Are you able to consistently nail focus your subject's eyes at F2.8 on a rangefinder with a 50mm lens?

[Certain Exposures]

Title. By consistent I mean 3/3 shots would all be tack sharp.

I assume that most accept the tradeoff of focus accuracy at F2.8 and lower for the shorter focus throw from close up to infinity and the more discrete shutter sound.

 

[GregY]

Easily....every time!

 

[Certain Exposures]

Easily....every time!

Oh, great! Which rangefinder do you use? What is your technique? What about at F2.0?

I should clarify that I wonder who is able to achieve this while doing candid, available light, full frame photography out and about. Not in a controlled studio setting with lights.

 

[Petrochemist]

I seem to be able to mess-up focus with autofocus lenses surprisingly often

 

[brian steinberger]

It’s easy for me too, as long as they’re not moving around. I would think if your RF is calibrated properly to your lens and your eyesight is good it shouldn’t be a problem for most. As I get older, I find rangefinders easier to focus than manual focus SLR lenses.

 

[snusmumriken]

Obviously it depends how close you are: closer is more difficult because either you or the subject may sway out of acceptable focus. In general, I would say that eyes are pretty easy to focus, compared with - say - animal fur or receding lines.

What’s behind your question? Are you struggling with this problem, or just wanting a rangefinder vs slr comparison?

 

[GregY]

Oh, great! Which rangefinder do you use? What is your technique? What about at F2.0?

I should clarify that I wonder who is able to achieve this while doing candid, available light, full frame photography out and about. Not in a controlled studio setting with lights.

I've owned a bunch of Leicas from M2,3,4,5,CL,6,MP as well as 6x9 Fujis (with 3.5 lenses) & Mamiya 6 MF....
Yes even at f2.... Technique? hold the camera steady...use the rangefinder as designed....no magic to it.

 

[thinkbrown]

I can do this on a 100mm f2.8 medium format lens without a tripod, but the subject needs to be still and I had to calibrate my lens to the body it's on.

 

[BrianShaw]

What’s behind your question? Are you struggling with this problem, or just wanting a rangefinder vs slr comparison?

In both cases, it's the same for me. Especially since none of the rangefinder cameras I know of focus through the lens, so focal length and aperture are somewhat irelevant. The question might better have been asked, "

Are you able to consistently nail focus your subject's eyes at F2.8 on a rangefinder with a 50mm lens?"​

 

[Lachlan Young]

Yes. Even with a 50mm Zeiss Opton Sonnar on a Nikon RF at 1m without recollimating the Zeiss. You just need to know where the focus shift will go.

 

[cliveh]

Are you able to consistently nail focus your subject's eyes at F2.8 on a rangefinder with a 50mm lens?​

Why would you not be able to do this?

 

[wiltw]

Are you able to consistently nail focus your subject's eyes at F2.8 on a rangefinder with a 50mm lens?​

Why would you not be able to do this?

Yes, wondering what the issue would be...Even at 60" subject distance, with 135 format 50mm f/28, the more-exacting DOF perception of a person with 20/20 vision is 2.2"

Focus error due to rangefinder mechnism not in calibration?! or...

 

[Paul Howell]

I can with both my Argus C3 with 50 3.5 and C4 with 2.8. the C3 with the separate magnified rangfinder window is always spot on. The C4 had a combined window, still never had a issue. These are fixed lens, still when I had a Leica IIIG and Canon 7S, always spot on focus.

 

[Certain Exposures]

In both cases, it's the same for me. Especially since none of the rangefinder cameras I know of focus through the lens, so focal length and aperture are somewhat irelevant. The question might better have been asked, "

Are you able to consistently nail focus your subject's eyes at F2.8 on a rangefinder with a 50mm lens?"​

I can do this using a 35mm SLR. I have not been able to do it reliably with a rangefinder that was professionally calibrated. I have not seen many examples of razor sharp eyes in 50mm portraits with significant background blur (suggesting F2.8 or lower) on a rangefinder either.

I assumed that a rangefinder is just a poor tool for this task. I also assumed this is why 28mm or wider and zone focusing are so popular on rangefinders.

Do any of you have great examples? Or a recommendation for a large photobook with images like this?

 

[Certain Exposures]

Obviously it depends how close you are: closer is more difficult because either you or the subject may sway out of acceptable focus. In general, I would say that eyes are pretty easy to focus, compared with - say - animal fur or receding lines.

What’s behind your question? Are you struggling with this problem, or just wanting a rangefinder vs slr comparison?

I was struggling with this problem until I came to conclusion (an incorrect one judging by these comments) that the rangefinder design is a poor fit for this style of photography and switched my approach. I wanted to check if I was mistaken.

 

[GregY]

I was struggling with this problem until I came to conclusion (an incorrect one judging by these comments) that the rangefinder design is a poor fit for this style of photography and switched my approach. I wanted to check if I was mistaken.

I've never had mis-focus issues with any rangefinder..... can't say the same for SLR....

 

[BrianShaw]

I was struggling with this problem until I came to conclusion (an incorrect one judging by these comments) that the rangefinder design is a poor fit for this style of photography and switched my approach. I wanted to check if I was mistaken.

It seems to me that part of the struggle, and I too have experienced it, is that the rangefinder focusing window/image is quite small. Conversely, the focusing "window" on a SLR is relatively large. The size difference alone makes it a totally different experience and I daresay that it is a lot easier with the bigger and brighter viewfinder window. I really think this is the difference and has nothing to do with the lens focal length or aperture. If that leads one to conclude that he rangefinder is less suited to the task then such a conclusion is understandable. But it can be done as validated by testimonial in this thread. In general, though, there are challenges with this kind of analysis because of other variables, including camera and subject movement after focus, that might be more problematic. These, I believe, often are what causes the frustration. Images with razor-thin DOF are difficult to do in any situation but epecially difficult if both camea and subject are not perfectly static.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I seem to be able to mess-up focus with autofocus lenses surprisingly often

Nikon's AF-assist is a godsend when working with MF lenses from the 70s.

 

[4season]

It's been awhile since I've done this sort of thing with a Leica M camera, but IIRC, I could mostly achieve correct focus if the distance between subject and camera wasn't changing much, and my shutter speed was say, 1/30th sec or faster. But 3/3 in a casual setting where subject isn't posing? Good luck with that.

 

[Paul Howell]

Nikon's AF-assist is a godsend when working with MF lenses from the 70s.

+1. the focus confirmation on my F4 is spot on, always.

 

[isaac7]

Instead of fiddling with the focus ring to get the right focus I like to lean in or out to tweak the focus. SLRs train you to stay planted and turn the focus ring. Because rangefinders separate the view of the scene from the focus it allows you to have a different relationship with the focus distance. Zone focussing is the canonical example, doing that with an SLR is miserable.

Get the focus close with the focus ring and then lean to taste.

 

[Certain Exposures]

I seem to be able to mess-up focus with autofocus lenses surprisingly often

Nikon's AF-assist is a godsend when working with MF lenses from the 70s.

+1. the focus confirmation on my F4 is spot on, always.

I did enjoy that feature for slow, posed portrait photography. Street scenes often moved too fast for it to be useful (for me). I also felt that the shutter sound on the F100 and its 'modern' design attracted a lot of attention.

 

[isaac7]

I did enjoy that feature for slow, posed portrait photography. Street scenes often moved too fast for it to be useful (for me). I also felt that the shutter sound on the F100 and its 'modern' design attracted a lot of attention.

Street scenes are best shot pre/zone focussed IMO. Cartier Bresson did pretty well doing that. I think rangefinders excel at that kind of shooting because you can see the entire scene and don’t get distracted by what is out of focus. Rangefinders with a 1:1 viewfinder are even better because you can shoot with both eyes open. A rarely cited advantage of rangefinders in quickly developing scenes is that you can see outside the frame. Makes timing and quickly composing easier. I always feel like I’m wearing blinders when I use a SLR.

Going back to the original post, while you can certainly use rangefinders for close in portraits but I don’t think they are ideal for it. I owned both a 75 Summilux and a 90 Elmarit with my M6 HM. I found the frame lines annoyingly small and ultimately unsatisfying to use.

 

[snusmumriken]

Do any of you have great examples? Or a recommendation for a large photobook with images like this?

Certainly not great, but I hope you can at least see that I got the nearer eye in focus in this photo. Lack of biting sharpness is because it was a rushed shot, hand-held in weak natural window light on medium-speed film, almost certainly f/2 at 1/30 sec.

At this kind of subject distance it’s definitely easier to rock back and forth rather than turning the focus ring. It’s easy enough to see when eyes are in focus with a rangefinder, but don’t try to focus on hair!

 

[brbo]

Standards vary, but this was 3/3 (for my standards)...


(50mm, probably @f2 or @f1.5)

As mentioned by @BrianShaw, focusing a 50mm f0.95 lens is as easy/hard as f8 lens on a rangefinder camera. Rate of properly focuses shots will vary, of course, but if you consistently miss focus with 50mm lens @f2.8, there might be something wrong with the lens or camera.