Rogrund
Antti Sivén
I think you also should consider the Minolta CLE. An excellent camera with 40mm framelines.
To 40mm Nokton users with several bodies
- Thread starter Juan Valdenebro
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 33
- Views 3K
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Any experiences with 40mm Nokton and CL and CLE?
Austerby
Well-known
Well, if you're looking for personal experience, I have used my 40/1.4 on M3, M2, M6tt, lM7, MP and R3A. In my opinion the 40/1.4 and R3a is a great match - the 1:1 viewfinder, size and feel of the combination works well for me. I tend to use 50mms on the Ms in preference but there's no particular reason why. The Ms are much more substantial than the R3a but it's still a very fine camera in its own right. If you have an R4a then you may want to try an M as an alternative - you know already what the Rs are like - which is why I suggested taking the lens and trying it for yourself with different bodies.
As to longevity of the M3: my 1936 Leica IIIa still has a fully working rangefinder and is working perfectly and I don't think it's ever been serviced. A 20 or more years younger M3 has a lot of potential life left in it yet.
As to longevity of the M3: my 1936 Leica IIIa still has a fully working rangefinder and is working perfectly and I don't think it's ever been serviced. A 20 or more years younger M3 has a lot of potential life left in it yet.
hans voralberg
Veteran
I've used the 40 on M3, M6, RD-1, R2M and M8, out of them all I prefer the M6 for the 35mm frameline, the build quality and the overall good look.
mr_phillip
Well-known
I used the Nokton 40 on a CLE for quite a while and it was a match made in heaven. The only (minor) issue was that the optional LH-5 hood blocked the RF window in some positions, so I ditched that and used a smaller screw-in hood instead. The newer LH-6 hood is smaller so might not present that issue anyway.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Austerby&Hans&Phillip: Thanks for the detailed info!
Looks like CL has 40mm lines always visible... I've heard some CLs have problems with meters and slow speeds... Is this common? Or just very few cameras?
I like its size and looks, seems great for the small 40... Are there lots of CL shooters around?
How would you compare shooting through CL, R3 and M3 only in terms of focusing a 40 1.4?
Looks like CL has 40mm lines always visible... I've heard some CLs have problems with meters and slow speeds... Is this common? Or just very few cameras?
I like its size and looks, seems great for the small 40... Are there lots of CL shooters around?
How would you compare shooting through CL, R3 and M3 only in terms of focusing a 40 1.4?
hans voralberg
Veteran
Equally good, all of them are accurate enough for the 40/1.4 EBL wise I think.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I just read Bessa T has 1.5 magnification... Has anyone focused with a Bessa T? Does it look considerably different from R3M's 1:1 viewfinder?
ruby.monkey
Veteran
This gave me cause to chuckle. I love my Nokton, but wide open it's not the prettiest. You're going to have to choose your backgrounds with care.
The Bessa T's rangefinder is for focussing only, similar to the rangefinder on a screw-mount Leica. You'll need an accessory finder for framing.
My recommendation would be to stick with one body for now and save your money until you find that your kit is holding you back. Concentrate on being a photographer rather than a gearhead.
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
ruby.monkey,
I think you haven't seen the point here. The two points.
1. My only rf camera is a wide one used exclusively for the 15mm, so with its wide rf, for a 40 1.4 it's just not the best available camera.
2. Although my R4M can as an emergency hold my nokton, I don't even want to change lenses.
Thanks for your input. Don't judge yourself for buying gear you didn't need, or for not getting from it what you expected... I am buying a camera for my 40. Twenty-five years ago when I had my first Nikon by 12 and learned how to develop and print b&w I used to buy lenses for my cameras. Long ago, very long ago, I buy cameras for my lenses.
Possibly I will go for the Bessa T. Mr. A. says it's a better deal than the CL! Considering once it was THE M mount Bessa, and VC's concentration on great focusing at the point of avoiding viewfinder and offering a 1.5 image, by now it's what I see closer to my desired fast normal companion for my R4M/15mm set.
I think you haven't seen the point here. The two points.
1. My only rf camera is a wide one used exclusively for the 15mm, so with its wide rf, for a 40 1.4 it's just not the best available camera.
2. Although my R4M can as an emergency hold my nokton, I don't even want to change lenses.
Thanks for your input. Don't judge yourself for buying gear you didn't need, or for not getting from it what you expected... I am buying a camera for my 40. Twenty-five years ago when I had my first Nikon by 12 and learned how to develop and print b&w I used to buy lenses for my cameras. Long ago, very long ago, I buy cameras for my lenses.
Possibly I will go for the Bessa T. Mr. A. says it's a better deal than the CL! Considering once it was THE M mount Bessa, and VC's concentration on great focusing at the point of avoiding viewfinder and offering a 1.5 image, by now it's what I see closer to my desired fast normal companion for my R4M/15mm set.
ruby.monkey
Veteran
Well, I too used to buy cameras for my lenses. And then I found that many lenses were left unused because I had too many cameras from which to choose.
I think I would have gone the other way (in fact, I did) and start with the 40mm Nokton on an R3A, swapping in the 15mm whenever I felt the urge to go ultrawide. I did this with the 12mm UWH, which now sits on its own MDa, but I freely admit to succumbing to the temptation of buying far more bodies than I really need.
I think I would have gone the other way (in fact, I did) and start with the 40mm Nokton on an R3A, swapping in the 15mm whenever I felt the urge to go ultrawide. I did this with the 12mm UWH, which now sits on its own MDa, but I freely admit to succumbing to the temptation of buying far more bodies than I really need.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I think two rangefinders (now I own one) is really far away from "too many cameras".
pagpow
Well-known
Juan,
If we go back to your ideal set of specs -- the M3 fits it except for the aperture priority, or any meter at all. On the other hand, your statement of how you shoot suggests you may not need an internal meter at all. The M6 will give you that meter, but not exposure automation.
The M6 and R3 will give you the meter, and the R3, the automation.
So, if you want it all, Voigtlander it is.
OTOH, there is a wonderful feel, to both hand and eye, to an M.
I have not used a CL, though I looked through one when I was much, much younger. It has the advantage of small size and a 40mm frameline, but the RF patch simply did not look as distinct to me as an M3.
If money is no object, and meter is really an option, not a necessity, why not consider getting an M, since you already have an R. That way you can see which one YOUR hand, eye, and style gravitate to -- and if you choose the R, you will not lose much (any?) when you sell the M.
Buena suerte.
If we go back to your ideal set of specs -- the M3 fits it except for the aperture priority, or any meter at all. On the other hand, your statement of how you shoot suggests you may not need an internal meter at all. The M6 will give you that meter, but not exposure automation.
The M6 and R3 will give you the meter, and the R3, the automation.
So, if you want it all, Voigtlander it is.
OTOH, there is a wonderful feel, to both hand and eye, to an M.
I have not used a CL, though I looked through one when I was much, much younger. It has the advantage of small size and a 40mm frameline, but the RF patch simply did not look as distinct to me as an M3.
If money is no object, and meter is really an option, not a necessity, why not consider getting an M, since you already have an R. That way you can see which one YOUR hand, eye, and style gravitate to -- and if you choose the R, you will not lose much (any?) when you sell the M.
Buena suerte.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Thank you, pagpow! Of course I am very tempted... The CL or the M3... They sound to me like a dream! AE is not necessary, sometimes it's not good, it's bad...
But I try to find objections to the Bessa T, and I can't... On the contrary, to my surprise, looks like it's hard to make it better: I imagine myself in the street, shooting usually with the 15mm (R4M), and with my other camera hanging with the 40mm (let's say Bessa T) for nice view and focusing "close-ups", and what I can see from now, is that if because of the scene, or because of a fallen camera, or anything, I lose one of the bodies, ANY of them allow me yet to have a perfect use of BOTH lenses, that's a big thing, AND if besides breaking one of my cameras that day I went out without handheld meter, I would have metering ALWAYS on the surviving camera, AND no matter which one died, I could ALWAYS shoot both lenses without batteries! Wow!
I don't see better options...
But I try to find objections to the Bessa T, and I can't... On the contrary, to my surprise, looks like it's hard to make it better: I imagine myself in the street, shooting usually with the 15mm (R4M), and with my other camera hanging with the 40mm (let's say Bessa T) for nice view and focusing "close-ups", and what I can see from now, is that if because of the scene, or because of a fallen camera, or anything, I lose one of the bodies, ANY of them allow me yet to have a perfect use of BOTH lenses, that's a big thing, AND if besides breaking one of my cameras that day I went out without handheld meter, I would have metering ALWAYS on the surviving camera, AND no matter which one died, I could ALWAYS shoot both lenses without batteries! Wow!
I don't see better options...
Similar threads
