Cheap nice rangefinder

[yefei_he1]

<p>To complete my list, here is another interesting one, Futura-S:</p>

<p>

<p>"Inexpensive" is really a relative term. I got a nice one with a 50/1.5 Frilon lens for about $150 on Ebay a couple of years ago. I thought it was a lot of money then, but try to get a used Leica, Contax or Nikon rangefinder body without lens for that money! I later got the 90/5.6 and 35/4.5 lens separately. But what you really want is that 70/1.5 lens!</p>

<p>http://www.ukcamera.com/classic_cameras/fut1.htm</p>

<p> </p>

[richard_oleson]

<p>True. If you have several hundred dollars to put into it, the selection opens up to the point that the hunt is no longer interesting .... sort of like fishing with hand grenades, there's no sport left in it.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>For wide angle the Bessa L is usually cheap (around 100 USD used), but has no finder. You buy lenses that have a finder that fits in the accessory shoe. The Snapshot Skopar which I think is about 25mm is a good starting point. Same meter, lens mount, and shutter speeds as the Bessar R. If you want longer focal lengths, though, it's still best to go with a true RF such as a used Bessa R. The 35mm f2.5 Color Skopar is the least expensive lens to fit the Bessa R. Several times I've been tempted to get into the LTM system via Bessa with that very combination.</p>

[richard_moore5]

<p>I'm surprised the excellent Voss Diax (e.g. Ia, Ib, IIa and IIb) series with their range of S-K Xenar and Xenon (as well as other interchangeable) lenses haven't been mentioned more. Chunky. pretty and with good optics. I have had great fun with my IIa.</p>

[mfophotos]

<p>Cheap is all relative. To some, a cheap camera is something less than $20, to thers, it's less than $100, and others, well, depends on the bargain. So, you need to define your price range. Combining reliability, useability, and image quality leaves a lot of cameras out. Rangefinders with interchangeable lenses mean only a few systems, one which invloves the "L" word. The Bessa R is probably the wise choice here. If you don't require interchangeable lenses, well, the Olympus RC, Canonet QL-17 some immediately to mind. If you want to go more manual and classic, the Retina IIIC would be a nice choice (and it has interchangeable lenses). Wideangle on RF cameras gets expensive in a hurry. </p>

[bueh]

<p>Uh, guys, Ray noted that he wants a <strong>24mm</strong> lens. I do not know of any rangefinder camera/lens that is this super-wide and could be considered a "bargain". Most vintage cameras do not even have a lens this wide available...</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Well, Ray said</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Like a 24mm and a 85mm etc.."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think "like" has to cover a lot of ground here, since he is clearly asking for help, not posing as an expert on cheap RFs. He just wants a wide angle and a short telephoto from what's been said so far.</p>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>Ths Bessa R has a 25, 28, 21, 12, 15, 35 50, 75, and 90, these are all very reasonably priced, as is the camera they fit. I also have a Canon 85mm 1.9 that works with it as well, might be the way to go.....</p>

[don_e]

<p>As I wrote above, unless you buy FSU rf, the cheapest is probably an older Canon LTM rf, maybe 130-150$. Expect it to need a cla. 24 & 85s are expensive focal lengths and wide angle is not something one encounters often in older rf cameras. Check cameraquest.com for vc wide angles, otherwise the common older wide angles are mostly 35mm. If a 90 will serve for the 85, then an Elmar 90 f/4 will cost you less than 100$. You will need accessory finders. and I'd recommend a shade for the Elmar.</p>

<p>Cheap and interchangeable lens rangefinder and wide angle is unlikely. It all depends what "cheap" is for you.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>There are a fair number of RF wide angles <em>by the standards of those times</em> at 35mm especially. 28mm is probably the practical limit for anything remotely affordable in old RF lenses. There were Lithagons, Ennas, Zeiss and others.</p>

<p> </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>whoops</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>This is my last try</p>

<p>Here was my first ultrawide -- a 35mm Steinheil Culmigon</p><div></div>

[John Smullen]

<p>The Kodak Retina IIIc (not the pricier IIIC) should serve your needs nicely. However, the range of lenses for an RF is much more limited than with an SLR. as I'm sure you know. This is the later version of the IIIc which uses a more flexible light meter. <img src="http://k53.pbase.com/u33/beppuu/large/35927714.35mmcamRetinaIIIc2.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="783" /> </p>

[rdm]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3684737">Chris Tobar</a> had great advice when he named the good cheap Range finders in his answer , but he also forgot to mention that some did have interchangable lenses like the C3 and C44. Those can be purchased for a fraction of the cost of most of the other cameras listed here.</p>

<p>My old standby range finder is my Kodak Signet 40. I absolutly love it; its got a fixed lens but its always redy and never jams, can stay in a cold car all winter and takes good pictures. Latly tho i been playing with a Signet 50 (sits in the car since december); it has a built in selenium light meter yet no built in range finder but i use a pocket ranger and set the focus ring that way. The 50's light meter is pretty good for print but i still set the ASA for slide film back a little less thian half a stop because i didnt trust the age. I have yet to run a roll through dead-on to see how that takes. Both cameras have manual shutter speed, focusing and apature adjustments, and both cost me less thain 20 dollars including shipping.</p>