ricardovaste wrote:
Adam, Edward, thanks! I don't have the EVF and would like to not get one. I would be using 24/25 in order to include "more", so I zone focusing and medium-small aperture would be very feasible. Edward, do you find there is much excluded when using the Zeiss 25 with the rangefinder?
I think I'll simply begin with 35 and see how things go. I will hopefully not need anything wider, but useful to know how things could work.
p.s. Adam, any progress with that book?
It is important to note the zeiss 25 brings out the 35mm frames. Zeiss kindly provided me with a 28/85 mount free of charge and a local technician changed them for me, also free of charge
The 25 clearly covers an area larger than the 28 frames but it's very easy for rangefinder users to adjust to. I would say 5% maybe from each border? I just frame tightly and forget about it. Regarding external ovf, I used to have the zeiss and Leica ones. The zeiss are superb optically but they are angular and sharp and too large. The Leica are small but optically useless. I have now the voigtlander plastic 21/25 finder, it's somewhere between the two, optically not as good as the zeiss and has more distortion but ergonomically better with rounded corners and slightly smaller size. It is also the cheapest.
I only have a 28 right now with the MM. As you know, it is basically the whole finder. I've considered getting a 21 skopar just for fun, but I have no idea how I'd frame things. Doug uses it quite often and had the 21 Ultron, and I know he just goes on feel. But I dont know that I would enjoy that.
At the other end of the spectrum, a 135 on the M9 is a handful, especially if it's a quirky focusing copy, like my 135/3.4 I use it almost always handheld, so I want some speed to keep things still. Here you can see it's potential at f/4:
That is not too shabby for infinity f/4, but what about something closer? It was after sundown, but I was ten minutes walk from the campsite and main lens set. I saw some very nice flowers:
I was proud of myself to sort of hit the focus on these
Both 18 and 135 are extremes on the M9, and generate plenty of throw away shots. But if you stay with it, don't give up, a few keepers appear and you are hooked.
Gary Clennan wrote:
I'm not sure why I like this photo so much but I find myself looking at it far longer than others...
Maybe because when you get so close and can't see the surrounding environment you leave a lot more to the imagination plus it is also has some strong elements like the colour combination and the fast horizontal movement in the water and the traces of slow vertical movement in the patterns on the rock.
edwardkaraa wrote:
It is important to note the zeiss 25 brings out the 35mm frames. Zeiss kindly provided me with a 28/85 mount free of charge and a local technician changed them for me, also free of charge
The 25 clearly covers an area larger than the 28 frames but it's very easy for rangefinder users to adjust to. I would say 5% maybe from each border? I just frame tightly and forget about it. Regarding external ovf, I used to have the zeiss and Leica ones. The zeiss are superb optically but they are angular and sharp and too large. The Leica are small but optically useless. I have now the voigtlander plastic 21/25 finder, it's somewhere between the two, optically not as good as the zeiss and has more distortion but ergonomically better with rounded corners and slightly smaller size. It is also the cheapest. ...Show more →
---------------------------------------------
canerino wrote:
Richard,
I only have a 28 right now with the MM. As you know, it is basically the whole finder. I've considered getting a 21 skopar just for fun, but I have no idea how I'd frame things. Doug uses it quite often and had the 21 Ultron, and I know he just goes on feel. But I dont know that I would enjoy that.
Good luck!
Thanks Ed, Chuck. That is useful insight. Having played with snap on OVFs in the past, I think I'd be very reluctant to return to them again... they just seemed a world of pain! I've never really liked 28mm, but if I should come to need something wider, I think I'd pick up an inexpensive 28 (CV or ZM).
As for now... need to take some photos, unless I'll never know
For Edward and anyone else who's shooting with the 35mm C-Bigon, I've discovered the Canon lens shade for their 22mm EF-M lens works perfectly with no vignetting, and only adds a few mm to the lens.
ryankarr wrote:
For Edward and anyone else who's shooting with the 35mm C-Bigon, I've discovered the Canon lens shade for their 22mm EF-M lens works perfectly with no vignetting, and only adds a few mm to the lens.
I'm using the Voigtlander version of the vented Zeiss hood (it's identical) and the annoying thing about it is how wide it makes the lens, which naturally makes it take up a lot more space in the camera bag. But it is easy to grab and looks to be deeper than the Canon, which should make it more effective. That said, the 35/2.8 isn't really known to suffer from flare problems much.
Richard, Chuck: don't worry about using an external finder. Just shoot and you'll get comfortable with how much more should be in the image than what you see through the viewfinder. But of course it is possible to be off and end up cutting off elements you want in the image. With the M240 I find I do the same as Edward. I focus with the RF because it's so much faster and certain, and if desired, will compose with live view, either from the rear LCD or the EVF. During events/weddings I tend to use the rear LCD more than the EVF for quick confirmation of composition. With the strap around my neck, I'll push the camera away from me to put tension on the strap and improve stability compared to just holding the camera in front of me tourist snapshot style. Works OK for my needs...
Werner - love the 'Skylab' series! Is that a publicly accessible area? I will have to keep it in mind if I'm ever near Heidelberg.
Cal - wow, a Q! Did you get it in the GTA area, or elsewhere?
Great work everyone else, been following along and liking.
