40mm vs 35mm coverage

[ray .]

Anyone have a graphic or link to a graphic showing the

comparative rectangular areas actually covered by a 40mm lens

vs. 35, with both relative to the 35mm and 50 framelines shown

in a .72 viewfinder (ie showing 4 overlayed rectangles)?

 

Thanks

[frank_scheitrowsky1]

Sorry, I don't, but I do consider the 40mm Summicron/Rokkor lens for the CL/CLE the best solution to not being able to afford a 35mm Summicron.

[richard_saylor]

I agree with a previous poster that the 40mm Summicron/Rokkor is the next best thing to a 35mm Summicron, unless you can make do with the f/2.8 aperture of the Summaron.

[aizan_sasayama]

or better yet, the nokton classic to replace the 35 'lux. *shrug*

[roy_lahay]

The 40 mm Summicron and Rokkor are F2.0, as is the 50 mm Summicron.

[michael_kastner]

For distances of 1-5 m, use the 50mm frame (default, the frame preselector is in the middle). Logic: the closer up you are to the object, the bigger it appears!

 

For distances more to infinity, use the 35mm frame (tilting the frame preselector lever towards the outside). Logic: the farther away the background appears, the wider is your lens!

[roman_sonnleitner1]

Well, I just got an M2 (my first M-Leica), and I tried my M-Rokkor 40/2 on it; did frame-coverage test at about 1.5 m distance - the 35mm framelines of the M2 cover almost exactly what the lens is taking at this distance, the 50mm framelins cover the central 2/3rds of what is on the film.

[ronald_moravec1]

Why not just get the 40mm finder or use a variable finder such as an Imarect?

[al_kaplan1]

Finders, even in SLR's, are an exersize in futility as far as exact coverage goes. Other than the original Nikon F and a few other Nikon SLR's they all show less than full coverage. Older M cameras had frame lines designed to show you about what your color slides showed in their 22x34mm frame area. Most enlargers also had carriers with about the same cut-out area. The mini-lab that prints your 4x6 color photos also crops slightly. On your Leica non-retrofocus wide angle lenses sneak some image under the ends of the frame so your negatives are closer to 24x38mm in size. The 35mm frame matches the coverage of the 40mm lens pretty good on the M4P and newer bodies. The Imarect has no marked place for 40mm, plus it's a large ungainly contraption.

[roman_sonnleitner1]

I find external finders very impractical, both for carrying the camera as well when using it - kinda defeats one of the great points of a rangefinder - its compactness and 'integratedness' (if such a word exists...).

[wendell_kelly]

The entire viewfinder area in a M3 corresponds to the field of a 38bb lens, a pretty good approximation to a 40mm.

 

If you find the 50mm frame lines a distraction, put a piece of dark tape over the middle rangefinder window. This window provides the illumination for the frameline and if it is covered, the frame line will disappear.

[victorm.]

Here's a picture of a dart board made with a 40mm rokkor on an M4-2 at minimum distance (2.7 ft or 0.8m). The inside of the 35mm frame lines were just touching the top and bottom edges of the board. This is the maximum cut-off; the further away the subject, the more accurate the framing. There is still a very very slight cut-off at infinity, though I never frame that precisely anyway. A LF camera on a tripod is better for that stuff. The more I use the 40mm, the better my framing. Before the 40, I used a 35/1.8 Canon for fifteen years and could see the framing without the camera at eye level.<div></div>

[andrew robertson]

My EOS 1n has a 100% finder.

[al_kaplan1]

Andrew, 100% of WHAT? Slide mount, film gate in the camera, negative carrier in your enlarger, the 1-hour lab's machine at the drugstore? It's all an illusion. See my post above.

[andrew robertson]

It purports to show the entire area that will be captured on film (24x36mm). Of course, this

will be cropped if I let somebody print my pictures.