but will convert the lens to M.

AF is dead accurate but only 1/250 top speed means ND filter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom