0.85 Finder, 50mm & Eye Glasses

Does anyone use an 0.85 body with a 50mm lens and eye glasses? Is it OK? Would

you prefer the 0.72 or 0.85 finder as the best for use with a 50mm lens, and eye

glasses? In other words, assume there is no need for a difference lens on the body,

just the 50. Which is the best finder to use?

 

Thanks....

Welcome to the club!

IMHO it's not really the problem, except if you're obliged to use very powerfull glasses.

The problem (mines) begins with the 35: you can't see the whole frame lines, you're obliged to move the eye to see them ... and my pictures are always larger than I saw (but every time I think it's really a wider angle lens = economies are rare with Leica gears!)

 

Alain

Dan, with the M4-P (0.72 mag) you can see the 28mm frame with glasses on (ok I really need to smush my face against the camera) but it works. Unless you have really thick glasses it shouldn't be a problem.

 

The only warning is to make sure you get some type of protection for the camera viewing area or it will scratch or lenses.

 

Gerry

Once again you are failing to understand or else ignoring the fact that the 50 framelines in Leica M's are way, way, way smaller than what you will get on film unless the shot is at 5 ft or less. You need to be able to see outside the framelines to frame any shot made past 5 ft. With the 0.85 and glasses you will not be able to see far enough outside the framelines to do this. With an 0.72 and glasses you will be able to frame with the black eyepiece mask. Trying that with an 0.58 or 0.85 will not work because the mask will show you too much or too little, respectively.

I have no problem with this combo... and I wear glasses. My glasses are very flexible and allow me to push the viewfinder pretty close to my eye.

 

Regarding the .72 vs the .85 finder, it all depends on how you like to shoot. With the .72 finder you will almost certainly have no problem seeing the entire frameline and can still see some of the surrounding area which may allow you to better time for subjects entering or exiting the composition. If you prefer to shoot as if with an SLR (no info besides the actual image area), go for the .85 finder.

Dan,

 

I am an eyeglass wearer and I have used 50 mm with 0.58, 0.72 and 0.90 (M3). I like it most on 0.72. With 0.58 my preference is 35 mm, the size of the frame in respect of the surroundings is optimal for me. With 0.72 the same applies to 50 mm. The best is however, that You try that yourself, the distance of eye to eyeglass surface has probably some effect here also.

 

Petteri

From what I've read here and elsewhere, the large magnification was intended for long lens users, as it shows larger framelines for 90mm and 135mm lenses, whereas the 0.58 magnification was designed with eyeglass wearers who are also wide-angle shooters, as it allows you to see well inside and outside of the 28mm and 35mm framelines. The 0.72 magnification works fairly well for all lenses. Sure, the lines for long lenses are small, and those for wide-angles are hard to see as they go around the frame of the viewfinder, but then, at least we have choices.

 

I believe the 50mm in the 0.85 magnification probably won't let you see what's coming into the framelines. In this case, the 0.72 is the best.

 

BTW, I wear glasses, but chose to buy the 0.72 instead of the 0.58 because I wanted magnification above the piddly 0.56 I get in my Contax G1.

Jay, I do understand, and respect the depth of your knowledge about things Leica.

 

OTOH, I shoot only Delta400 film, printed only in my darkroom, so a little over-

inclusion is not a bad thing. I just rack the enlarger head up a tad and crop the print.

 

Since selling my 0.58 isn't going so well, it got me to thinking about on 0.58/0.85

combo?

 

I'll probably still get an 0.72 and then sell the 0.58 later this year.

 

Thanks everybody, for all the useful info.

Dan,

 

It sounds like you have what you need, but I will weigh in, nonetheless. I wear glasses and have the M6 .85 and 50 Summicron combination. I think if I had it to do over again I would go with the .72. With my glasses on I can just barely see all the frame lines for 50 mm, but I cannot take in the whole rectangle at a glance. I bought a screw-in -3 diopter for the eyepiece, which solves the problem; but, of course, I have to keep taking my glasses off and putting them back on, which is mildly annoying.

 

I like, and will eventually acquire, the longer M focal lengths; but I think the .72 would still have been a better all around camera for me, supplemented by the 1.25X magnifier when using a 135 or fast 90.

 

Particularly if you like to work fast when shooting, I think you will find that the .72 will work better for you.

 

David

Dan, I wear glasses and I have tried all three magnifications. For me, the optimal combination for the 50mm lens is the 0.72 magnification, because it allows for a bit of space around the frame line. This "bit of space around the frame line" is one of the positive features of a rangefinder vs. a SLR. You can move around until you get the framing that you think would be best. The 0.85 is too tight for the 50mm (to me). Of course you have optical gymnasts who use a 35mm on a 0.85 with coke bottle glasses, but these people are not the norm. I eventually sold the 0.85, as it was fairly useless for anything wider than a 75mm lens (I don't have this lens), and I use the 90mm Elmarit infrequently enough so that the 0.72 works well enough.

 

If you use 35mm and 50mm, don't get the 0.58/0.85 combination, as recommended by Erwin Puts. If you ever have to go with just one body in your hands, your in a sticky situation. The 0.58/0.72 is a good two body combo, if you use 35mm to 90mm most of the time and wear glasses.

 

My advice is, keep the 0.58 and get a 0.72. You can always sell the 0.58 when the market is good for selling, and the doom and gloom groundhogs (MP's rule, TTL's are dogs) are back in their holes for another season.

The .72 finder and 50mm lens is the way to go if you wear glasses. It's *very* nice not to have to mush the camera up against your face to comfortably see the framelines in their entirety. I use a M4-P with the earlier, more accurate(?) framelines.

Dan, lemmee put it this way... I wear glasses (yes, all day, every day, and I'd say medium nose length, eyeball protrusion, and cheekbone intrusion, bla bla) and chose 0.72 as it works best (yes, for me myself an I) with my 50 mm (and also 35, both of which I use absolutely the most). I don't have a 28 or a 135 yet, but thought that the best bet here would be to take that VF (the 0.72) which really is an allround VF. AN ALLROUNDER HERE FOR ME MEANS FOR MY M'S 50 AND 35 LENSES. Of course, if I never, ever would use a 135 or a 28, I might be inclined to get a 0.58 or 0.85 (respectively) instead... but I haven't decided on that "never, ever" choice yet.

<p><u>Bottom line:</u> if I for the rest of my life would <b>only</b> use a 50 (with or without a 35 mm lens) I'd still choose a 0.72.

I think a lot has to do w/the shape of your face, thickness of the glasses, etc. I wear (fairly thick) glasses, but have absolutely no problem using the 0.85mm body w/a 50mm lens (my main focal length). I don't have a big schnoz, though, so YMMV. My bottom line: You're not going to find a definitive answer on the internet--go to the camera store or borrow a 0.85 & try it out!

It's strictly a personal decision even if one can see the framelines. Some (Jay) prefer less real estate outside the lines (hence his rejection of the Hexar RF, although, it may not be for that reason, specifically), some more. Hexars get bought after trying one, obviously. But, some tire of the VF after some use, so merely trying in a shop might not work. In addition, not many shops will have three demo's with all different VF's.

 

Personally, I prefer the 0.72, as it was good enough for over 40 years to be the only magnification offered. I bought a 1.25 magnifier for the fast glass I own. I like seeing outside the lines, so I'd like a bigger finder, not a higher mag. one.

 

Steve

It's strictly a personal decision even if one can see the framelines. Some (Jay) prefer less real estate outside the lines (hence his rejection of the Hexar RF, although, it may not be for that reason, specifically), some more. Hexars get bought after trying one, obviously. But, some tire of the VF after some use, so merely trying in a shop might not end in satisfaction. In addition, not many shops will have three Leica demo's with all different VF's.

 

Personally, I prefer the 0.72, as it was good enough for over 40 years to be the only magnification offered. I bought a 1.25 magnifier for the fast glass I own. I like seeing outside the lines, so I'd like a bigger finder, not a higher mag. one.

 

Steve

I'll opt for the M3, with it's 0.91 finder and no flare. Exquisitely accurate, although I've chewed up my glasses with the finder eyepiece.

 

I'm also a fan of the 50.

 

As to viewfinder accuracy, the M6 and M7 50 mm lines are calculated to show what is covered by a 23 x 35 mm frame at the 50's closest focus, 0.7m. Using the thin lens equation, 1/O + 1/I = 1/f, where O is the distance between the lens and the object being photographed (0.7 m in this case), and I is the distance between the lens and the Image, and f is the focal length of the lens at infinty, (50mm), I is 53.84mm.

 

Still with me? Good! This means the the 50 viewfinder frame is actually a 54mm viewfinder frame. A 50mm lens covers 39.6 x 27 degrees (I'll spare you the math!) A 50.84mm lens covers 37 by 25 degrees. To get a more accurate idea of what the lens is really covering (this can be important for panorama shots!) add a degree or so to the edges of the 50 frame.

 

Great. How do I measure ~1.5 degrees when all I've got is the camera and a 50? Your knuckle, between your 4th and 5th (pianist's numbering) fingers is about 1.8 degrees wide when held at arm's length. This is fairly accurate, as people with small arms have small hands, and vice versa.

 

Now all you've gotta do is remember this speil in the field!

 

Professor M reminds me that the important thing is to take good pictures, and this rant is just the technical equivalent of bean counting.

 

Carpe Luminum!