M-mount, wide frame lines, and TTL metering?

[Uhner]

Here are some 21mm street shots to give you an idea.

You have some really good stuff there.

 

[AutumnJazz]

You have some really good stuff there.

I second that. Wow.

As of right now, I think I'll go with a 35mm f/1.4 and that 21mm. 1.2 isn't that much faster than 1.4, right?

I use a 35mm on my Nikon right now, and most of the time I'm alright. There are a couple of times where I just wish I had a wider lens, though. I've never really felt the need for a longer lens, although I don't do much portraiture.

 

[Anupam Basu]

Thanks for the kind words.

I'd give up the half stop advantage for the more compact size of the 35/1.4. You might also check out the 40/1.4 nokton. There's a review on my website. The 40 is great to use with 35mm framelines on most RFs. I'm not sure what body you decided on but the 35 can be a tad tricky to focus on the R4 wide open, although it should just be enough. I switched from a 21/40 combination to a 15/28/50 combo recently and I love it. The 28/1.9 Ultron just blows me away.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Thanks for the kind words.

I'd give up the half stop advantage for the more compact size of the 35/1.4. You might also check out the 40/1.4 nokton. There's a review on my website. The 40 is great to use with 35mm framelines on most RFs. I'm not sure what body you decided on but the 35 can be a tad tricky to focus on the R4 wide open, although it should just be enough. I switched from a 21/40 combination to a 15/28/50 combo recently and I love it. The 28/1.9 Ultron just blows me away.

I have been using My Nokton 35mm F1.2 Aspherical on my Zeiss
Ikon 35mm Rfdr (I'm currently using it as my Normal lens). It is a large lens - - it snaps right into focus in my Ikon's rangefinder and its on-film performance is excellent.

I'm using a 50/35/21/15 combo and love it! I've also been looking with lust at the new 28/2.0 Ultron.

 

[AutumnJazz]

Why is a fast lens hard to focus? (I haven't really used a RF before, but I understand how they work. Split image, right?)

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Why is a fast lens hard to focus? (I haven't really used a RF before, but I understand how they work. Split image, right?)

I have 3 fast M mount lenses (Nokton 35mm f1.2, Zeiss Planar 50mm f1.4, Zeiss Sonnar 50mm f1.5 ) and I don't find any of them hard to focus.

 

[AutumnJazz]

Basu's comment makes even less sense now.

 

[Anupam Basu]

I don't know how Tom's comment is relevant since he uses the Zeiss Ikon. That's what I use as well and I never claimed that a 35/1.4 would be hard to focus on that camera - it's a breeze to focus fast lenses with the ZI. Not so with the R4.

The effective baselength of the Zeiss Ikon is almost 56mm - one of the longest EBLs around. The Bessa R4 is a meagre 19mm or so. Not even in the same ballpark. Focusing accuracy depends on the EBL. Longer the EBL, the easier fast lenses are to focus. So being able to focus a lens with a Zeiss Ikon has nothing whatsoever to do with the ease of focusing the same lens on an R4.

-A

 

[AutumnJazz]

Uhhh...care to explain further?

 

[Anupam Basu]

Effective baselength = physical baselength x viewfinder magnification. It determines how accurately a rangefinder can focus. Think of it as an indicator of how much the split image in the RF moves per unit turn of the lens. Fast lenses need a longer EBL to focus accurately consistently because they have shallow DoF.

EBLs of some of the common RFs (this is from memory and not exact, so do look them up to be sure)
Leica M3: 62mm
Leica M2/M4/M4-2/M4-P/M6/M6TTL (with the .72 VF) = 49mm
Bessa T: 58mm
Bessa R3x: 37mm
Bessa R2x: 25mm
Bessa R4x: 19mm
Zeiss Ikon: 56mm
Leica CL: 18mm
CLE: 28mm

As a rule of thumb, to judge whether a particular lens will be easily focusable with a given EBL, the entrance pupil size should be less than the EBL. So, for a 35/1.4 lens, what's the entrance pupil wide open? 35/1.4 = 25mm. So a rangefinder with an EBL of at least 25mm is required to focus a 35/1.4 lens accurately wide open with any consistency (remember this is a rule of thumb - someone can be extra cautious and get by with a relatively short EBL). For a 50/1 Noctilux, you'd need at least 50mm or so. So the M3, ZI or Bessa T and the M bodies would be okay. But Try focusing a Noctilux on a CL or an R4 and you'd have a very hard time and get inconsistent results. Thus, the fact that a lens focuses easily on the Zeiss Ikon, is of no relavance to whether it will focus well on an R4x.

-A

 

[AutumnJazz]

So basically, I shouldn't get an R4A if I want a really wide and fast lens. :|

 

[Anupam Basu]

The R4 is a specialized wide angle camera which can also make do with 35 and 50mm lenses if required. You'd be ok with a 28/1.9 Ultron on it (28/1.9=14.73mm) but I would not choose it if I wanted to regularly use a 35/1.4 or a 50/1.5 on it wide open.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Effective baselength = physical baselength x viewfinder magnification. It determines how accurately a rangefinder can focus. Think of it as an indicator of how much the split image in the RF moves per unit turn of the lens. Fast lenses need a longer EBL to focus accurately consistently because they have shallow DoF.

EBLs of some of the common RFs (this is from memory and not exact, so do look them up to be sure)
Leica M3: 62mm
Leica M2/M4/M4-2/M4-P/M6/M6TTL (with the .72 VF) = 49mm
Bessa T: 58mm
Bessa R3x: 37mm
Bessa R2x: 25mm
Bessa R4x: 19mm
Zeiss Ikon: 56mm
Leica CL: 18mm
CLE: 28mm

As a rule of thumb, to judge whether a particular lens will be easily focusable with a given EBL, the entrance pupil size should be less than the EBL. So, for a 35/1.4 lens, what's the entrance pupil wide open? 35/1.4 = 25mm. So a rangefinder with an EBL of at least 25mm is required to focus a 35/1.4 lens accurately wide open with any consistency (remember this is a rule of thumb - someone can be extra cautious and get by with a relatively short EBL). For a 50/1 Noctilux, you'd need at least 50mm or so. So the M3, ZI or Bessa T and the M bodies would be okay. But Try focusing a Noctilux on a CL or an R4 and you'd have a very hard time and get inconsistent results. Thus, the fact that a lens focuses easily on the Zeiss Ikon, is of no relavance to whether it will focus well on an R4x.

-A

Anupam is correct: the fact that a lens focuses easily on the Zeiss Ikon, is of no relevance to whether it will focus well on an R4x.

Sorry about my logical lapse!

I have a 2 Bessa T bodies and an R4M - haven't shot any film with the R4M since I got the Zeiss Ikon.

I do shoot regularly with my Bessa Ts (1 body loaded with B&W and 1 with color).

 

[Anupam Basu]

Tom, isn't the Bessa T a wonderful camera? I have gone from a T to an M2 and eventually to a ZI now, but I still miss it - awesome RF as well. I'd like to try an R4 sometime, but I cannot justify a specialist wideangle body, especially since that money could go towards a lens. With the 15/28/50 combo on a ZI, I feel I have struck the right balance for my shooting.

 

[BrianPhotog]

I Dead Link Removed and bought my own a couple weeks later. I love the compact size of it and the extra speed comes in handy. I've had no problems focusing it wide open on an R2A. Like Basu, I also love the 28/1.9 Ultron (Dead Link Removed) and that is currently my favorite lens.

 

[AutumnJazz]

Well, this saddens me somewhat. The R4A has the perfect framelines for me...I don't see myself going past a 35mm focal length anytime soon, and the ability to use a wide lens like a 21mm without an external finder is extremely appealing to me. I also, however, want a really, really fast 35mm lens. I was planning on just getting a 35/1.2 now, and a 21/4 down the road or a 35/1.4 and a 21/4.

So, what would focusing be like with a 35/1.2 on a RF like the R4A? Would it just be inaccurate, really faint, or what?

 

[MattKing]

My $0.02 worth...

Referring to the focusing as being "easy" probably misstates the situation.

The view through the viewfinder, and the operation of the rangefinder system itself doesn't change when you change lenses. What changes is the amount of success you will have in getting well focussed photographs, when shooting a fast lens at maximum aperture.

I would suggest that "responsive and accurate" would be a better description.

If you are using a fast lens, at its maximum aperture, you are working with very little DOF, so you need a very accurate and finely responsive rangefinder.

If you have a short baseline, the rangefinder reacts more coarsely - i.e. its ability to differentiate between two slightly different distance settings is less effective than a rangefinder with a longer baseline. As a result, you are more likely to end up with the camera being enough out of focus to result in your subject being outside the DOF available to you.

I would emphasize that this only matters at the widest apertures - as you stop down, the DOF expands, and the using the rangefinder becomes more effective.

Matt

 

[AutumnJazz]

So basically, if I chose to use a 35mm f/1.2 on the R4x, I could think the camera was focused correctly, but I would be out of focus due to the narrow DoF?

Damn me and my love of a total lack of DoF.

 

[Anupam Basu]

Instead of a 35/1.2 get a 40/1.4 and with the money you save + the R4 money, buy a Zeiss Ikon. It is a truly beautiful camera and the Nokton is an outstanding lens. For the 21, using an external VF isn't that bad. I used the Bessa T a lot and I can vouch that it can be very fast with a bit of practice. Moreover, even the R4 doesn't have lines for the 15/4.5, if you ever decide to go that wide. Like I mentioned my old 40/21 combo and my current 15/28/50 combo both work really well for me.

At 1.2 focusing with the R4 would be imprecise. You will nail some and miss quite a few as well, I'd think.

PS: The 40/1.4 Nokton fits the ZI's 35mm frame quite well. For a head on comparison with the Summicron 40/2, see my site.

 

[AutumnJazz]

What other AE bodies have 28/35 frame lines?

Yes, I'm stuck on 35mm. Yes, it is also probably stupid of me but it is pretty much my favorite focal length, and I had a 24-120mm zoom.

 

[Anupam Basu]

What other AE bodies have 28/35 frame lines?

Yes, I'm stuck on 35mm. Yes, it is also probably stupid of me but it is pretty much my favorite focal length, and I had a 24-120mm zoom.

Among currently available bodies, only the M7. The Konica Hexar does, I think, but I don't know much about that camera. AE, BTW, is way overrated. Among the non-AE bodies, the M6-TTL, M6 and M4-p have 28 lines. The M4-P doesn't have a meter, the other two do.

 

[AutumnJazz]

Doesn't the Zeiss Ikon also have 28 and 35mm frame lines?

 

[Anupam Basu]

Yes. I meant other than the ZI and the R4.

 

[John Koehrer]

What distortion, John?

My 21mm lenses (Biogon, Super Angulon and Color Skopar) don't distort.

OK Tom, call it a perceived distortion or exaggeration of perspective if not used with care.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Tom, isn't the Bessa T a wonderful camera? I have gone from a T to an M2 and eventually to a ZI now, but I still miss it - awesome RF as well. I'd like to try an R4 sometime, but I cannot justify a specialist wideangle body, especially since that money could go towards a lens. With the 15/28/50 combo on a ZI, I feel I have struck the right balance for my shooting.

Yes Anupam, I agree! The Bessa T is a wonderful camera - mine are an integral part of my hiking/backpacking kit.

With my ZI, my current favorite lens kit is 50/35/21.

As I mentioned previously, I am also attracted by the new CV Ultron 28mm/f2.