rbsinto
Well-known
I just received the Magnon varifocal finder (which is a knockoff of one of the Nikkor finders) which I won on ebay, and while fooling around with it last night realized that one could use it quite easily with a zoom lens, if such a thing existed for rangefinder cameras.
So, did Nikon (or anyone else for that matter) ever make zoom lenses that could be used on Nikon rangefinders?
Please and thank you.
So, did Nikon (or anyone else for that matter) ever make zoom lenses that could be used on Nikon rangefinders?
Please and thank you.
rbsinto
Well-known
Hmmmm.....lemme think about it, and I'll get back to you..
Joerg
Dilettant
Hi,
exactly my thought, just not nikon.
I got a C/Y to M mount adapter , a 35-200 zoomfinder and now my 80-200 Zeiss C/Y mount SLR zoom will fit my M cameras ;-)
Ciao
joerg
exactly my thought, just not nikon.
I got a C/Y to M mount adapter , a 35-200 zoomfinder and now my 80-200 Zeiss C/Y mount SLR zoom will fit my M cameras ;-)
Ciao
joerg
rbsinto
Well-known
Oh Jeez!
I think I pulled a muscle from laughing so hard! You guys kill me!
Ok. Now that I've wiped the tears from my eyes, is there anyone who can answer my original question?
Were zoom lens ever produced for rangefinder cameras, and more specifically Nikon rangefinders?
I think I pulled a muscle from laughing so hard! You guys kill me!
Ok. Now that I've wiped the tears from my eyes, is there anyone who can answer my original question?
Were zoom lens ever produced for rangefinder cameras, and more specifically Nikon rangefinders?
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
rbsinto said:
No.
See, that's true, but it wasn't nearly as much fun, was it?
Yeah, okay, the Tri-Elmar is technically a zoom lens, and Konica also made a similar multi-lens for the Hexar RF. But for Nikons, no. Nikon was out of the RF ballgame long before it would have been technically feasible to make such a thing for an RF camera.
if I recall correctly,
Olden Camera in NY once advertised a 85-250 zoom Nikkor in NRF mount in the 70's
it was probably just a mistake in the ad
but maybe a few samples were made for the Nikon reflex housing ?
hmm.
Stephen
Olden Camera in NY once advertised a 85-250 zoom Nikkor in NRF mount in the 70's
it was probably just a mistake in the ad
but maybe a few samples were made for the Nikon reflex housing ?
hmm.
Stephen
ZeissFan
Veteran
The action of zooming and focusing with a rangefinder poses several technical hurdles:
-- For a continuous zoom, you would need a way to change the frameline, possibly in major steps (28-35-40-50-60-75-90, for example) or a way to change them so that they represent the actual focal length. With different cameras (often from the same maker) displaying different framelines, the best you could hope for would be an approximate frameline. And that means that composing your photo with any precision wouldn't be possible.
The second method would require a re-thinking of how framelines are currently displayed. Not impossible but it would certainly need a different way than what is in use today. I think this would make it impossible to use this lens on an older camera, and the cost of retrofitting an older viewfinder with a new one might be cost prohibitive.
The framelines for a 200mm lens (a common focal length for the 28-200 and 70-210 zooms on the market) would be the same size as the rangefinder patch and possibly smaller.
You could avoid all of this by using a reflex housing with a rangefinder. But then you simply have a clunky SLR. So why bother?
-- The next decision is whether to use a one-touch zoom (zoom and focus are the same ring) or a two-touch zoom (zoom is controlled by one ring and focus by another). For the photographer, zooming and focusing -- particularly on the long end -- will be more difficult than when using an SLR. Add in a digital crop, and soon you face a real challenge for focusing accurately. An SLR is much easier with a zoom, because you can see what's in focus and what's not. While it's also true with a rangefinder, the experience is different, and minor calibration issues can become much bigger problems in the final image. As well, camera shake that isn't as apparent with a rangefinder when using long lenses is much more apparent when seen through an SLR. I can't see any zoom lens for a rangefinder going beyond 135mm because of problems with focusing, camera shake and framelines.
-- Next, the company wants to make a profit. As with most of these "why don't they make" queries, what's possible, what's practical and what's profitable don't always end up on the same page. As Leica has learned, catering to a small but vocal group of users/complainers doesn't ensure profitability. You would have to allot money for research & development, as well as marketing. And then sales would have to recoup these costs, plus profit, so the price for a limited-production product serving a niche market probably would need to be much higher -- sharply higher -- than what most people expect to pay for a zoom lens.
-- There also is the mindset of rangefinder users who don't want a zoom because it's generally accepted that single focal length lenses are much better performers in terms of sharpness and distortion.
-- The SLR is ideally designed for a zoom lens, especially a continuous zoom lens. I can see no situation in which we'll ever see a range of zoom lenses for rangefinders. It's not impossible ... there is very little that isn't possible. But from a company's standpoint, it's probably not practical or profitable.
Short version: I'm not holding my breath waiting for such a lens. I'll use an SLR instead. Even so, it's nice to dream about such things!
-- For a continuous zoom, you would need a way to change the frameline, possibly in major steps (28-35-40-50-60-75-90, for example) or a way to change them so that they represent the actual focal length. With different cameras (often from the same maker) displaying different framelines, the best you could hope for would be an approximate frameline. And that means that composing your photo with any precision wouldn't be possible.
The second method would require a re-thinking of how framelines are currently displayed. Not impossible but it would certainly need a different way than what is in use today. I think this would make it impossible to use this lens on an older camera, and the cost of retrofitting an older viewfinder with a new one might be cost prohibitive.
The framelines for a 200mm lens (a common focal length for the 28-200 and 70-210 zooms on the market) would be the same size as the rangefinder patch and possibly smaller.
You could avoid all of this by using a reflex housing with a rangefinder. But then you simply have a clunky SLR. So why bother?
-- The next decision is whether to use a one-touch zoom (zoom and focus are the same ring) or a two-touch zoom (zoom is controlled by one ring and focus by another). For the photographer, zooming and focusing -- particularly on the long end -- will be more difficult than when using an SLR. Add in a digital crop, and soon you face a real challenge for focusing accurately. An SLR is much easier with a zoom, because you can see what's in focus and what's not. While it's also true with a rangefinder, the experience is different, and minor calibration issues can become much bigger problems in the final image. As well, camera shake that isn't as apparent with a rangefinder when using long lenses is much more apparent when seen through an SLR. I can't see any zoom lens for a rangefinder going beyond 135mm because of problems with focusing, camera shake and framelines.
-- Next, the company wants to make a profit. As with most of these "why don't they make" queries, what's possible, what's practical and what's profitable don't always end up on the same page. As Leica has learned, catering to a small but vocal group of users/complainers doesn't ensure profitability. You would have to allot money for research & development, as well as marketing. And then sales would have to recoup these costs, plus profit, so the price for a limited-production product serving a niche market probably would need to be much higher -- sharply higher -- than what most people expect to pay for a zoom lens.
-- There also is the mindset of rangefinder users who don't want a zoom because it's generally accepted that single focal length lenses are much better performers in terms of sharpness and distortion.
-- The SLR is ideally designed for a zoom lens, especially a continuous zoom lens. I can see no situation in which we'll ever see a range of zoom lenses for rangefinders. It's not impossible ... there is very little that isn't possible. But from a company's standpoint, it's probably not practical or profitable.
Short version: I'm not holding my breath waiting for such a lens. I'll use an SLR instead. Even so, it's nice to dream about such things!
Last edited:
rbsinto
Well-known
Thanks for the replies.
A zoom lens for rangefinders is not something I was dreaming or wishing for. I was merely wondering if they had ever been made, based on my observation that I can "zoom" with my varifocal finder. Nothing more. I've got four SLR zooms that take care of everything from 12 to 200 mm, so I certainly don't need any for my rangefainder.
A zoom lens for rangefinders is not something I was dreaming or wishing for. I was merely wondering if they had ever been made, based on my observation that I can "zoom" with my varifocal finder. Nothing more. I've got four SLR zooms that take care of everything from 12 to 200 mm, so I certainly don't need any for my rangefainder.
rbsinto
Well-known
Fred,
Thanks. I saw them.
Thanks. I saw them.
oftheherd
Veteran
ZeissFan - While I think a zoom for rangefinders is sort of a contradiction in terms, zoom frame lines shouldn't be too hard. It's done all the time in P&S cameras. The coupling for lenses of various zoom focal lengths might be a challenge, but shouldn't be impossible either.
rbsinto
Well-known
Unless I'm missing something, I don't see the problem as being all that great.
Again, based on my observation that you can "zoom" with a varifocal finder, if you did have a zoom lens, why then couldn't you first zoom the finder to get a field of view that you liked, and then zoom the lens to that (approximate) focal length to take the shot.
This would work if the finder and the lens each had an identical series of focal lengths marked on them. I don't think the viewfinder of the camera itself would even matter, other than to focus.
Practice would then make the user proficient.
It's not something I want or need, but it's just an interesting question to discuss.
Again, based on my observation that you can "zoom" with a varifocal finder, if you did have a zoom lens, why then couldn't you first zoom the finder to get a field of view that you liked, and then zoom the lens to that (approximate) focal length to take the shot.
This would work if the finder and the lens each had an identical series of focal lengths marked on them. I don't think the viewfinder of the camera itself would even matter, other than to focus.
Practice would then make the user proficient.
It's not something I want or need, but it's just an interesting question to discuss.