Zoom finders... Anyone use one regularly?

[physiognomy]

Hi all,

I recently picked myself up an Alpex zoom finder (35-200mm) and was initially surprised by its size... A little bigger than I had imagined! I often use my FSU turret finder (not lilliputian by any standards) so that is not really a big deal. The problem that made me seek out another finder is that my turret is orientated for Kiev/Contax & impedes access to the speed dial on my LTM cameras. I thought having a zoom finder would be the answer to my problem, but now I'm not sure. The following are some of my thoughts & comparisons between the two... Any input from other members would be appreciated.

Size issue already mentioned, but attached is a quick visual comparison between the two finders. Some other notes: The zoom finder is symmetrical with the foot located centrally. It is only about 2/3rds the width of the turret and therefore it doesn't interfere with any of the dials on my LTM cameras.

The view through the zoom finder to my eye is bright & clear and a little brighter than the turret finder. One thing about the zoom finder is that I do miss not being able to see outside the frame like you can on the turret. The magnification is also not as great at the longer end on the zoom, so the overall view is smaller although frame coverage seems to compare well.

I have had some slight paralax issues with the turret finder using the 135mm setting for close portraits, but would like to know whether others using a zoom finder found that this was much of a problem? My zoom finder has a paralax adustment ring that you can set from infinity to 3 feet.

What are others thoughts on these finders?

Thanks,

Peter

 

[Harry Lime]

My personal favorite is the Leica VIOOH finder. It doesn't zoom, but I have
found it to be extremely accurate...

 

[FrankS]

Hi Peter,
I've got a Nikon zoom finder 35-135. Since this type of finder is centrally located and has parallax adjustment, you shouldn't find a large parallax problem with it. I also have a CV brightline 50 finder which is brilliant. The zoom finder is a trade-off for convenience. I'll get a 35mm brightline finder eventually.

 

[pvdhaar]

I've got a 'T.O.C' (whatever that is..) 35-135 zoom finder with parallax adjustment that's as big as a 35mm film canister, and quite a bit heavier. Because of that size and heft, I don't use it very often. It's purpose is mainly to give me the possibility to buy a lens without worrying about a matching finder immediately.

 

[jlw]

I use a Tewe zoom finder occasionally. It's convenient to only have to carry one finder, the body is compact, and the optics are of good quality. A minor drawback is that the frame edge is blurry, not sharply defined (like a turret finder) and of course there's no etched or bright frameline, so exact composition is more of a problem. This is true of most zoom finders I've seen, not just the Tewe. (An exception is the real-image zoom finder built into the Contax G1 and G2, but of course you can't buy the finder separately!)

My biggest gripe about the Tewe, though -- and again, I suspect this would be true of most zoom finders -- is that its round body makes it sit fairly well up from the accessory shoe. This puts the eyepiece some distance from the camera top, and the result is that unless I'm careful, when I put my eye to the finder, the end of my nose goes right into the camera eyepiece and puts a big juicy greasy nose-print on it! Of course if your face is proportioned differently, you may not have this problem, but it's the main reason I don't use the Tewe more often.

 

[Dougg]

...A minor drawback is that the frame edge is blurry, not sharply defined (like a turret finder) and of course there's no etched or bright frameline, so exact composition is more of a problem. This is true of most zoom finders I've seen, not just the Tewe. (An exception is the real-image zoom finder built into the Contax G1 and G2, but of course you can't buy the finder separately!)

Referring to the blurry edges? True, the Contax does avoid that (and attempts automatic parallax compensation) but still has no projected framelines. I suppose that would require even lower finder magnification...

 

[physiognomy]

Thanks for your input guys... I really appreciate it!

FrankS - "The zoom finder is a trade-off for convenience."

I see that now... At first I thought it would be a complete fix to my needs, but I really do prefer to mount a single compact finder. I've heard great things about the CV finders... I wish there was a camera store around here that stocked them so I could take a look for myself.

pvdhaar - "It's purpose is mainly to give me the possibility to buy a lens without worrying about a matching finder immediately."

Following on - I don't have individual finders for all of my lenses & the ones I might get in the future, so I was partly thinking the same thing Peter. It might become my stand-in when needed.

jlw - "My biggest gripe about the Tewe, though -- and again, I suspect this would be true of most zoom finders -- is that its round body makes it sit fairly well up from the accessory shoe. This puts the eyepiece some distance from the camera top"

To be honest I haven't tried it out enough actually mounted on a camera to find out... Thanks for the heads up... I'll give it a try on a few cameras & see if I have the same problem.

Cheers!

Peter

 

[payasam]

The height of the accessory shoe above the centre of the lens mount differs from one camera to another. This means that the angular deviation of the same finder when mounted on different cameras will be different if it is to correctly compensate for parallax: that is, the distances marked on the finder will not necessarily be correct. You'll need to fire off test frames at different settings and distances, keeping notes, before you get things right. Since the VIOOH was designed for the screw Leica, there's no such problem there. Same story with the original Zeiss turret finder for the Contax. Mix and match is where care is needed.

 

[Socke]

Since parallax has been mentioned, how does that work with different cameras? Say a Kiev (or Contax) with and without a built in meter).

 

[Nando]

I got a VIOOH with my 135/4,5 Hektor. Both were in pristine condition. I like it very much but I find that my example crops way too much at the 135mm setting. After some experimentation, I found that I must turn setting ring so its set about 2mm to the left of the 135mm marking for the cropping to be correct. I find that the parallax correction is quite accurate on my Bessa-T. I only use the VIOOH for the 135 Hektor since I have dedicated finders for the rest of my lenses. It did come in handy one time when I kept switching between 35, 50, and 135mm lenses often at a car-show.

A few days ago I was looking for the dedicated Leitz SHOOC finder for 135mm when I stumbled upon a TEWE 35-200mm zoom finder on ebay. It looked like it was in very nice condition and the price was attractive so with a mad rush of GAS, I got it. It'll be interesting to compare the TEWE the the VIOOH.

I must say that I prefer dedicated vf's on my Bessa-T. They are very small and light and the Voigtlanders that I have are very bright. At the beginning I sometimes forgot to consider the parallax error and ended up with a few bad photos on every roll because of it. I smartend up though and now I rarely make that mistake. I'll still be looking for a nice Leitz 135mm finder at a good price.

 

[BillBingham2]

I found a Kodak viewfinder that is 35/80 that worked great on my Kievs and works great on my S2. I have troubles with the shutter speed dial on my Bessa Ts and so can not use it there. I think a slight extension would allow it to work well. Have not tried it on my FED2, but should. It is a fine little finder and hits the focal lengths I use when I carry a two lens kit.

They usually go for about $30 on ebay and come by often.

B2 (;->

 

[pvdhaar]

The height of the accessory shoe above the centre of the lens mount differs from one camera to another. This means that the angular deviation of the same finder when mounted on different cameras will be different if it is to correctly compensate for parallax: that is, the distances marked on the finder will not necessarily be correct. You'll need to fire off test frames at different settings and distances, keeping notes, before you get things right. Since the VIOOH was designed for the screw Leica, there's no such problem there. Same story with the original Zeiss turret finder for the Contax. Mix and match is where care is needed.

The frameline accuracy isn't 100% even for RF built-in brightlines. The difficulty with some zoom finders is that they frame by masking; at least mine does. This means you can't see outside the frame. So you're right that some test pictures may be required..

 

[payasam]

Fernando, I had spoken only of parallax; but you have added area. Moral? Before buying a pair of trousers, the waist must be measured both in inches and in centimetres.

Peter, inaccuracy is inaccuracy, whether or not you can see outside the frame. You're right about RF frame lines being off, of course. The M3 is famous for its accuracy, and mine never gave trouble: but then I did no slide duplicating and such-like work with it. We must also remember that although the inherent design of the SLR is such that it can have a finder close to 100 per cent accurate (the Canon F1 and the Nikon F come close), several SLRs are more like 85 per cent, and the view in many is not even centred.

 

[Nando]

I got my TEWE 35-200 Zoom-finder in the mail today all the way from Australia. The image is nice and bright. The optics are much better than my VIOOH Imarect finder. The settings that I tried on the TEWE matches my various Voigtlander viewfinders. It seems quite accurate in that regard.

I can see the issue of the 'fuzzy framelines' as mentioned above. The more you zoom, the fuzzier they get. I don't know if it will bother me or not. One thing that will probably bother me is the parallel correction lever on the side. For one thing, I must turn the camera to see if it the lever is lined up with the markings. Anther thing is that spacing between the 1, 2, 5 metre markings and infinity is small. I can see that my Leitz VIOOH will probably be more accurate when it comes to parallax error adjustment. It also sticks out a bit from the body towards me. I afraid that is probably going to get full of forehead grease.