Using 0.58x Full Frame In Place Of Separate 21mm VF

[chee_hoe_goh]

In consideration of the post I started "<a

href=http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007BOW>Which

21mm?</a>", is it possible to use a 0.58x M body VF full frame to

sight a 21mm? If I ever get into 21mm I would like not to have to use

a 21mm VF on the hotshoe.

 

Have any tried and have opinions or comments?

 

 

Chee Hoe @ 2:15 pm, 28 January 2004

[stuart d]

The 0.58 full frame provides coverage closer to the 24mm focal length than the 21mm. I've shot the 24mm on a 0.58 body without the external finder, and the results were reasonably accurate. I've also shot the 24mm and 21mm focal lengths side by side & know they're very different animals. By all means, use the 0.58 full frame, but realize you're probably only getting approx 80-85% coverage of a 21mm lens.

[al_kaplan1]

The 21mm lens is very easy to use with the accesory finder. Remember that unless you're shooting at f/4 or 2.8 and really close to your subject theres no need to constantly be refocussing so you can keep your eye in one place. Depth of field will cover any slight focussing error.

[cameron_sawyer]

What Al said. There is a big difference in field of view between 21 and 25.

[andy_piper2]

Al: It IS easy to use the accesory finder - but there are lots of reasons to prefer "not to" on occasion besides ease.

 

1) so that you can use a fill flash in the hotshoe (some people may not use flash with ultrawides - I do, when the light demands it);

 

2) so that you can shoot the 21 on two bodies (say, color/B&W) without switching the finder back and forth every time;

 

3) To avoid converting your svelte, discrete M body into something with the hulking profile of an SLR;

 

4) so you can focus and shoot quickly and with the minimum possible time lag in photojournalistic "catch the moment' situations. No point in a camera with 10-millisecond shutter lag if you waste another 100 milliseconds shifting your eye between finders.

 

Chee-Hoe: Sadly (since I love the 21 and like to use it without the finder for the reasons mentioned above) the .58x finder is not QUITE wide enough for what I would consider adequately accurate composition. It is just about right for aiming/framing the 24mm.

 

The Konica Hexar RF's finder shows a lot more outside the 28mm framelines, and thus works better in this regard with a 21. It's what I use when I really don't want to use the external 21 finder (e.g. with flash.) Some days my basic "carry" is the Hexar w/21 f2.8, a .85x M6 with a 90 or 135, and a compact 35 f/2 in my pocket (and also a 21 finder, in case I need to use that lens on the .85x).

 

Bear in mind, however, that the f/2.8 21s block a lot of the Leica's built-in viewfinder (also the Hexar's) - most of the lower right quarter, in fact. If you're going to try this trick, the compact COSINA (I did say 'COSINA' this time, see?) 21 f/4 would have a big advantage.

[daniel_fusion]

I don't like the sparate viewfinder for 21mm too.

Have you ever thought of a "goggled" Super Angulon 21/3,4? Design Tom Abrahamsson, conversion made by Reinhold Mueller, Toronto, Canada [fax 416-467-7447]. Conversion is also available on the 21/2,8.

Have a look at Hans Pahlen's Leica M-site.

 

Regards

[michael_kastner]

In the book "M6 / M6 TTL", by Richard Hünecke -- (a) a book which I don't like, and (b) I think there is now a book out including the M7 -- the author claims that with 0.72 there is no problem using the internal VF to view a 24 mm lens. The VF frame for this is "simply" the very widest frame imaginable, just exactly inside the edges of the whole frame field itself. Therefore, in my estimation, if this happens to be "true", the same might possibly apply to a 21 mm lens used on a 0.58.

 

But being an all-day wearer of glasses, the way I myself in fact see it is that even looking at the 0.72 frame designed for a 28 mm, this ends up so close to the absolute edges visible, that this (the 28 mm frame on a 0.72) is almost impossible to see. Whether this applies with 0.72/24 mm and/or 0.58/21 mm will require your own personal estimation.

[chee_hoe_goh]

Further to my original post and the comments so far, if I already have a 35, would it

make more sense to go 24 or 21, if I want to live without a accessory VF. I have a

Hexar and a .72 M6. I'm currently leaning towards the 24/2.8A from archived post

that have indicated that this is sharper than the 21/2.8A or preA. I believe for my

application either a 24 or a 21 would do fine. Comments?

 

Chee-Hoe @ 9:07pm on 28 Jan 2004

[al_kaplan1]

If in fact the 24 IS sharper than any of the 21mm lenses you're talking about differences that would only be noticeable on 16x24 inch prints shot on a tripod with a fine grain film like Ilford Pan F. And then only if you looked closely at the print.

[john_collier2]

Hi Al,

 

The two lenses are quite different in the corners wide open. Not surprising

considering

that the optical design of the 21 is very similar to the 24 and therefore where the

corners in the 24 start to fall off in quality the 21 just keeps on going with the same.

I gave up my 21 because I used it all the time wide open and the performance in the

corners became too annoying. Yes there is significantly less coverage with the 24 but,

wide open, the performance is pretty even across the frame. This is only an issue

WIDE OPEN. Stopped down to F/4, the 21 is just great. It is not a lens design problem

but just a fact of life with super wides used wide open. I doubt there is an equal to

21/2.8A for 35mm film. Well maybe the Contax G series 21/2.8 lens but that is about

it.

 

I plan on getting another 21 but I will get the CV one as why pay a premium for an F/

2.8 lens only to use it at F/4?

 

 

And to the question at hand: Nope, the 0.58x finder shows the approximate field of

view of the 24 not the 21.

 

All this is based on actually photography not book or web reading.

[beau 1664876222]

If you press your face up against the 0.58 vf, you get a little more than 24mm coverage, maybe not much less than 21mm.

 

I bought the 0.58 because I knew I'd be using a 24mm a lot. However, I could not live without the accessory viewfinder. The reason is that while the 0.58 viewfinder approximates the 24mm field of view, it behaves more like a 35mm in terms of spatial relationships- perspective, etc. Unless you have a fantastic "mind's eye" conception of what your wide-angle lens does to the scene, you will be shooting blind if you don't have the external vf.

 

I have to say though, once I frame the scene with the accessory vf, it's nice to have an internal viewfinder to look through that doesn't crop what I'm shooting at with my 24mm. The 0.58 lets me go back and forth without getting disoriented at all.

[henry_ting2]

Bingo Beau. You hit it on the nail. Leica's VF might cover the angle, but the external VF will indeed give you the depth. That's why the more framelines on the body VF, the more compromise it becomes. I just don't see how anyone can have a visual-memory when using a variety of lens with the camera's framelines.