In your opinion, what are the best non-Leica rangefinders ever built?

[Rexel]

Kiev is an interesting one to mention. The early 1950s versions are very high quality and the lenses are excellent. A lot of these were made by ex Carl Zeiss staff. If you can find a good one! The shutter is quite complicated and not something i would want to rely on.

One thing to mention about nikon rangefinder is the wide angle lenses are interchangeable with Zeiss Contax ii rangefinder lenses. Provided they are post war coated they are still really good. This does give Nikon Rangefinder users a bit more lens choice.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I've owned Zorki, FED and Kiev.

And with that I can honestly say if you can afford a Canon P, 7 etc or a Nikon S2, S3, or a Voigtlander/Zeiss/Contax/Leica etc do whatever you can to get one of those.

I'd second this. Those Russkie rangefinders are a lot of fun to use for a short while but they aren't really great cameras.

 

[Huss]

The Soviet optics can be very good. it's the camera bodies that are the issue. Good gear gets out of your way when you use it. I found my Soviet gear got in the way. Once the novelty factor wore off, I asked myself why would I ever use them if I had other gear? So they were put away until sold.

 

[John Koehrer]

Subjectively of course, the HexarRF is a camera Leica should have made.
I tried one to compare an M3 vs HexarRF focus with a Summicron changed filim mid-roll
had processed and no one including a couple of Leica fanboys could see a difference
in quality. Ektachrome was the film, no memory of which one

 

[GregY]

Subjectively of course, the HexarRF is a camera Leica should have made.
I tried one to compare an M3 vs HexarRF focus with a Summicron changed filim mid-roll
had processed and no one including a couple of Leica fanboys could see a difference
in quality. Ektachrome was the film, no memory of which one

As good as the Konica Hexar was... IMO any camera that can no longer be repaired, couldn't possibly qualify as "the best non-Leica rangefinder ever built"

 

[craigclu]

I've got multiple bodies that fit this conversation (M6, CL, G system and Hexar RF) and I would guess that the Konica is easily the one I grab first. The logic fits me the best, is faster in operation and gives trustworthy results. They all have their pros/cons and are all good in their own way but when these choices are at hand, the Konica gets the most use.

 

[Rexel]

The Soviet optics can be very good. it's the camera bodies that are the issue. Good gear gets out of your way when you use it. I found my Soviet gear got in the way. Once the novelty factor wore off, I asked myself why would I ever use them if I had other gear? So they were put away until sold.

Its mainly the Kiev optics which are good and very reasonably priced. Not so sure about Fed.

 

[beemermark]

While I loved the CLE (and it's just as repairable as any other camera) it's meter leaves a lot to be desired. In AE mode there is no way you can lock a reading in, and in manual mode there is no meter. Yes there are work arounds but they really make shooting slower. Do you really need an interchangeable lens RF? My recommendation would be an Olympus SP-35. The lens on mine is just as good as my V5 Summicron,

 

[manfrominternet]

If I wanted a 40 mm lens on a rangefinder to make landscapes like you do, I would get a G1 with a 45 mm Planar. That lens is an absolute gem.

from your list I’ve owned the G1, G2, and Zeiss Ikon. For me the Ikon wins over Leica and Contax for its viewfinder but it’s expensive.

Warden, you bring up a good point (as has everyone else here) that I haven't mentioned. The focal lenths that I seem to use the very most (with my Minolta Maxxum/Dynax/Alpha 7 SLR mind you) are, in order of most usage - 35mm 28m, 50mm, and 20mm. Even though I have some qualms with Ken Rockwell, I do believe in his claim that the 40mm focal lenth is ideal, performing double duty as a combined wide 50mm and a slightly telephoto 35mm, which is why that focal length is so appealing to me. Why get a 35mm and a 50mm when I can just get one 40mm?

I've been looking at the Contax G1 (Green Label) with its 45mm, 35mm, and 28mm lenses. What worries me the most about the Contax G1 is that it's an autofocus camera and, given that I tend to shoot at night/later in the day, I worry that I won't be able to grab focus, even being a landscape photographer with all the time I need. While autofocus is great, I seem to be far more confident with manual focus. Case in point is my Minolta Maxxum 7, one of the most advanced film cameras ever made (rivaling the Nikon F6 in my humble opinion) - I use my Minolta Maxxum 7's amazing autofocus, but then I always seem to switch to manual focus to make sure that I really have the shot. I also really worry about the bleeding LCD screen, of which so many G1/G2s are cursed with.

I take extraordinarily good care of my photographic equipment; is it possible to take care of a G1 so well that the LCD screen doesn't bleed?

Also, how much better is a Contax G2 than a Contax G1 really?

 

[Huss]

The problem I have with the G1 and G2 is that you don’t know if the camera missed focus until you get the film back. For that reason to me they are glorified p&s cameras. Let alone the good luck getting it serviced issue.

I’ve never tried a Konica RF but they seem very cool. What has scared me off though is the reliability issues which are very common place now, with little chance for repair. Some people complain about a lag between pushing the shutter button and it taking a pic, but I have not used one so don’t know if that is real or not.

I wish that Leica released an improved M7 w a 1/4000 or 1/8000 shutter (the R8/9 had the 1/8000 shutter) but instead they released another version of the MP dressed up like an M6.

 

[manfrominternet]

I had a look at your website. Two comments:
1. you may want to look at resizing the images, your landing page is 480MB!!! It took a good 30+ seconds to load and I'm on a 100mbps connection.
2. I don't understand what a rangefinder gives you over what you have, your work looks like it was all done from a tripod so anything medium format will be much better whatever Leica or anything else you buy...?

If you want something faster to shoot with then think of your lens choices. If you are looking at 28mm or longer then you can get a very nice Canon/Nikon AF SLR for peanuts with compact lenses (also costing peanuts) that will have no performance penalty really if you're shooting them at f/4 or f/8. If you want wider then a rangefinder makes sense as SLR super wides get big quickly and are never as good as a rangefinder superwide.

As for your cameras, I am a Leica user. I had a Contax G2, it arrived broken (sticky AF) and nobody could fix it. That kind of put me off. I had a Voigtlander R3A, a unique camera with a 1:1 finder. A bit dinky and unrefined next to a Leica but it is half the price!

The XPan would probably be the most appropriate for you given your work but I'd have to be really rich to throw 3-4k on an old electronic camera that cannot be repaired.

1.) I definitely agree about my website. The files are just wayyy to big. I'm working on it!
2.) You are absolutely right. All of my work has hitherto been shot with medium format and large format cameras on a tripod. The reason why I'd like a rangefinder is because I'd like to expand my practice and use a rangefinder for fast, handheld work - different work than currently seen on my website. A rangefinder's size appeals to me because I can carry the camera with a few lenses in a small bag and get away with photographing in more restricted areas, getting in, taking the shot, and getting out. I can't tell you how many times I almost got a shot with my large/medium format cameras on tripods only to have someone or a security guard threaten me or threaten to call the police. I had a horrible experience just a few weeks ago when someone ran up to me and threatened to smash my priceless Linhof Master Technica Classic because he thought I was photographing his house! I definitely would like to avoid that going forward. Also, as you've mentioned, I tend to shoot wide. 50mm to me is practically a telephoto lens! I seem to be most comfortable with and in between the 28mm to 45mm focal lengths, occasionally using a 20mm for my nicely featured Minolta Maxxum/Dynax 7. The Minolta Maxxum lenses are very good, but I'm not convinced that they're the best for wider angles. I noticed this since I digitally scan my negatives to fairly enormous sizes.

Anyway, that all said, cameras like the Contax G1/G2 also scare me a bit because of the many stories I've heard of them turning into unusable bricks and how all the LCD screens eventually bleed. In contrast, however, I've heard great things about the Minolta CLE, Konica Hexar RF, and Voigtlander Bessas.

I feel partial to the Minolta CLE and Voigtlander Bessa R4a (for wide angle shooting), in that order. I still like the idea of the Contax G1, particularly because I have a Sony a7R IV - that I almost exclusively use for scanning my negatives - and those apparently amazing Contax/Zeiss lenses can be adapted to said Sony a7R IV.

At the end of the day, and definitely tell me if my thinking is wrong or erronous, but I think I'd like a mostly mechanical rangefinder (even though the G1 would contradict this).

That all said, I think the winners for me are (in order):

1.) Minolta CLE - would only need the 28mm and 40mm lenses
2.) Voigtlander Bessa R4A - since I shoot almost exclusively wide angle/standard, this might be a winner for me with 25mm, 35mm, and 50mm lenses
3.) Contax G1 (Green Label) - would be happy to shoot with just the 28mm, 35mm, and 45mm.

-Of these 3 cameras, which ones do you guys think are the best?
-Would the Contax Zeiss lenses beat out the Voigtlander lenses or Minolta lenses or vice versa?

 

[madNbad]

Buy the CLE, get the 28 and 40. Use it and you’ll have two fine lenses if you decide to move to a Leica M.

 

[Huss]

I had two CLEs brick. But apparently there is a thread on RFF.com about a dood who now works on them. If you get one, check it for jumping meter LEDs. That's when the leds bounce all over the place, running up and down, when you are trying to get a meter reading.
Excellent VF for 28mm lenses.

 

[film_man]

1.) I definitely agree about my website. The files are just wayyy to big. I'm working on it!
2.) You are absolutely right. All of my work has hitherto been shot with medium format and large format cameras on a tripod. The reason why I'd like a rangefinder is because I'd like to expand my practice and use a rangefinder for fast, handheld work - different work than currently seen on my website. A rangefinder's size appeals to me because I can carry the camera with a few lenses in a small bag and get away with photographing in more restricted areas, getting in, taking the shot, and getting out. I can't tell you how many times I almost got a shot with my large/medium format cameras on tripods only to have someone or a security guard threaten me or threaten to call the police. I had a horrible experience just a few weeks ago when someone ran up to me and threatened to smash my priceless Linhof Master Technica Classic because he thought I was photographing his house! I definitely would like to avoid that going forward. Also, as you've mentioned, I tend to shoot wide. 50mm to me is practically a telephoto lens! I seem to be most comfortable with and in between the 28mm to 45mm focal lengths, occasionally using a 20mm for my nicely featured Minolta Maxxum/Dynax 7. The Minolta Maxxum lenses are very good, but I'm not convinced that they're the best for wider angles. I noticed this since I digitally scan my negatives to fairly enormous sizes.

Anyway, that all said, cameras like the Contax G1/G2 also scare me a bit because of the many stories I've heard of them turning into unusable bricks and how all the LCD screens eventually bleed. In contrast, however, I've heard great things about the Minolta CLE, Konica Hexar RF, and Voigtlander Bessas.

I feel partial to the Minolta CLE and Voigtlander Bessa R4a (for wide angle shooting), in that order. I still like the idea of the Contax G1, particularly because I have a Sony a7R IV - that I almost exclusively use for scanning my negatives - and those apparently amazing Contax/Zeiss lenses can be adapted to said Sony a7R IV.

At the end of the day, and definitely tell me if my thinking is wrong or erronous, but I think I'd like a mostly mechanical rangefinder (even though the G1 would contradict this).

That all said, I think the winners for me are (in order):

1.) Minolta CLE - would only need the 28mm and 40mm lenses
2.) Voigtlander Bessa R4A - since I shoot almost exclusively wide angle/standard, this might be a winner for me with 25mm, 35mm, and 50mm lenses
3.) Contax G1 (Green Label) - would be happy to shoot with just the 28mm, 35mm, and 45mm.

-Of these 3 cameras, which ones do you guys think are the best?
-Would the Contax Zeiss lenses beat out the Voigtlander lenses or Minolta lenses or vice versa?

OK...of those I would pick the R4A. Because the G1 I do not trust (but that's just me) and I just get anecdotal vibes that the R Bessas are more reliable.

Note about your question on lenses: you can get the same Contax lenses in M mount: look at the Zeiss ZM line. You can obviously put anything M mount on the Minolta and Voigtlander: Leica/Zeiss/Voigtlander/Konica/Minolta plus anything in LTM mount can be used with a $10 adapter.

Still...you want fast but you shoot at night. So you are likely still limited by low shutter speeds. You could obviously get much faster lenses but nobody shot a landscape with a 35/1.4 wide open that was worth looking at. Anyway...for lenses I'd go all Zeiss, 21/4.5 ZM (or 25/2.8 if you don't want that), 35/2.8 and 50/2. If the 35/2.8 is too slow then I'd pick one of the new Voigtlanders, 35/1.4 II or 35/1.5 or 35/2 APO.

However, I would still insist that for what you want (discreent and quick shooting in low light) you would be so much better off with this:
Body: Canon EOS 1N/3/1V (if you are planning on using manual focus) or Elan 7/EOS 30.
Lenses: Canon 24/2.8 IS, 35/2 IS and 50/1.8 STM. The 24 and 35 have image stabilisation and AF, you can basically point, shoot at shutter speeds like 1/4 and be gone before anyone even sees you.

If you get the above lenses and the 1V you'll still be under the cost of the R4a body alone. If you get something like the 1n/7 with those lenses you're looking at half the cost of the R4a.

It is nice to have a mechanical rangefinder but if you were there with your R4a and me with the above setup, I'd be in and out before you even focused. I would also have sharper shots as I'll have the stabilisier doing its job while you'll be trying to brace against something and hold your breath for so so shots that you potentially underexpose to try and keep the shutter up. Wow, that was a long sentence!

 

[BMbikerider]

Reid and Sigrist. If I could afford one, I would buy it.

View attachment 327325

I too was going to suggest the Reid 3. I have never owned one but used one, way back in the 1960's. They were 100% superb, in my mind better than the Leica 111b they were based on. I would go as far as saying it was better than the 111f that I did own.

BUT

I will stick my neck out here. When it was obvious that I could never afford a Reid 111, I saw a new Japanese camera in a shop in Newcastle (UK) called 'Bonsers' - (anyone on here from Newcastle remember them?) The camera was dark green and called 'Honor'. It had all the bits a pieces that the Reid had but a much better bright line viewfinder and was then about £60. (A Leica M3 was about £160 at the time) It was absolutely a dream to use.

 

[Radost]

I've owned Zorki, FED and Kiev.

And with that I can honestly say if you can afford a Canon P, 7 etc or a Nikon S2, S3, or a Voigtlander/Zeiss/Contax/Leica etc do whatever you can to get one of those.

Forgot to mention Minolta And Konica.

 

[markjwyatt]

Contax, ii, iii, iia, iiia

 

[Vaidotas]

I've owned Zorki, FED and Kiev.

And with that I can honestly say if you can afford a Canon P, 7 etc or a Nikon S2, S3, or a Voigtlander/Zeiss/Contax/Leica etc do whatever you can to get one of those.

My point is - lens are important, camera not so much. The best rangefinder ever built is any camera with proper shutter, coupled rangefinder and bayonet.
And I can’t see your point. Can you be more specific?

 

[Ian Grant]

Like Clive it would be a Reid III. In the 1970s cases of unfinished Reid cameras and TT&H lenses were found in storage, technicians finished them and they were sold through AW Young and a couple of other London surplus dealers for around £21. I had no income at the time as a student . . . . . .

Ian

 

[cliveh]

I too was going to suggest the Reid 3. I have never owned one but used one, way back in the 1960's. They were 100% superb, in my mind better than the Leica 111b they were based on. I would go as far as saying it was better than the 111f that I did own.

BUT

I will stick my neck out here. When it was obvious that I could never afford a Reid 111, I saw a new Japanese camera in a shop in Newcastle (UK) called 'Bonsers' - (anyone on here from Newcastle remember them?) The camera was dark green and called 'Honor'. It had all the bits a pieces that the Reid had but a much better bright line viewfinder and was then about £60. (A Leica M3 was about £160 at the time) It was absolutely a dream to use.

Fascinating, I have never heard of the Honor camera. Do you have a picture of one?

 

[Huss]

And I can’t see your point. Can you be more specific?

Focus, viewfinder, shutter speed dial, film advance, film rewind, build quality, handling, shutter timing. I could go on. What do you want to know? They are all WAY worse in the Soviet RFs.
Of course you can make nice pics with a Soviet RF. But if you can step up to something else, do it. Your life will be so much better, people will laugh at your jokes, people will find you more attractive, your boss will give you a raise. Just no downside.

 

[Huss]

My point is - lens are important, camera not so much. The best rangefinder ever built is any camera with proper shutter, coupled rangefinder and bayonet.

It is comical how wrong this is. It seems you've never experienced a decent rangefinder camera if you think a Zorki or Fed is just the same as a Leica or Nikon or Canon as long as the shutter works and the camera focuses.

 

[George Mann]

It is comical how wrong this is. It seems you've never experienced a decent rangefinder camera if you think a Zorki or Fed is just the same as a Leica or Nikon or Canon as long as the shutter works and the camera focuses.

Not the same across the board. But a properly maintained soviet rangefinder can certainly provide decent results.

 

[Huss]

Not the same across the board. But a properly maintained soviet rangefinder can certainly provide decent results.

Yeah, I've got some great results, but it was in spite of the soviet cameras. They make it much harder and less pleasant to achieve that.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Since the OP's information in his last post- just get a CLE and go take some pictures.