To 0.58 or not?

[steve_york1]

I hate posting equipment questions, because that usually means, for

me, that I'm not shooting enough film. But this is an issue that has

been on my mind on and off for years now, and with the dwindling

supply of 0.58 models (w/o going through the custom program) I'm

thinking that it's time to resolve this issue once and for all. I

know there was alot of discussion of this issue several years ago,

but I can't find those threads in the archive.

 

As a practical matter and compared to the 0.72 viewfinder, do

eyeglass wearers actually find the 0.58 viewfinder very helpful or is

it, as we say here, "six of one, one half dozen of another" -- in

other words, it doesn't really matter.

 

Historically, I find that of the three focal lenghts I own (35mm,

50mm and 90mm) my best pictures, by a wide margin,come with a 50mm

lens, although I recognize that the 35mm focal length is much more

flexible. With this wider angle lens, I've generally never been much

impressed with the pictures I've taken. Even w/ careful framing,

they always seem to have too much or extraneous stuff in them.

 

It may be that I just need more practice with this lens, but I tend

not to use it, because I can't see the framelines (I wear

eyeglasses). I have a difficult enough time seeing the framelines on

the 50mm lens. Maybe I should just ignore the framelines when

shotting with the 35mm lens? I can always crop the photograph, right?

 

Did anyone find that switching to the 0.58 viewfinder resulted in

some better pictures with the wider lenses? Does the reduced size of

the image in the viewfinder encourage the shooter to get closer to

the subject? I've always been concerned about focusing accuracy with

a 0.58 viewfinder, especially in low light situations.

 

I'm not a gear head today, so I'm not looking for an excuse to buy

equipment. But if something would help, or add to the enjoyment, I'm

all in favor of that. Just as ana side, last fall I fiddled with an

R9, and I was very impressed with the eye relief. Unfortunately, I

can't drop by a local store to sample a 0.58. Maybe I should just

wait for this new Zeiss Ikon?

 

Sorry for all the questions.

[paul_neuthaler]

Steve, IMHO if you mostly use a 50, then grab a clean, or clean it, M3. Its viewfinder (.91x) is the absolute best 50 view in the RF business & there's nothing smoother or more "tactile-centric" available. Leica got it right in 1954 with its first "M" & it's been downhill for them ever since! Also, when you use, say a 35mm "goggled" for the M3, the view is once again superb IMHO & the camera balances brilliantly. The M3,of course, is the best RF for the 90 -- with its .91x image! Why bother with a .58?

[peter_evans4]

<p>Steve, your question took me to <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CMJj">this thread</a> about the reducifier, whereupon I saw your last reply to it for the first time. I'm sorry that you got no reply from Hayata Camera. Perhaps the reason was that I gave you the general mail address, whereas perhaps I should have given you Mr Nemoto's address.</p><p>I greatly dislike posting anybody's address in public, so I'll say that an address for Mr Nemoto appears with the envelope icon at the bottom left of <a href="http://www.otomen.net/">his personal site</a>. I also have what might well be a better address for him, and I'll send it to you if you email me at peter@despammed.com to ask for it. (Don't use Hotmail or anything dodgy, or despammed.com will assume you too are a spammer, destroying your mail before it reaches me.) Sorry about the trouble.</p>

[brunom]

Steve

 

You don't say what you wear glasses for? I'm long sighted and just use a + dioptre lens in the viewfinder system - works a treat.

 

You've really got to go to a Leica day and try them all out for yorself, or perhaps phone Leica and visit them to try out the various bodies - they're quite good at doing things like that.

 

If one jumps out at you as 'this is the one' that's it! but you've got to put in a little effort to see for yourself as it doesn't, to a large extent, matter what other people prefer.

 

Regards

 

Bruno

[oliver pera]

Being an eyeglass wearer I feel very comfortable with the 0.58 finder and the three focal lengths 35mm, 50mm and 90mm. I did never use the 0.72 finder, but with my father's 0.85 I start to feel insecure composing with the 50mm frame for I can barely see the outer edges (and you have to add some space around the frame for the final image focussing for infinity), and the 35mm frame is not useable for me with the 0.85 finder. As a consequence I went for the 0.58 finder and never regretted it - I like the extra space around the framelines, it helps me seeing the whole scene and deciding where to put the frame, and that in my case accelerates the framing decision in comparison to the 0.85 finder.

Of course focussing the 90/2 wide open can be done more precisely with the 0.85 finder, but up to now I did not encounter more focussing errors than usual due to being in a hurry - if I have the time to focus carefully the 0.58 finder suffices for the 50/1.4 and the 90/2 wide open.

[ilan_g]

I wear eyeglasses, own a 0.58 but used a 0.72 replacement for a few months. I only use a 35mm f2 lens.

 

I largely prefer the 0.58. Focusing accuracy is very good with that lens at least.

 

Not sure though what viewfinder I would pick to shoot mostly with a 50mm.

 

A side note for the 35mm: I found that applying "get as close as you can, then get closer" helps.

[stephen_w.]

0.72 and the 35/50/90 is the most common (longevity of availability) use of the M until recent times. I won't ask if contacts or LASIK is an option for you if you're comfortable using glasses. Your question is well reasoned, as I use sunglasses when shooting in the day, and don't like raising them to my brow while shooting.

 

If I were in you situation, I'd get a non-a la carte 0.58 before they're snapped-up, if you mean new (you didn't specify). If another Leica is what you really want, get one. I'd try to find a clean used one for about half price of NOS, and cheaper than an unproven/field tested ZI. Then, get a VF mag. From logic, you must have another M body (why have three lenses, otherwise?). Use the 35 on the 0.58, then "permanently" mount the VF mag. on the 0.72 (?) one you have for the 50/90.

 

I use two 0.72 bodies (diff. film), and don't own anything over 50: one has the mag. and 50/1.4, the other 35/2.0 (seamless use, 35 can be handheld 1-stop slower, in theory). The view outside the framelines is similar (again, seamless use). If I change lenses, I'll raise my sunglasses rather than change the VF mag. than risk dropping it down a gutter. If low light shooting is the goal, I have no problem the VF mag., because I try to be prepared for the situation with one camera/one lens: 35 w/o, 50 with.

[stephen_w.]

I posted immediately after your question, but took too long. I'd agree with all of the above except for buying an M3.

 

1. They're old. One never knows what will go wrong with them, outside a simple CLA, the VF, shutter, transport, etc. have issues True, newer models may have defects, but many fewer issues (if the newer camera doesn't break in the first year, it probably won't break in the next 10), and one gets easier loading, and 35 framelines (more options not there w/the M3, and I hate the bulky/distorting goggles).

 

2. No meter. Not an obstacle for the hand-held meter types (I am) and experienced low-light types (I am, with bracketting). But as a current gear minimizer, I don't carry a separate meter anymore, relying more on experience with the built-in meter. I can't see the numbers any more on my Weaton Master V, except in relatively bright light.

 

It is obvious that you either have a 0.72 (likely) or the 0.85. The relative concensus (other than the lone M3 buyers justification) is the 0.58. Paul, the man says he cannot see the 35 lines with his existing camera. Would you advise he buy a 35 aux. VF instead of a 0.58?

 

I would urge patience if you want to save a couple of hundred Dollars. If the're is an immediate need, jump. I would surely advocate a used 0.58 camera.

[les_lammers]

Steve,

 

You have to handle one. I have the .58 and like it a lot. I use a 40mm Rokkor filed to bring up the 35 frame and it is a near perfect match. The 50 frame is small but it works for me as I can see a lot of what is going on outside the framelines. I can see all of the 28 frameline.

 

Les

 

P.S. I don't wear glasses and focus is not a problem. The VF is very good.

[james_elwing]

A .58 viewfinder for all your shots is a bit like taking all pictures through a 28MM viewfinder. If you only use 28 or 35, fine. If you use 50 or 90, wouldn't it be a bit like using a cheap telescope to watch Mars?

[Rob F.]

"As a practical matter and compared to the 0.72 viewfinder, do eyeglass wearers actually find the 0.58 viewfinder very helpful . . ."

 

I certainly do. I prefer my .58 finder to my .72. If you are already having trouble seeing the 50mm frame, as you say, then I suggest the .58. With the .72 finder, I can see the 50mm just fine, but I can't really see the whole 35mm frame at once. I have to peek left & right to examine the frame margins. My .58 solves the problem.

[kevin_jones2]

For eyeglasses wearers: If you shoot mostly 50mm and shorter then get the 0.58. If you shoot 50mm and longer get the 0.72. If you shoot only 50mm then get the 0.72. I have used both viewfinders and I think that most eyeglass wearers will agree with me if they have used both finders.

[john_newell2]

Here's a datapoint or two for you as you mull this over. For background, my first M, which I still use, was an M3 -- I fully appreciate the v/f of the M3. However, I also bought a CL earlier this year and if you want to talk about piling up factors to reduce focusing accuracy, that's about as extreme as you can get. I would not have thought that I wanted to go below .72x, but at least with the 40/2 and the 90/4 it's not a problem. And the upside is greater eye relief (I can easily use the CL with both lenses with my glasses still on, which is fortunate since finding eyepiece diopters for the CL is a b!tch). Further, a .58 M is going to be somewhat brighter than a .72 M viewfinder as a matter of basic optics and math. Soooo...unless you use f/1.4 lenses wide open a lot, the .58 might be a very reasonable and practical choice. YMMV, of course!

[joe_r1]

I wear glasss, have a 0.72 and used to have a 0.58 M6 TTL. Lenses 35/50/90. The 0.58 is nice with the 35mm, and a must with a 28mm, but I found the 0.72 to be way better with the 50mm, not to mention a 90mm. Since I sold the 0.58 I have not missed it. I primarily use the 35mm lens on the 0.72 and it's great. See if you can try out both before you buy.

[jtdnyc]

Another factor in favor of .58: I find that being able to see the entire scene without "scanning" the viewfinder makes shooting easier and faster for me.

 

Part of the reason is that, like many Leica users, I don't really use the viewfinder for composition. I compose the image before bringing the camera to my eye and then use the framelines just for framing. I had trouble seeing the framelines for the 35mm lens with my old .72 viewfinder. Since switching to the .58, shooting has been faster. I haven't had any problems focusing at all. For longer lenses, I use the viewfinder magnifier...though, to be honest, when switching from the 35 to the 50, I often don't even bother putting the magnifier on.

 

Keep in mind that on every Leica since the M4, the framelines show significantly less than the on-film image at all shooting distances except very close up. Merely being able to see the framelines isn't sufficient. You have to be able to see beyond the framelines, to get the most from the viewfinder.

[johns1]

After I find and wrestle a 75mm Summicron into my Billingham, my next search will most likely be for a clean used .58 M7. All my current and previous Ms have been standard (.72). The .58 appeals since a lot of my shooting is 28 or 35 with an occasional 25mm shot. At 35, I like the wide open space around the frame in the .58. Also, one could possibly shoot 24 or 25 without resorting to an auxilliary finder. (I do not wear glasses when I shoot.)

[john_d._romano]

I wear glasses (nearsighted). I found it hard to see the 35 framelines in my .85.

 

My recommendation is the same as Erwin Puts.

 

For glasses wearer, .58 is king for the 28 and 35mm focal length.

For the 50 focal length, .72 or .85, although I personally like the .85 better. For the 90, no contest: it's the .85 hands down.

 

The .72 is a good compromise if you use all of them.