35mm M3 "eyes" or "googles"

[vpwphoto]

35mm M3 "eyes" or "googles"

Wondering in anyone out there that has a set handy, could have an optometrist measure the refractive index of the lens for the viewfinder or rangefinder, the index should be the same for either. WHY? Because I would like to make a set of "googles" that corrects for the 40mm summicron!!!

I searched the net far and wide before posting this.
I know about some thinking the 50 or 35 lines being "close enough". I have M3 so 35 are out and 50 is too tight.
I like to make things anyway.

Thank you kindly.
--vincent

 

[Someonenameddavid]

That's not going to work because the focussing cam of the lens has to be matched to the goggles.
Any non-goggled 35 M lens will focus fine on an M3 but the framing in the viewfinder will be off: to compensate for the framing, there has to be a wider field of view (Leitz made a few accessory viewfinders that went over the outside of the viewing field only: there was a hole in the middle to match the split image. It didn't work well. In order to match the change in viewing field magnification the rangefinder window had to be accommodated, and then the cam changed. Doing only two out of three is useless. Most people would use an accessory viewfinder or buy an M2/4/6/7 or Voigtlander

David

 

[vpwphoto]

Thanks Mr someonename ddavid.
I didn't think about the cam. I did know in the back of my mind that the goggled 35s didn't work right or a myth without the goggles.
Anyone else? PM me if you know otherwise, else the discussion is dead.
Thank you.

 

[ic-racer]

On my rangefinder cameras, I only bought lenses which had matching viewfinder frames in the camera. In your case why would you not just acquire one of these:

 

[Someonenameddavid]

I have a 35 f3.5 Summaron with detachable goggles and the is an interlock which keeps the lens at infinity if you take the goggles off. Most wides designed for the M3 had the goggles held on with screws (wish I had a 35 f2.8 Summaron, with or without goggles). I have a 35 biogon for the Contax IIa which has no goggles but I use the Zeiss Stuttgart turret viewfinder .

David

 

[vpwphoto]

I don't like secondary finders... I am aware they exist, have used them and don't like them, the finder with rangefinder patch is where I do my business or the screen of SLR or LF camera.

 

[elekm]

You know those are "goggles," not "googles," right.

I'm not sure how to help with your particular issue - I had a set but sold them some time ago.

I would think that maybe if someone could take their set to an optician, perhaps the lenses can be measured.

 

[ced]

Yep "Goggles" as in oggles...
I see this mistake all over the web and so keeps getting made as probably that is where people pick up the error.
My apologies to any non english mother tongued users here as it is an easy habit to fall for because of the well known search engine by the same name.
Actually I don't mind what people call it maybe "Boggles" could also be an alternative.