chris_tribble Posted May 16, 2007 Share #1 Posted May 16, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Several people have reported how pleased they are with the Franken-finder for the WATE, but I was interested to hear how people have been getting on with others. I've just been able to get a used Leica 21-24-28 finder which takes a diopter and have been really pleased by how well it helps me visualise the scene - (the Leitz 21 finder and the very nice Voigtlander 28 have gone off for to the auction site...) What are other people using? Pro's and cons? As I say, the advantage of the diopter on the Leica finder has been massive for me. How have you been faring...? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 16, 2007 Posted May 16, 2007 Hi chris_tribble, Take a look here Experience with different finders on the M8. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest guy_mancuso Posted May 16, 2007 Share #2 Posted May 16, 2007 Chris i chose a differrent path and use the Zeiss 21 mm finder for my WATE , reason is the Zeiss has the least distortion so lining up straight lines is easier. Now i use that for the 16mm setting on the Wate and use the full viewfinder for the 21mm setting which i do get a little extra of. But hear i have to unscrew the 1.25 magnifer so i can see better. it seems to work fine for me and keeps it simple. The WATE finder would be nice sometimes but I can do fine like this Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
doubice Posted May 16, 2007 Share #3 Posted May 16, 2007 Guy, Aren't you also using the TEWE finder? I seem to recall somebody shipped one to you a month ago or so. How do you find its framing with your 135mm Apo? Chris, The WATE finder is sometimes referred to as the "Frankenfinder" on this forum. I used to own the Leica 21-24-28 finder, but found it too big and not accurate enough. The WATE finder is even bigger and uglier, but probably more accurate as it has frame lines. I think Guy's idea is better. Best, Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted May 16, 2007 Share #4 Posted May 16, 2007 Jan i have not actually used it yet. LOL What i did do is had leica take in my 1355mm APO and change the lens mount to 90mm and than code it for there 135 2.8 so now in effect my 135mm shows the 90 frame lines for me to have more of a frame reference or guide as it may be . Visually it helps me with framing the 135mm. Now since i have done this , leica will do it for a cost of 125 dollars to convert it for folks. once again i am in the guinea pig category . But it is a nice option and folks may want to look into this idea. Jan i do like the Zeiss 15mm idea, even though it is not the perfect solution like the WATE finder this just keeps it easy and simple plus a lot smaller Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted May 16, 2007 Author Share #5 Posted May 16, 2007 Dear Guy / Jan - revealing. I liked the fact that the little Voigtlander 28 had frame-lines and was so bright, though was less happy with my Leica 21 - a bit blurry over all - and still had problems really "seeing" the scene as I couldn't put the diopter on either (need reading glasses but try not to use them when working with a camera - though there are moments when I'm having to squint at the histogram ... downsides of aging...) Agree with the you re the accuracy of the Leica zoom, but couldn't bring myself to fork out for the WATE finder (or for two Ziess finders for that matter)... Also, as I got my mint copy for for £100 less than the UK list, I suppose I'll be living with the compromise... As far as the 135 is concerned, really looking forward to getting my coded "90" version back from Solms. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted May 16, 2007 Share #6 Posted May 16, 2007 Chris the 135mm works out to be pretty nice like this , the true framing is about 60 to 70 percent towards the 90 framelines. That's a guess , have not measured it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenerrolrd Posted May 16, 2007 Share #7 Posted May 16, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have been working my way thru the alternatives ..these are my impressions....for the 21 or 24 focal lenghths ..I use the Zeiss 25/28 . I feel for most of my shooting with wide angles that I need a finder than approximates the FOV for distance shots. The 28 frame works great for the 24 and the 25 frame for the 21. I would rather have it close for my distance shots and approximate for closer distances . Using the WATE I plan to use the Zeiss 21 to approximate the 18mm FOV..again favoring accuracy at my typical viewing distance. I also have the new "Frankenfinder" for the WATE..I have been surprised at how bright it is ..similar to the Zeiss finders. I think I could get used to it much more easily than I thought. Overall I like the Zeiss finders a lot better than the Leica ... I have both the older metal finders and the new plastic models. They have more distortion, are not as bright and appear to offer less magnification( subjects appear smaller). The only slight advantage I saw with the Leica finders (21/28) is that they have a little more room outside the frames....this helps in street photography . Neither the zeiss or the leica individual finders appear to take diopters . Still playing around the magnifier /diopter combinations for the viewfinder . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted May 16, 2007 Author Share #8 Posted May 16, 2007 Maybe it all comes back to the diopter for me. Is it possible to use one on the Zeiss finders? Framing's so much more difficult if the scene itself isn't clear! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenerrolrd Posted May 17, 2007 Share #9 Posted May 17, 2007 Chris It doesn t look like the zeiss finder can accept a diopter. For certain it will not take the leica diopter as the viewfinder has a larger eye piece. Roger Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted May 17, 2007 Share #10 Posted May 17, 2007 I am fortunate enough to own a Leica 21 mm finder (for the C/V 15 mm) and a ditto 28 mm finder (for the 21 mm Elmarit). Cosina/Voigtländer finders are good and practical, however, and should take care of most needs. Going Zeiss does seem a bit extravagant. At the other end, I have been experimenting with a 135 mm Tele-Elmar without any finder at all. I use the rangefinder patch. Not terribly precise of course, but at infinity you get about 1/3 more than the patch shows – not terribly much more than regular M8 finder frames give us. The 90 mm frame rebuild (courtesy of Guy Mancuso) doesn't appeal to me at all – that seems to me more difficult to estimate than the patch improvisation. Focus? No problem at all. As several others have found, the M8 focuses 135 mm lenses with aplomb. The more reason for Leica to give us a goggled Apo-Telyt. (I do own the big Elmar, but it is grotesquely heavy, and a bit limp at 2.8.) The old man from the Age of the 135 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted May 17, 2007 Share #11 Posted May 17, 2007 I own a Leica 21mm finder and a Ricoh 21/28 finder (for the ricoh grd). So far I have used mostly the 21/28 finder for my 15cv and for my 21mm Leica lens. Its small and does pretty ok, (I know some say the aspect ration was different but not big deal. I looked through the Frankenfinder, found it to be very bright, Like the level, but did not like the strong distorsion. However changing external viewfidner all the time is not what I want.-thats why I use the Ricoh right now. Cheers, Tom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.