best 35mm SLR for manual focus (50mm)

[puketronic]

I have a Leicaflex SL with a 50/2. I've also have a Nikon F with 50/2. I've heard that both cameras are among the best 35mm SLRs for manual focus.

I'm young with good eye sight but focusing in dim light isn't easy. I'm talking about indoors, during the daytime (f2 1/30 - 1/60 with 400 speed film). I have no problems with RF's and no problems with my Rolleiflex. I want an SLR because I want to focus closer than 1m (up to 0.7m...not talking about macro and such).

1. Is this normal?
2. Is there a better 35mm SLR/lens combination?

I'm thinking maybe a faster lens, like a 50/1.4 or 50/1.2, or getting a closer focusing Rf lens (which are more costly and framing is problematic).

 

[E. von Hoegh]

A faster lens is going to make a difference, you may also be able to find a better focusing screen for low light. I use the f:2 lens on my F , Nikkormats, and F2 and find that by the time I have trouble focusing due to low light, I need a tripod.

 

[frank]

My Nikon F4 and 8008s provide a green focus confirmation light in the viewfinder when using manual focus lenses.

 

[Les Sarile]

There are so many variables - viewfinder magnification, screen brightness and contrast and lens. Since I shoot a lot of very long exposure shots - extremely dark scenes, I can attest to the Pentax LX's capabilities to allow me to achieve critical focus. This also comes in handy when using very slow lenses - like f8 mirror lenses or bellows mounted lenses. Since the LX has interchangeable viewfinders - with diopter adjustments too, you have options for different maginfications/eye relief to fit your needs as well as a variety of screens.

If you only need huge magnification, then the Pentax MX may be a better option since it shares the screens of the LX at a generally lesser price point.

 

[gone]

You already have one of the best viewfinders ever made in that Leicaflex. It's like a big, bright picture window! If you want "better", you'll probably have to go to a faster lens. There are adapters to put non Leica lenses on your camera (a faster Leica R lens is going to cost you dearly), but it's sort of like putting lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig. Leica R glass is really, really good, and your 50 Summicron focuses closer than most 50's from other brands.

However, you COULD put that 50 Summicron on a Nikon camera w/ a simple and cheap lens mount conversion (about $15-$20 on fleabay). My Nikon n8008s camera can be bought for about $20, and you'd get spot metering, cheap AA batteries run it, a top shutter speed of 1/8000, and it not only comes w/ a very bright AF matte screen, the screen can be swapped out for a split prism or any screen you wish in about 30 seconds, tops. A brighter screen will throw off the metering a little, but that can be fixed by adjusting the ISO. When I was flush I enjoyed shooting a Leica R 90 Elmarit on mine. As Frank noted, the n8008s also has a focus confirmation light in the viewfinder that will tell you when it's in focus in very low light conditions, and it's accurate w/ any lens.

 

[snapguy]

what about

What about closeup lenses for your Rolleiflex?

 

[puketronic]

I have closeup lenses on my Rolleiflex (all of them, actually).

The problem with closeup lenses is that I dislike carrying and constantly attaching/detaching them. It's too cumbersome and slow. I have a DR cron on my M3 and it's the same story.

Hence, I've been thinking more about 35mm/120 SLRs because focusing up to 0.7m (0.7m - 1m is a sweetspot for me) is a nonissue, most of the time.

I've thought about "upgrading" my 35mm SLR and possibly acquiring a Hasselblad. The 120 solution is another story, sort of. I like both 35mm and 120 formats. However, if "the best" 35mm SLR / 50mm combo is still too difficult for me, then I might focus on 120 SLRs because focusing from the waist is maybe just easier.

Subjective question:

1. Is focusing a Hasselblad/Rolleiflex/Bronica with a 80/2.8 lens easier than a 35mm SLR with a 50/1.2 lens?

 

[summicron1]

You could "upgrade" to an SL-2. I believe the finder in that is slightly improved. I certainly never have trouble focusing mine.

Beyond that, yeah, faster lens. Haven't priced Summilux lately, but I imagine they cost more than a new camera -- but if you buy a new camera you also need lenses for THAT, and then you end up with a Leica you don't use as much.

For a few hundred this way or that, might be most efficient, if not easiest, to just buy a faster lens.

 

[puketronic]

Yes, I haven't looked too clostly to the price of Summilux's but I don't think I will go that route unless they hover around then $500 price point (I think they are closer to a thousand).

I'm thinking:

-Olympus OM-1 or Pentax MX with a 50/1.2 or 50/1.4 lens.
-Contax RTS with a 50/1.4 lens.
-Nikon F2/F3 with a, 50/1.2, 50/1.4 or 58/1.4 or 58/1.4 Nokton lens.


There are some pros and cons among the cameras and lenses but what I want is a sturdy, reliable camera (mechanical preferably...I know I have some electronic shutters on the list) with a good 50mm lens to shoot mostly at around 50mm f2 at 0.7m-1m distances. I don't need a meter and I only care about one lens. My summicron is fine but I seek something faster, just to make focusing easier. I think that a 50/1.2 might be too pricey to justify to shoot stopped down considering that most 50/1.4's are 1/5 the price -- not sure.

On a side note. I do have the 60/2.8 Elmarit too but the focusing is the same story. A little difficult in some lighting situations and hence I am considering a 58mm lens. The 58/1.4 Nokton is a little pricier but I do like VC lenses. It's more modern, so maybe sharper than the vintage lenses.

I wouldn't abandon my Leicaflex per se but just opt for a secondary 35mm/SLR system in tricky lighting. (A Hasselblad is another alternative although it is not directly comparable).

 

[frank]

Im only going to say this once. Use your Summicron with adaptor, on a Nikon body with focus confirmation light.

 

[puketronic]

Im only going to say this once. Use your Summicron with adaptor, on a Nikon body with focus confirmation light.

Sorry, I glossed over this.

This does sound very attractive.

 

[flavio81]

I have a Leicaflex SL with a 50/2. I've also have a Nikon F with 50/2. I've heard that both cameras are among the best 35mm SLRs for manual focus.

I'm young with good eye sight but focusing in dim light isn't easy. I'm talking about indoors, during the daytime (f2 1/30 - 1/60 with 400 speed film). I have no problems with RF's and no problems with my Rolleiflex. I want an SLR because I want to focus closer than 1m (up to 0.7m...not talking about macro and such).

1. Is this normal?
2. Is there a better 35mm SLR/lens combination?

I'm thinking maybe a faster lens, like a 50/1.4 or 50/1.2, or getting a closer focusing Rf lens (which are more costly and framing is problematic).

1. The prisms on some Leicaflexes get dimmer and yellower with age.

2. Best viewfinder i've found was the laser matte screen of the Canon F-1N. Cheaper alternative, a Canon AE-1 Program.

Another alternative is to go for a newer Leica body, a R body.

 

[bjmc]

FWIW I find that my Leica R6's viewfinder is the best for focusing out of any SLR I've ever used.

 

[film_man]

I find the Leica R8 to be really nice, the blue-ish tint of the finder makes things look brighter under artificial lighting and with a 50/2 I can focus accurately in low light. With a 35/2 it gets trickier if I don't want to use the split-screen patch. The R8 screen is very good as well at showing in/out of focus areas. The only better thing for low light I have is the Voigtlander R3A but that's a rangefinder.

I've also owned at one time or another the following bodies while using them with manual focus lenses to give you an idea of what I'm comparing against: Canon EOS 3 & 1V, Olympus OM-1 & 4Ti, Nikon F100, FM2n. The R8 has the nicest finder overall compared to all the above.

 

[Xmas]

An M3 (late to 0.7m rfdr or early adapted) with Cosina f/1 is easiest.
A Canon P or 7 with /1.5 Cosina more difficult. Note the P only couples to about 0.8m and the /1.5 needs visit to repair person for closer than 1.0m.

In overcast starlight you can see the M3 frame and rfdr spot... If you can't afford the /1.0 the f/1.5 is a good performer in M mount to 0.7m.

 

[puketronic]

I have an M3 with a Cosina 50/1.1 lens (and a few other lenses). I don't have problems focusing my M3.

The problem with this settup is that I can't focus closer than 1m. I don't have a lens that focuses closer than 1m. RF lenses that focus closer than 1m are expensive. I have a DR cron, actually, but I don't like the idea of attaching/detaching the eyes. (too cumbersome).

My thought was that I can invest in a more modern 50mm lens (Hexanon, Summicron, Planar, etc.) or I can invest in a more suitable SLR. The pros of an SLR at close distances is the precise framing; however, this means nothing if I can't focus.

 

[flavio81]

Forgot to say:
Nikon F2 and F3 have an optional focusing screen that is extremely bright; the central zone is microprism and the area around stays always in focus.

I think codes were the G1, G2, and G3 screens.

I have one and it is extremely bright.

 

[Les Sarile]

BTW, viewfinder magnification (viewing size through the eyepiece) is opposite eye-relief (distance to eyepiece). If you don't wear glasses, a higher magnification will allow for better critical focusing due to the much larger display. The Nikons F, F2 & F3 have magnification in the 0.8% range compared to 0.97% in the MX.

Although a brighter screen is desirable, contrast makes critical focusing faster. For instance I have the K3 screen for my FM3A and the B screen for my Canon New F-1 and the split image in both will never go dark even when using slow lenses or bellows configurations. Both are very bright, in fact too bright! When you use them in dark settings, achieving critical focus quickly is not as easy as the more traditional screen.

I recently tested my collection using a dark f8 mirror lens to get a better appreciation of focusing. A bright screen is important but a contrasty screen and a bigger magnification is best.

 

[miha]

The Leicaflex SL (Not SL2) cameras have the best viewfinders for focusing slow long lenses like their f/6.8 Telyts which are very difficult to focus with other R cameras using split screens as they go dark below f/4.5 or so, on the other hand they are not the best with wides, where you need something like R4 which has the highest magnification of all the reflex Leicas. "The best" for me was my Nikon FA - very bright and contrasty at the same time.

 

[PentaxBronica]

Pentax SFX and an M or A 50mm f1.7 for MF. Or a K 50mm f1.4 or 55mm f1.8. AF, either an F or FA 50mm.

The viewfinder is massive, you get a focus confirmation light too. Used one for a very under-lit party a couple of years ago with Ilford Delta 3200. If you want AF in low light then the AF240FT flash has the ability to project a spot beam to assist focussing, you can switch it to only use that and leave the flash off.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I have a Leicaflex SL with a 50/2. I've also have a Nikon F with 50/2. I've heard that both cameras are among the best 35mm SLRs for manual focus.

I'm young with good eye sight but focusing in dim light isn't easy. I'm talking about indoors, during the daytime (f2 1/30 - 1/60 with 400 speed film). I have no problems with RF's and no problems with my Rolleiflex. I want an SLR because I want to focus closer than 1m (up to 0.7m...not talking about macro and such).

1. Is this normal?
2. Is there a better 35mm SLR/lens combination?

I'm thinking maybe a faster lens, like a 50/1.4 or 50/1.2, or getting a closer focusing Rf lens (which are more costly and framing is problematic).

You've got about the best equipment there is.I'm using a NikonF with a 50mmf/1.8 myself and my 61 -year-old eyes don't have a problem with it,although ,Ihave to admit ,focusing with the 50mmf/1.4 is a bit easier.it's an older lens from the 1970s and they can be had for little $.the f/1.8 has better image quality though.

 

[GarageBoy]

Forgot to say:
Nikon F2 and F3 have an optional focusing screen that is extremely bright; the central zone is microprism and the area around stays always in focus.

I think codes were the G1, G2, and G3 screens.

I have one and it is extremely bright.

Really bright- but my eyes and glasses cannot tell what's infocus and the outer field is not usable (just like the original Leicaflex)

 

[thuggins]

Go with any single digit OM. They are notorious for their big, bright viewfinders. The standard focusing screen was a split prism which lets you snap in the focus in an instant. I'm 56 and have a pretty severe astigmatism, and even without my glasses I can still focus my OM's with very little trouble.

 

[Les Sarile]

Go with any single digit OM. They are notorious for their big, bright viewfinders. The standard focusing screen was a split prism which lets you snap in the focus in an instant. I'm 56 and have a pretty severe astigmatism, and even without my glasses I can still focus my OM's with very little trouble.

It's too bad that Olympus dropped their viewfinder magnification down to 0.84X in the OM-3 and OM-4 compared to 0.92X on the OM-1 and OM-2.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I have closeup lenses on my Rolleiflex (all of them, actually).

The problem with closeup lenses is that I dislike carrying and constantly attaching/detaching them. It's too cumbersome and slow. I have a DR cron on my M3 and it's the same story.

Hence, I've been thinking more about 35mm/120 SLRs because focusing up to 0.7m (0.7m - 1m is a sweetspot for me) is a nonissue, most of the time.

I've thought about "upgrading" my 35mm SLR and possibly acquiring a Hasselblad. The 120 solution is another story, sort of. I like both 35mm and 120 formats. However, if "the best" 35mm SLR / 50mm combo is still too difficult for me, then I might focus on 120 SLRs because focusing from the waist is maybe just easier.

Subjective question:

1. Is focusing a Hasselblad/Rolleiflex/Bronica with a 80/2.8 lens easier than a 35mm SLR with a 50/1.2 lens?

definately not! I FIND HASSELBLAD FOCUSING IS pretty hard and makes you crave for auto focus
don't even try without a split-image screen