MP viewfinder magnifications?

[semi-ambivalent]

If you have an MP with a .58 or .72 mag viewfinder and you live in the Denver metro area could you please PM me? I need to make a decision soon and need some empirical evidence.

Many thanks,

s-a

 

[NB23]

0.58 Rocks!

If someone has a 0.58 MP and wants to swap it for a EX++ MP 0.72, I'm all ears.

 

[jochen]

Hello,
the 0.58 is good for wide angle lenses, not suitable for tele lenses (accuracy of RF is too low), especially not for high speed types. 0.72 is for moderate wide angles up to 90 mm tele. For 135 mm the RF is not exact enough at all, here you should better take an M 3 with 0.92 or a SLR.

 

[clayne]

I would never consider .92 for a Leica. I wish they were all made with .58's.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I would never consider .92 for a Leica. I wish they were all made with .58's.

I shoot a decent amount with 90's and an old 135 Nikkor on my MP. It's a 0.85 version and perfect for that.

 

[250swb]

The .58 viewfinder is pretty well a specialist wide angle camera, not much good for anything else because focusing accuracy is diminished on the very lenses that need accuracy, 50mm and above. It gets worse if you use fast wide apertures in low light. The lure of a great big image of the world soon wears off if you have a regular .72 camera as well. The .58's are less popular for good reason's, and not because wide angle lenses aren't used much on Leica's.

Steve

 

[NB23]

To me, a 0.58 was a revelation. Especially in use with a 50.

 

[250swb]

If you are happy with a 50mm at f/1.4 in low light, then very well done. I can't do it with the .58 viewfinder, the already low hit rate at that aperture with an even slightly moving object becomes impossible. But as a camera is just the body, a box loaded with film, and therefore the longer term fiscal decision, it shouldn't be forgotten that people migrate between lenses more than bodies. So the great idea to use wider lenses becomes somewhat tempered when you find that what you really want for a good portrait is a 90mm, unless you want to be a 'one trick pony'. But I'm prejudiced, I'll admit it, I have never been an advocate of photographs where the subject matter looks like a pea on a plate, where sweeping perspective substitutes for revealing content. So I am a anti .58 viewfinder bigot, but only after experiencing all those available from Leica. I would say the same about the .85 viewfinder, but coming from the other direction of course

Steve

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

If you are happy with a 50mm at f/1.4 in low light, then very well done. I can't do it with the .58 viewfinder...

Steve

I doubt anyone can. And frankly I've found zone focusing for anything 28mm or wider works 98% of the time for me, but I rarely shoot my ultra wide lenses at wide open apertures or with main subject very close up...

 

[clayne]

I've only ever had a .72 w/ 35mm lens on a Leica. I'd love to use a .58 w/ a 24mm or so, though.

 

[NB23]

I doubt anyone can. And frankly I've found zone focusing for anything 28mm or wider works 98% of the time for me, but I rarely shoot my ultra wide lenses at wide open apertures or with main subject very close up...

I used my Noctilux all the time with a 0.58 finder. It improved my shooting tremendously. The focusing wasn't a problem. If the camera and lens are well calibrated everything snaps in place. The whole point of different magnifications is about the composition, not about accurate focusing.