What happens after the 90mm?

[Digitalmarc]

I bought my first rangefinder, the Bess R3a,a in June with the Nokton f/1.4.
I've been using it quite a lot in the short time I've had it.
Happy with the results that I've been getting from it, I went ahead and bought a 90mm tele-emerit f/2.8.
That comes in the mail soon. I bought it cause I have the lines in my viewfinder for it...

But what happens when I want the 135mm lens? or even longer ranges? what happens? do they come with the lines themselves? can I not use them?

Thanks for your time
-Marc

 

[peterc]

To use a 135mm you either have to guess or get a finder that fits in the accessory shoe.
Longer than 135mm is not really recommended on an RF.

Peter

 

[back alley]

you can buy seperate viewfinders that fit into the hot shoe of the camera.
you focus normally and then move your eye to the external finder to compose the shot.
the bessa has a short base length so focus is trickier with a longer lens.
many move to slr cams for the long lenses.

 

[mc_vancouver]

I would not go beyond 90 or 100mm on the bessa. The rangefinder camera really shines in the wider lenses, shooting in available light. And I just got an R3M and one thing I have found with it is the exposure readout in the bottom of the viewfinder is really tricky if not impossible to see in daylight, against brightly lit subjects. Indoors, or in shadows, its fine. The 1:1 viewfinder is so unusual I'm not sure if I like it or not, but I hve tried keeping my left eye open while shooting to see what's on the fringe, at least to the left, of what I'm shooting. It's kinda neat.

 

[JohnM]

The honest answer is - using a 135 on a rangefinder is just not a lot of fun. The M3 is about as good as it gets with the 135 and even that isn't a great experience.

The framelines are tiny and the camera balances with that lens as if someone discovered how to graft a zucchini onto the front of it.

If you want to regularly use a 135 or longer, an SLR is probably the better choice for it.

 

[wlewisiii]

I'll speak up in favor of the 135. I use a Canon 135/3.5 with external finder on a CL semi-regularly. This is a camera with an even shorted baseline than the Bessas. I don't have much trouble focusing it, but then I play to it's strengths - distance & daylight.

The thing to remember is that distance and stopped down help a lot in focusing them and an external finder is much easier to use with it for framing than any built in frame line I've tried.

Yes, it can be long and awkward. But a good example can be much fun to use. An example using it is here: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=35314&cat=6037

Hope this helps,

William

 

[Digitalmarc]

Thanks for all your feedback. Its much appreciated.
I started using my new rangefinder over my SLR because the results I've been getting from my rangefinder are just amazing! I don't wanna touch my film SLR anymore. The photos from my rangefinder look like they're alive, full of life, like things are happening.
Like for example, these two:
Fluffy
Dan's Hug
I am absolutely in love with these photos

I have over 30k digital images on my hard drive. like 500-700 of them being scanned film. The scanned film photos are better than any of my digital photos!
So just trying to expand that range, I bought the 90mm, and hopefully a 135mm if I can get it to work on this bessa body.

Digital for SLR
Rangefinder for Film

Thanks again
-Marc

 

[payasam]

If I were you, Marc, I wouldn't blow away SLRs because RFs are such a joy. As others have said, SLRs are the best with longer lenses; and I'll add that they are the obvious choice for close-up and macro and a whole lot of other kinds of work which can be done with RFs but not nearly so easily. As one Chas. Darwin is believed to have said, every track needs a different kind of greyhound. Some need whippets.

 

[sleepyhead]

Perhaps nothing ought to happen, except contentment and enjoyment with what you've got.

 

[VinceC]

I'll also defend the 135mm lenses. You're using a camera with a 1:1 viewfinder, which makes it surprisingly easy to see the field of view of a 135mm lens, compared with almost all other RF cameras (even the M3 reduces image size by nearly 10 percent).

The advantage of a 135mm lens is that, by using it, you CAN adequately use an RF camera instead of an SLR, because the 135 can do the work of a long telephoto ... crop and use half the frame with fine-grain film, and you've got the near equivalent of a 300mm f/3.5 in a very small, lightweight package. The 135mm lens is where long telephoto effects start to come into play, where you isolate the subject from the background. It's also where compression really starts to come into play, rendering distant scenes in a two-dimensional way reminiscent of classic paintings. It can also cover sports at the amateur level if you're allowed onto the sidelines of the field.

I wouldn't worry too much about frame-lines. Just shoot "loose." If you keep the RF patch over the subject, you'll catch it on film, and you can crop a bit to render pleasing compositions (and effectively lengthen the lens to 180 or 200mm). The best way to get a sense of composition with the 135 is to use one of your SLRs and either prime lenses or a zoom to compare the two focal lengths. Put the 135mm lens or zoom onto the SLR. Sit on a chair or couch where your head isn't going to move appreciably. Sight on a book case or some such thing using the SLR. Then put down the SLR and sight through the RF set to 90mm. Using the RF patch and 90mm frame lines, you should very quickly be able to get a sense of how much of the frame area the 135mm lens covers.

One other reason why I find it very easy to frame a 135mm lens when using a camera with a 1:1 viewfinder -- One of my photography books from the 1950s says that the human eye really sees a sharp field of view very close to that seen by the 135mm lens. If you just stare at something, without moving your eyes, there's only a small central part that's in focus and clear ... and that's very close to the field of view of a 135mm lens. When we look at an entire field of view in front of us, we're moving our eyes and sweeping them around to take it all in. The 1:1 viewfinder preserves this effect, so that I find it very natural to isolate images with the 135mm lens.

 

[Captain]

William, what 135mm finder do you use with your CL? I have found that when I use this combinaton the finder is meant for Leica or Canon with the shoe skewed to one side which makes framing aukward?

 

[JimG]

I have the latest Elmarit 135 which is as easy to use and gives as good results as any modern Leica lens. I also have an older 135 LTM lens which I agree is harder to focus. JimG

 

[wlewisiii]

I use a canon finder. It's a nice black one, in it's own plastic bubble. Works a treat for me.

William

 

[VinceC]

JimG also showed a wonderful use of the 135mm lens ... Isolating details.

 

[dadsm3]

I've found the Elmar F4 to be a far better lens than the F4.5 Hektor, but you can get a nice Hektor on epay for under a $100, while the Elmar's are usually $150 up.....both are fine on an M3 but very difficult with a .72 M6.

 

[Grober]

Buy the 25mm Biogon AND the Zeiss viewfinder, even though the latter is expensive. You will treasure and enjoy boht items.

(I owned, used and loved my 135mm Tele-Elmar on several Leica bodies. I could not imagine using any 135 with an accessory viewfinder: too difficult to accurately frame the photo, IMHO.)