Speaking of 28mm lenses...

[theunconquered]

Howdy,

I'm curious - do you need a 28mm viewfinder to shoot a 28mm lens on the Bessa R2A? I thought I'd read somewhere that using the entire viewfinder is accurrate for a 28mm lens.

I ask this because I'm trying to decide between the 28mm skopar (f3.5) and the 35mm skopar (f2.5). So far I've been more impressed by the 28mm optics (based on the photos I've seen) but really don't like dealing with the extra viewfinder, so...

thanks,
ted

 

[rover]

I will offer a resounding maybe!!!!

One of the pleasures of using a RF is being able.....

Hey, I changed my mind, yes. I currently have an M6, .72. The 28mm framelines in this camera are bearly visible unless you really get your eye right up close to the finder. How much different can this be from an R2a? I also do have the 28mm external finder and I like using it when shooting quickly, scale focusing, preset exposure, and just raising the camera to compose and shoot. This is a benefit and way to use the finder that you may not have considered.

 

[mr_phillip]

I've compared the viewfinder of my R2 (the same spec as the R2a) with the 28mm setting on my Jupiter universal finder, and they are almost identical. Provided you don't wear glasses, I reckon you could do without the external finder - although you might find that you're capturing just a little bit more of the scene than you expected.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

Ted,

while a separate viewfinder does add a bit to your camera's profile, I find that it is an invaluable tool for composition.

First question, do you wear glasses? If so, I'd definitely recommend a 28mm vf. It aids in avoiding the hunting around for the framelines, and saves you time as you can use the 28 with pre-focus/hyperfocus distance mode. Working it almost as a point and shoot once you have the meter reading preset. (I'm speaking relative to the 28 framelines on the .72 Leica with glasses on)

Second point. As counter-intuitive as it may sound, focusing and then using a separate viewfinder aids in composition. Not sure why exactly, perhaps others who feel the same can chime in. The separate VF has much less cluttter, and gives better line and geometric relations compared to the camera's VF. Is faster to use (almost like just framing something with your fingers in a rectangular box). There is more space around the framelines in general to relate to your subject, and judge spatial relations. Mainly, it is just simpler and lighter compared to cluttered and darker.

I ended up getting VFs even for focal lengths I don't really need if I just used the camera's in-body framelines (50/35), just because they aid in how I visualize and compose.

good luck

 

[theunconquered]

Those are some points I hadn't considered. It sounds like it would be possible to shoot without it though, so I'd have the option of buying the lens first and the finder a bit later.

thanks for the insight!

 

[tajart]

ext vf

ext vf

i usually don't like using ext viewfinders as it adds to a camera making it bigger. so in years past i would guess and take a little extra from vf to film frame when using a 35mm lens on a IIf, or a 28/3.5 on my m2. it seemed like you could compose by using everything you could see in the vf window. however, recently i picked up the cv 28 finder and like it.

as f_tom brings up: "Second point. As counter-intuitive as it may sound, focusing and then using a separate viewfinder aids in composition." this struck a chord thinking back to many years of using leica thread mount bodies with separate focus and viewfinder windows or even the external variable viewfinders- imarect, vidom, etc. legend has it that hcb rotated his "vidom" so the image was upside down.

 

[Richard Black]

I bought the Color Skopar 28 first and used it on the R exclusively; howevr, I have purchased the 28mm v/f and am glad I did. It gives me options, and I like that.