Is 28mm Too Wide for M9 Viewfinder?

[Wonka]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For those of you who have 28mm lenses and are using them with M9's do you feel it is difficult to see the frame lines in the camera's viewfinder? I can see them, but I can understand why some people have complained that they defeat one of the benefits of rangefinder photography (to see outside the frame lines for compositional purposes).

 

Here is my dilemma:

 

I have a 50mm f/1.4 Summilux which is the greatest camera lens I have ever owned, period. Recently, I have decided that I would like to add to this lens with something a little wider. My only conditions are that it be a Leica lens and not require an external viewfinder. That leaves me with considering the 28mm or the 35mm. I lean towards getting a 35mm, but I'm afraid it's a little too close to the 50mm. I understand that the 35-50-90 combo is one version of the Leica Trinity, while others might prefer a 28-50-90 combo.

 

I think the 28mm would be great, but I'm hesitant for a few reasons: (1) I'm afraid it may be too wide to get a lot of use, (2) Based on posts I've seen in the forum, the frame lines might cause some difficulty after a while, and (3) there are really only two choices in this focal length (the $2000 Elmarit or the $4000 Summicron) - the Elmarit I've read some good and somewhat negative things about and the Summicron (which I would really want) is ridiculously more expensive.

 

I think the 35mm would be great as well. It has a nice day to day focal length which might cause me to get more use out of it, but since it would be an expensive Leica lens, I question whether it would be too close to the 50mm that I already have and thus, not the smartest monetary move. Of course there are three choices here (the $1700 Summarit, the $3,000 Summicron, or the over $4,000 Summilux). I lean towards the 35mm Summicron here.

 

Anyway, any comments/suggestions for those of you experienced with using these focal lengths will be most appreciated.

 

Thanks in advance.

[mikeyt]

i have an old 2.8 28mm and find it absolutely fine with the framelines. But there isnt much 'wide' difference between them and having a 35 would let you use that instead of a 50 as an everyday lens, something i do quite a lot...

[jaapv]

Why don't you buy a nice older version Elmarit 28, or a Zeiss. Those are pretty good lenses, and well below the 2000$ mark. I think a 35 is too close to a 50 in a 2-lens setup.

[Jeff S]

I might be stating the obvious, and it seems you've done this to a degree, but the frame preview lever can be of enormous help choosing FOVs.

 

I think if you get in the habit of regularly using the lever when you're out with your 50...switching from 28 to 35...you'll learn which FOV seems comfortable, and might be missing, given your style and subject matter. Those italicized words are crucial; it's hard for others to speak for you...

 

Some don't mind external viewfinders; some wear glasses; some estimate the framing using the entire finder; some have practiced for years and know what each lens will capture without hardly checking the framing, and so on.

 

And, while I'm stating the obvious, remember to use your feet with your one lens. You might do this now out of necessity, but it's also a great way to learn framing and perspective...and might save you some $ on unnecessary lens purchases.

 

Jeff

[JWW]

I have the 28mm but prefer the 35mm for the framing plus the FOV. In my case, I like the 35 and 50 combo. I find that the perspective has a big enough change between the two lenses.

[Wonka]

Why don't you buy a nice older version Elmarit 28, or a Zeiss. Those are pretty good lenses, and well below the 2000$ mark. I think a 35 is too close to a 50 in a 2-lens setup.

 

Thanks for your response. However, I do plan on having three lenses one day. The third lens will more than likely be a 90mm, but it is a low priority for me right now.

 

Also, right or wrong, I'm pretty partial to Leica lenses. It's just how I am. Maybe it's because no one except online vendors offer Zeiss lenses for sale where I live so there is no way to really experiment with them. Plus, I've heard a few negative things about the Zeiss 28mm. As far as the older Elmarit 28, never seen one or even thought about it before.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a version 3 and I am very impressed with it. But my main set is Summilux 24, Summilux 50 asph and Summicron 90 AA. I find that spacing very good and and gaps - I fill with my feet. The other lenses like 21, 28 ,35 or 135 come along when I anticipate using them.

[Jager]

I have the 28mm but prefer the 35mm for the framing plus the FOV. In my case, I like the 35 and 50 combo. I find that the perspective has a big enough change between the two lenses.

 

+1

 

I'm finding that I use the 35 and 50 the most on my M9. To me, the FOV's are quite different.

 

Serendipitously (or perhaps that's part of the reason), the two best framelines in the M9 - large enough to cover most of the viewfinder while at the same time affording enough usable space outside the framelines - are for the 35 and 50.

 

 

Having said that, I'll point out that, for me, the advantage in being able to see outside the framelines is most valuable in a scene in which I expect to see some dynamism. Stuff moving in or out of the frame.

 

With its broad FOV on full frame, I tend to use my 28 in slightly more static settings. So its "disadvantage" in not having appreciable space outside the framelines isn't really as much of a problem as one might expect.

[Wonka]

I think if you get in the habit of regularly using the lever when you're out with your 50...switching from 28 to 35...you'll learn which FOV seems comfortable, and might be missing, given your style and subject matter. Those italicized words are crucial; it's hard for others to speak for you...

 

Jeff

 

I have used the lever over and over since my M9 arrived. It's fun to use. I have found that for the times the 50mm is not appropriate, I have a need 70% of the time for the 35mm and 30% of the time for the 28mm. I then over think it by worrying about getting a focal length too close to the 50mm (like JAAP stated).

[Wonka]

+1

 

I'm finding that I use the 35 and 50 the most on my M9. To me, the FOV's are quite different.

 

Serendipitously (or perhaps that's part of the reason), the two best framelines in the M9 - large enough to cover most of the viewfinder while at the same time affording enough usable space outside the framelines - are for the 35 and 50.

 

 

Having said that, I'll point out that, for me, the advantage in being able to see outside the framelines is most valuable in a scene in which I expect to see some dynamism. Stuff moving in or out of the frame.

 

With its broad FOV on full frame, I tend to use my 28 in slightly more static settings. So its "disadvantage" in not having appreciable space outside the framelines isn't really as much of a problem as one might expect.

 

Jager,

 

Good advice. It seems to me the 28mm (or wider) would best be used for static landscape type shots (like scenic vacations), while the 35mm would give me the best of both worlds - not crazy wide, but wide enough for some landscape shots and not too tight, for a different perspective from what I have that can be used in daily life.

[Jeff S]

I have used the lever over and over since my M9 arrived. It's fun to use. I have found that for the times the 50mm is not appropriate, I have a need 70% of the time for the 35mm and 30% of the time for the 28mm. I then over think it by worrying about getting a focal length too close to the 50mm (like JAAP stated).

 

You answered your question. Get the 35. And rest easy.

 

This isn't a forever decision. You'll have fun, and maybe get more later.

 

Jeff

[tgray]

It's a personal thing that you'll only figure out by shooting 35 or 28. I went to a 35 to go with my 50 and while it was ok, it WAS too close for me. I find 28, 50, and 90 is a great combo for me. This set roughly doubles FOV with each lens. Other people like closer spacings. It sounds like 35 is the one for you (for now).

[tategoi]

To the OP, have you ever considered getting a Voigtlander 28mm f/2 Ultron. It only costs less than US$600, you can try it and see if you like the FOV, and it is fast enough to try the various DOF of the lens.

[lars_bergquist]

How visible are the 28mm framelines, really? That depends on eye relief: The further your eyeball is from the eyepiece, the less you see along the edges of the finder. If you use specs, much then depends on how thick they are. I can see the 28mm lines plainly without specs (but everything is extremely fuzzy). I use specs with thin synthetic lenses, and they are (important!) small enough to be carried close to the pupil, and the lines are marginally visible.

 

Now it is important to remember that even if you do see the lines in their entirety, their correspondence to the actual limit of the image is only approximate. So the difference between 'barley seeing them' and 'just beyond the edge' is not overwhelming. I do often use my 28mm with just the camera finder. But I do also own an accessory 28mm finder, and use it for e.g. architecture.

 

The old man from the Age of the Brilliant Finder ("Please Aunt Agatha, wave your hand so I can see if you are there.")

[250swb]

To the OP, have you ever considered getting a Voigtlander 28mm f/2 Ultron. It only costs less than US$600, you can try it and see if you like the FOV, and it is fast enough to try the various DOF of the lens.

 

The 28mm Ultron is a nice sharp lens, but it has hideous focus shift as you stop down, to the extent that if something is critical you need to focus bracket shots.

 

Wonka, you original lens choice is sound, a 28, 50, and 90. The other option would have been 21(24), 35, 75 as an ideal spread. The gaps in both sets you fill with your feet as jaapv has said. Don't be tempted to stand on the spot and finesse your viewpoint just by changing lenses.

 

I use a 28mm Summicron Asph and I wear specs, and I can't always see the edges of the viewfinder. But my brain fills in the gaps. If I've seen how I want to frame something experience with the lens tells me where to point it and framing becomes intuitive, and if something is critical I can just look quickly towards that edge or corner of the frameline to check its in the frame. A similar thing happens with any Leica lens, the framelines are approximate, and with experience your brain intuitively says to you how much is going to be in the actual photograph. So I know its an expensive decision, but I'd stick with the 28mm idea.

 

Steve

[yanidel]

The 35mm framelines are the most balanced ones in terms of size vs viewfinder area.

As for 50mm, i don't think it is too close to 35mm. To me these two focals are different shooting styles, meaning I don't swap them for one shot only opportunities, but for general situations (indoor vs outdoor, tiny streets vs avenues, crowded vs isolated, etc...). On the opposite a 24mm or 90mm will be used only for a specific shot and I always put the 35 or 50mm back on immediately afterwards.

[Ecar]

The 28mm Ultron is a nice sharp lens, but it has hideous focus shift as you stop down, to the extent that if something is critical you need to focus bracket shots.

That's interesting Steve. Actually, I wouldn't call the CV 28/2 a sharp lens, although I love the way it renders - and I haven't noticed much, if any, focus shift on my copy.

I guess this illustrates a frequent issue with CV lenses - sample variation. I'd definitely give this lens a try if you are in a position to test a few samples before buying.

 

Back to the main topic: I don't find the 35mm FOV to be too close to the 50. Actually, I'd argue that 35mm is the most "natural" - ie, useful - focal length for FF, just like 28mm was on the cropped M8 sensor IMHO. With a 35mm lens, you still get sufficient space to see what's going on outside the frame - very valuable in a busy/dynamic environment.

However, if you mainly take static pictures, the 28mm may be more appropriate, and the higher resolution of the M9 would still enable you to crop images in those situations where you feel it's too wide.

 

Re lens choice: if it has to be a Leica lens and funds are tight, the obvious candidates for me are the Elmarit in 28mm and the Cron in 35mm. The Summarit 35 also seems to be a great performer - at least optically - at a substantially lower price point, but I have no first-hand experience with this lens.

[250swb]

The 35mm framelines are the most balanced ones in terms of size vs viewfinder area.

As for 50mm, i don't think it is too close to 35mm. To me these two focals are different shooting styles, meaning I don't swap them for one shot only opportunities, but for general situations (indoor vs outdoor, tiny streets vs avenues, crowded vs isolated, etc...). On the opposite a 24mm or 90mm will be used only for a specific shot and I always put the 35 or 50mm back on immediately afterwards.

 

 

Interesting. I've never considered the M series as so limited that lens choice revolves around what framelines are easiest to see. Still, if it works for you thats all that matters, after all we each have favourite lenses and fields of view.

 

Steve

[tgray]

Interesting. I've never considered the M series as so limited that lens choice revolves around what framelines are easiest to see. Still, if it works for you thats all that matters, after all we each have favourite lenses and fields of view.

 

Can't agree with that second point more. However, if I had to wear my glasses instead of contacts, I might give up 28mm on my M. There is no way in hell I can even remotely see the edges with glasses.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jamie Roberts]

If you shoot enough, the interior frame lines is what you can use anyway, to tell you the truth, on wides.

 

I've never needed an external finder, though I don't shoot architecture with an M and I don't care about totally precise framing either. That's what SLRs are for

 

What I found shooting the M8 and an M6 .85 is that the interior framelines help me with composition within the frame itself, and my brain "gets" the total picture over time.

 

So even with the M8 I use a magnifier for the longer lenses. But if I put a 24 or 21 on it, then I can tell from the other framelines where to place the subject in relation to the overall frame. Chimping helps at first; I don't do this anymore though.

 

You just get used to it

 

It's way worse on the M8 with longer lenses that are "off" because you don't have room for error For example, on the 75 Lux, the framelines on my M8 original are so bad it's hard to do portraits when the subject is moving.

 

(I'm hoping the M9 is a lot better in that regard!).