Which body for the 75mm Color Heliar?

[sf]

I consider the possibility of going the 35mm direction for "telephoto" work instead of paying out an arm and a leg for the RF645 100mm lens.

I really like the CV Color Heliar 75mm f/2.5, but am not sure which body would be the best choice. I need something low cost with a long enough RF baselength to accurately focus the lens wide open.

Any ideas?

Would a Bessa R be good enough?

 

[back alley]

the r would be a perfect fit

 

[Todd.Hanz]

M4-P is what I use, the adapter brings up the 50/75mm frame lines...works for me.

Todd

 

[sf]

Not sure if the M4-P fits the low cost factor. . . I'm poor. The only thing I'd spend a pile on dough on would be that miserable 100mm RF645 lens. . .

I think I am going to seriously consider the Bessa R / Color Heliar 75mm kit. It would be nice.

I'm just so used to MF that I get nervous about shooting with 35mm. ANd doubly so with a short as heck baselength. ANd yet more with a long lens.

 

[sf]

How does the 75mm frameline box look in the viewfinder? Is it very small in the Vf of the Bessa R?

 

[sf]

I would still like to hear some more about the Bessa R. I've heard good and bad about it. My main use for the camera will be on the street and open apertures like wide open to f4. Probably never smaller than that. That camera DOES have a very short baselength. . . .the Heliar is 75mm. Will I have trouble with focusing it wide open at a distance of maybe 20 feet?

I am also thinking about the Bessa T since it has a very long baselength . . but is said to be a poor choice for longer lenses. WHy is that?

 

[pvdhaar]

I don't think the T is a bad choice for long lenses. Far from that. The RF magnification is 1.5x and a tremendous help in getting the focus right, even up close. Of course you need an external finder, but the CV75 viewfinder is a 1:1 one, so shows floating frame when you have both eyes open. Another ingredient is an LTM-M adapter.

All in all, I'd say a T would make a perfect package for long lenses. The single caveat being that the price of the components starts to add up a fair bit.

 

[jcline]

Well I have no problem with the 50/2 close up, the few shots I've taken with my jupiter 9 85/2 wide open have been pretty good. The 75mm frame lines are about a quarter of the area of the whole viewfinder. Shouldn't the depth of field on a 75 at f4 be a couple meters? I wouldn't think you'd have a problem.. Just a guess though..

 

[sf]

I don't think the T is a bad choice for long lenses. Far from that. The RF magnification is 1.5x and a tremendous help in getting the focus right, even up close. Of course you need an external finder, but the CV75 viewfinder is a 1:1 one, so shows floating frame when you have both eyes open. Another ingredient is an LTM-M adapter.

All in all, I'd say a T would make a perfect package for long lenses. The single caveat being that the price of the components starts to add up a fair bit.

SO, if the RF mag is 1.5, couldn't I just wing it. I mean, go without the external VF? Maybe not. I need this camera for street work, so it needs to be quick AND accurate. And NOT a Leica, because I don't have the funds. Nor will I ever.

 

[sf]

You know, I think I'll just buy the Bessa R because I want the thing to be a simple camera to use. I don't even use the VF with my RF645 for the 45mm. Never once.

Can someone tell me if it is even reasonable to wing it with the Bessa T + 75mm? I guess it would be a matter of how I wanted to shoot. But I've heard unpleasant things about the VF in the T as well - like it is tunnel-vision and not easy to work with when compared to the R.

 

[pvdhaar]

SO, if the RF mag is 1.5, couldn't I just wing it. I mean, go without the external VF? Maybe not. I need this camera for street work, so it needs to be quick AND accurate. And NOT a Leica, because I don't have the funds. Nor will I ever.

The RF on the Bessa-T has quite a narrow view. Decidedly narrower than the 75, I would guess it's 135-ish. I think it'll take quite some experimentation before you'd intuitively know what you get in the frame from the RF window alone.

 

[sf]

hmm, yeah.

Well, now I'm just thinking more practically, and maybe the best thing would be to just make do with what I have been using.

I can always crop a 35mm sized piece out of the center of my 645 frame using the 65mm on the RF645, and get a sort of long-lens look. By look, I mean, tight. Close composition. The 45 and the 65mm on that camera just make it hard to capture certain moments on the street because you have to be pretty close to the subject in order to fill the frame.

 

[pvdhaar]

Cropping seems like the most sensible approach indeed until you find a 100 at a decent price.

 

[Bertram2]

I consider the possibility of going the 35mm direction for "telephoto" work instead of paying out an arm and a leg for the RF645 100mm lens.

I really like the CV Color Heliar 75mm f/2.5, but am not sure which body would be the best choice. I need something low cost with a long enough RF baselength to accurately focus the lens wide open.

Any ideas?

Would a Bessa R be good enough?

Never had any prob with the 75 on my R.

bertram

 

[sf]

ah, well, I have decided to go the 100mm route.

As disturbing as that may be.

I had decided BEFORE my phone call to the UK just now, that the Bessa R + Heliar set would have been a good choice.

But now the point is moot.

Happily moot.

 

[Doug]

I have used my 75 Heliar on the Bessa-T and Leica M2... The external viewfinder is nice; works fine and I find DoF too shallow for "winging it". Hyperfocal distance at f/16 is about 30 ft, with DoF down to about 20 ft, according the lens scales. Dudak's DoF Calculator page shows f/16 hyperfocal at 46 ft, near side at 23 ft. At f/8 and focused to 20 ft, DoF is from 16 to 25 ft.

But, y'know, the T's RF "effective" baseline may be respectable, but it's still actually rather short. The magnification does not make it equal to a true long baseline of the same "effective" length. The difference is hard to describe, but it boils down to the RF patch moving more, with the long base, in relation to the size of the object focused on. The T's magnification magnifies the object and makes the small proportional movement easier to see, but it doesn't have the snap of a long-baseline RF.

Mating a Bessa R3a to the 75mm (or a 50) should be a great combo. 1:1 magnification with a single frame showing in the combined range/viewfinder, large and up-front!

 

[sf]

I have used my 75 Heliar on the Bessa-T and Leica M2... The external viewfinder is nice; works fine and I find DoF too shallow for "winging it". Hyperfocal distance at f/16 is about 30 ft, with DoF down to about 20 ft, according the lens scales. Dudak's DoF Calculator page shows f/16 hyperfocal at 46 ft, near side at 23 ft. At f/8 and focused to 20 ft, DoF is from 16 to 25 ft.

But, y'know, the T's RF "effective" baseline may be respectable, but it's still actually rather short. The magnification does not make it equal to a true long baseline of the same "effective" length. The difference is hard to describe, but it boils down to the RF patch moving more, with the long base, in relation to the size of the object focused on. The T's magnification magnifies the object and makes the small proportional movement easier to see, but it doesn't have the snap of a long-baseline RF.

Mating a Bessa R3a to the 75mm (or a 50) should be a great combo. 1:1 magnification with a single frame showing in the combined range/viewfinder, large and up-front!

Yeah, I see. The R3A would be my choice And I would "wing it" by shooting using only the T's RF and not the VF - but that is apparently a little too small a window even then.

All this means nothing now, since I have bought the 100mm RF lens from a store in the UK. Now, I have even less money than before. And I didn't have any before.