why NOT ZOOM?

[Sonnar Brian]

> But who would complain if the VF of an RF shows exactly the lens coverage?

I find the VF taking in more than the lens coverage allows much easier composing. Otherwise I end up looking away from the finder, positioning the camera, then viewing.

> Something I've wondered about... I do know that some of the Canon LTM rangefinders have variable mag for the VF... I believe it's 50/100/135.

The V series (Vt, Vt Deluxe,L1, L2, L3) and VI-L and VI-T have selectable eyepieces for 35, 50, and "135". The latter is billed as "magnify" for fine focus more than framing. The image is circular, but does correspond well to the 135 lens.

 

[Bertram2]

Sorry, I thought it would be clear I was only talking about my own gear, not in general.
The only zoom I own is the one that came with my Eos 300 kit..
Wim

O.K, but now i STILL don't know which one it is ?? 😀
My assumption is something like a 4-5,6 / 28-100 or so ?If so, that does not mean anyhing per se. My wife got such a zoom with her Dynayy5 and it produces stunning results !
Concerning your samples, IF the prints really look like the scans , then the lens is not bad, is has some kinda technical probs. ?

bertram

 

[payasam]

Basic considerations about zooms have changed little since the first, which I think was the Schneider Variogon. Keeping aberrations under control, given a variable focal length, cannot but increase optical complexity. More elements mean more bulk, more weight and more internal reflections. If weight and bulk are kept down, strength is lost. The net effect of these on maximum aperture and optical performance and longevity do not need to be stressed. Certainly there has been much improvement in zoom lenses since the mid 1970s or so: but it is just as certain that both resolution and contrast are better in lenses of fixed focal length. Against this, one must weigh flexibility and convenience. Zooming in or out is many times faster than constantly switching lenses.

If zoom lenses are complex, it follows that zoom viewfinders must also be complex, though not to the same degree. The 35mm rangefinder body may not have the space for such a finder, if the finder is to be bright and accurate (framing as well as focussing) and corrected for parallax. Most digicams have optical finders, but they are wildly inaccurate compared with the finders of SLRs or even those of M Leicas.

 

[Doug]

To be truly a "zoom" the lens has to maintain focus throughout its focal length range; some early "varifocals" did not. Wasn't the first zoom the Voigtlander Zoomar? As I recall, back in the 60's, the zoom lens was regarded as a "gimmick" lens like a fisheye, mainly intended or used anyway for zoom effects during the exposure to draw the eye to the central subject. Obviously a very specialized usage, and the zooms were just not good enough then to serve as they do today as an everyday lens of variable focal length. Maybe I haven't been looking in the right places, but it's been a long long time since I've seen a zoom-during-exposure photo.

 

[vincentbenoit]

To be truly a "zoom" the lens has to maintain focus throughout its focal length range; some early "varifocals" did not.

I thought this property was called "parfocality"; as far as I know not all of the modern zoom lenses are perfectly parfocal, although most come close.

 

[Doug]

I thought this property was called "parfocality"; as far as I know not all of the modern zoom lenses are perfectly parfocal, although most come close.

I think you're right, especially for those with Auto Focus, which would seem to relieve the lens designers from this attribute that is so desired for manual focus. The user zooms, the AF adjusts focus as necessary...

 

[Kin Lau]

My assumption is something like a 4-5,6 / 28-100 or so ?If so, that does not mean anyhing per se. My wife got such a zoom with her Dynayy5 and it produces stunning results !

Minolta made some of the best consumer zooms. The 35-70, 28-85 are very well rated short zooms, and were available in MD & AF mounts. The 35-70 was re-branded by Leica, as were a few other Minolta zooms. The 28-85 was tested by Rokkorfiles to be almost as good as the equivilent primes.

 

[mac_wt]

O.K, but now i STILL don't know which one it is ?? 😀
My assumption is something like a 4-5,6 / 28-100 or so ?If so, that does not mean anyhing per se. My wife got such a zoom with her Dynayy5 and it produces stunning results !
Concerning your samples, IF the prints really look like the scans , then the lens is not bad, is has some kinda technical probs. ?

bertram

It's marked: "Canon zoom lens EF 28-80 1:3.5-5.6 II". The sales guy who sold the kit to me, told me it would be best to put a filter on it. So he sold me a real B+W filter for it. It's almost as heavy as the the lens itself. 😀

Small prints look OK and at the time I was happy with it, but I didn't use it as often as I had intended to. It's just now that I'm scanning my negatives, that I see that shots produced by my prime LTM and and M lenses look a lot better.

Again: this is a really low end lens. I'm sure there are a lot better zoom lenses out there. It's my own ignorance that made me buy this one. Never trust a sales person if you're looking for objective information. Inform yourself before buying, if possible test before buying. You allways get what you pay for (certainly when you buy new). Those are good lessons I learned.

Wim

 

[payasam]

Couple of small nits to pick, Brian. Having used TLRs and now using both SLRs and a range-finder, I cannot understand the fuss about being able to see what is just outside the frame-lines. It helps, I agree, but is it so difficult to move the camera about this way and that a little, or else keep the other eye open too? It is wrong to speak of three eye-pieces on a Canon VT Deluxe. You looked into a single one, which could be set to 35 or 50 or "RF" (at least on the one I had). The last did come close to a 135mm, but at near distances the parallax threw it way off. When using a 35 or a 50 too, parallax had to be accounted for: and there were no marks to help.

 

[Bertram2]

It's marked: "Canon zoom lens EF 28-80 1:3.5-5.6 II". The sales guy who sold the kit to me, told me it would be best to put a filter on it. So he sold me a real B+W filter for it. It's almost as heavy as the the lens itself. 😀

Wim

Uhh, first of all I'd put the filter off ! 🙂 Then I'd put it on a tripod and shoot it for a test over all f- stops with slide film. With those slides you would have a reliable information about what it is capable for.
"Low end" are these $80 lenses undoubtedly, and I don't know if Canon differs seriously from Minolta here , I myself tho was really surprised or even stunned sometimes what results that small and light plastic thingy could achieve within the limits of it's design.

bertram

 

[Bertram2]

Having used TLRs and now using both SLRs and a range-finder, I cannot understand the fuss about being able to see what is just outside the frame-lines. .

The so called "tunnel view" of an SLR , about which many passionated RF shooters often complain had never been an issue for me either.
And especially the zoom helps me to find the right fine tuning for the crop which is a must for slides and makes the later cropping of prints often obsolete.
When it comes to composing the VF with brightlines needs a long learning curve,
it is so much more difficult to see if you got it all balanced or if you framed any nonsense composition. The SLR or TLR gives me an intuitive impression if this is a photo or crap, I don't have to check the details of the composition.
To isolate and judge the inner content from what is outside of the framelines is still not easy for me, and after a while of shooting SLR I always have to learn it new.

In general I think one takes best what one likes best, I don't let me talk into any
direction, my own perception solely decides.
Too often I've seen true priests of the RF community switching partly or even completely to SLR or TLR quick and unexpectedly , working now exactly with those tools which they considered to be useless a year ago. 😉 And they seem to be happy nonetheless ! 🙂

Many people always want to be at home on one side , they need clear and simple commitments to feel sure . That does not make any sense tho in photography, polygamy is allowed here, so let's enjoy it !

bertram

 

[payasam]

There's more than one consideration here, Bertram. With slides, as you say, finder accuracy is a must. In general, range-finder cameras tend to be inaccurate: my M3 was good, but far from perfect. Then again, there are variations even between SLRs. For example, my manual Canons' finders are something like 94 or 96 per cent accurate, and I had trouble using my girl friend's Pentax at the beginning of the 1980s. Now that I use C41 almost exclusively, for reasons of convenience, the prints I get are made on automatic machines which crop all four sides, often snipping ears and amputating feet because of tight framing. In the early 1960s we used Rollei TLRs, and the 6 by 6 negatives permitted cropping. Indeed, cropping was necessary unless one actually wanted square prints. With the 35mm film of the time -- even Adox KB14 developed in Promicrol -- we had to be downright stingy about negative area, since cropping meant greater enlargement, which meant more grain. My little digital, a 4-megapixel Canon A80, has been driving me round the bend. Its LCD is dead accurate, but I simply cannot hold a camera steady at 1/8th or 1/4th of a second except at eye level -- and the optical finder is something close to a fairy tale, wildly inaccurate and designed by someone who cannot have heard of parallax.

Brian, I came across a post you made a long while back about a Steinheil 85/2.8. I wonder if you'd care to tell me how the lens worked out. I recently got one of those for use with a IIIc, but the camera will not come back for a couple of weeks after a CLA. I only want to know what I should expect, plus any tricks that you might have discovered or developed.

 

[Bertram2]

my manual Canons' finders are something like 94 or 96 per cent accurate, and I had trouble using my girl friend's Pentax at the beginning of the 1980s. Now that I use C41 almost exclusively, for reasons of convenience, the prints I get are made on automatic machines which crop all four sides, often snipping ears and amputating feet because of tight framing..

IMHO I general the finder is the most important part of a camera, it is the interface connecting man and machine. And I agree , the 95% coverage of the prosumer SLR is annoying. But $1000 plus just to get the left 5% is even more annoying for me tho 5% is quite a difference, comparable to the step from 50mm to 40mm fl.

Some say those 5% you miss are cut anyway by the lab or the slide frame but that is of course thought a bit too "practical" 😉

bertram

 

[payasam]

I meant, Bertram, that 95 per cent or so is quite all right, but 85 or 90 per cent can be a disaster. A slide mount does cut off a tiny bit, after all.

Doug, I did a spot of time wasting Guinness Book sort of work, devil knows why. The first regular production zoom for a 35mm still camera was the Zoomar, as you say. It was a 36-82/2.8, made not by Voigtlander but by Kilfitt of Munich, first for the Voigtlander Bessamatic and in other mounts almost immediately afterwards. In the same year, 1959, Schneider came out with their Variogon, a 10-40/2.8 for 8mm. Their Variogon 80-240/4 for 35mm followed five years later.

 

[Doug]

Thanks! That's interesting that the lens was actually made by Kilfitt, and I didn't know about the other mounts.

 

[payasam]

Doug, the first Zoomar *was* in a Voigtlander mount, which foxed you; and in the same year Schneider *did* make the first Variogon, which foxed me. I fear the hounds are baying.