I have a 135mm lens that I've been using with the Kiev-4. The finder built into the camera is for 50mm and accessory finders are a bit expensive for me. Not to mention they would require composing and focusing in 2 separate steps. So I have just been estimating the frame lines.
Could I cut thin plastic card to make a mask for the finder, such that I could limit the view to the 135mm angle? Think of a black rectangle with a smaller rectangle cut out in the middle. Or am I overlooking a potential problem with that? Would the image be too small? Thanks.
Taken from the Contax II manual, this shows the viewfinder with rangefinder patch in comparison to a roughly 135mm angle of view. This is how I have been approximating so far - just expanding the rectangle a bit mentally.
It is said the RF patch is approximatively what the 135 mm sees. I used that approach but until I developed the film I forgot about it, so I never checked if that is true. In the end I bought the revolver finder and it is one of the very best ones I ever had, a marvel of soviet optics.
I have a triple focal length viewfinder I've used occasionally on my Kiev 2, and I'll confirm that the 135 mm mask is very close to the size of the rangefinder patch -- close enough that I stopped messing with the accessory viewfinder. I'll still install it if I mount the 35 mm lens, though...
@SMD@Donald Qualls Thanks for the info! I might pick up the accessory finder if I think the Kiev will be used frequently enough. I need to do some work on the light seals.
FWIW, I have two accessory finders -- one was made for an Argus C3, the other is marked Leica. Guess which one works better... The Argus one just has a mask inside the Galilean finder, and the view is tiny at the 135 mm setting; the Leica one has an internal zoom of some sort and keeps the same apparent field at all settings. And was still under $50 when I got it a couple years ago.
I gave it a try just using the rangefinder patch to estimate the frame. I got a lot of shots like the below, where subjects are a little closer to the edges than I would have put them using an SLR, but it is opening my eyes more to the success of compositions that break standard rules a little. What do you think?