Viewfinders for 21's...what's the bottom line?

[james.liam]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've reviewed seven or eight threads here to glean some wisdom, as I preliminarily contemplate a 21 SEM for my MM v.1. 

 

From what I gather:

 

Leica: the latest iteration is, apart from the lofty price, well-built, not as bright as the others and extends behind the camera a tad more than others, which may interfere with ease of use. The built-in M8 lines have been reported by some as distracting and there isn't a view beyond the frame lines to appreciate objects lurking outside the FOV. Parallax compensation lines are included for objects closer than 2 metres.  

 

Zeiss: seems to be the brightest of the lot but there's some question as to the offset so some counsel to leave it on Ikon bodies where the hotshoe sits in a slightly different position relative to the mount. Lloyd Chambers prefers this one and has never commented of an issue. Square shaped, it sits higher on the camera.

 

Voigtländer: The latest round metal version is the smallest and best value at ~30% of the cost of the Leica. Some distance between the lines and the edge, affords limited view of the surrounds. Bright, a little less barrel distortion than the others is reported. No parallax compensation.  I am unable to gather whether there are offset issues for M cameras.

 

Feel free to add your personal experience or dispel any misimpression on my part.

 

Thanks in advance.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[semi-ambivalent]

The CV finders are great. I own three: 21, 28 and 35. Bright. Build quality is high. The 35 developed a slanted frame set and Mr. Gandy replaced it without issue. He's solid. I also bought Leica's 21 because I wanted it and had the money. Gorgeous, build quality is very high. Looks like you spent a lot of money for it. That's supposed to be a plus, right? I like it more than the CV but kept that in case the Leica VF is damaged, etc. They all get regular use on both my M3 and MP. If I cared that much about offset I'd use my Nikons so I can't speak to that. I suppose there's the "value" thing but I never see it calculated against any variable other than price. I know there's other variables to plug in there but user has to supply theirs, not mine.

 

s-a

[FrozenInTime]

When shooting on film there is nothing quite as good as the Frankenfinder #12011 

Parallax correction at close focus and a bubble level ensure consistent results when previewing is not an option.

[250swb]

Like s-a I have three focal lengths that need finders, 21mm, 28mm, and 35mm, and each is represented by both a Leica and a Voigtlander (plastic) finder and I prefer the Voigtlander finders in each case. They may not be utterly perfect in terms of distortion, but it's the framing that's important and the finder can't tell you what the lens will be doing anyway. Yet the Voigtlander finders seem to have a sparkle and contrast in the view that is lacking with the more optically perfect and neutral Leica finders and I find that a little more inspiring and exciting. And they are much cheaper.

 

 

Steve

[MarkP]

I assume you have seen my old posts regarding offset and rotational error when framing with the Zeiss 21mm finder.

 

I have the MM and M240 (where obviously if accurate framing is needed one uses that awful EVF), and the 21 Summilux and SEM.

 

To me the Leica OVF is the best compromise between reasonably compact size, VF optical quality is still excellent, and framing accuracy (accepting RF framing is almost always a compromise).

 

The Zeiss 21mm OVF is gorgeous to look through, less accurate for framing, and very bulky and gets caught on things.

I had it for a few months after buying it on the recommendation of my Leica dealer. After we did a formal comparison of the VFs they took it back and I bought the Leica.

 

Voigtlander OVF distortion was too disconcerting for me.

 

Leica OVFs are outrageously expensive - the cost of a CV lens!

[pgk]

I've had the Frankenfinder - brilliant but far too bulky and this negates its viability for me on an M, but still by far the best I've used for accuracy/precision. I've also had/have Leica viewfinders old (metal), not that old (plastic) and current (metal). For me the current versions are the best as they are clear, small, light and as good as I need. Older models can have problems and be difficult/expensive to repair. New versions are expensive new but used, well they can be relatively reasonable if you search long enough.

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I assume you have seen my old posts regarding offset and rotational error when framing with the Zeiss 21mm finder.

 

I have the MM and M240 (where obviously if accurate framing is needed one uses that awful EVF), and the 21 Summilux and SEM.

 

To me the Leica OVF is the best compromise between reasonably compact size, VF optical quality is still excellent, and framing accuracy (accepting RF framing is almost always a compromise).

 

The Zeiss 21mm OVF is gorgeous to look through, less accurate for framing, and very bulky and gets caught on things.

I had it for a few months after buying it on the recommendation of my Leica dealer. After we did a formal comparison of the VFs they took it back and I bought the Leica.

 

Voigtlander OVF distortion was too disconcerting for me.

 

Leica OVFs are outrageously expensive - the cost of a CV lens!

 

 

 

My experience confirms your observations about the framing accuracy of the Leica v Zeiss VFs, but I prefer the Zeiss for its outstanding brightness and clarity. 

 

You're also right that it is larger, but not to a degree that bothers me, though it can get caught and even moved back in the hotshot if you aren't careful, and it once came off completely as I pulled the camera from the bag. No damage, but not ideal.

 

For a while I favoured the beautiful Leica 21/24/28 circular finder: it's a lovely object and certainly attracted more admiring comments than I've ever had before when using a Leica! It does have barrel distortion that some people don't like: I got used to it.  It can be a very useful thing, worth considering.

 

But I end up using Zeiss VF because it's accurate enough but mainly because its the nicest to look through, and that helps my photography more than anything else as far as viewfinders go.

[MarkP]

I understand your point of view Peter - that Zeiss OVF is like the VF of a Leica S.

 

I too almost lost the Zeiss finder a few times when it got caught on something, either the edge of the camera bag, or even the camera strap!

 

I tried the Leica variable 21-28mm viewfinder as I was offered a pristine used one at an excellent price, but I did find the barrel distortion and tunnel vision most disconcerting.

[a911s]

I use a Zeiss 18mm viewfinder for my Leica 21mm f2.8 Asph. Works great for framing accurately.

[d2mini]

Those giving praise to the Voigtlander, this is the 21/25, correct?

And are we talking about the plastic version or the metal version? Optical differences between the two?

[james.liam]

FrozeInTime: the Frankenfinder is a cumbersome, albeit accurate contraption. I think  I'll pass

 

250SWB: how severe is the distortion in the Voigtlander? is the Leica free of this?

 

MarkP: I did read your posts about the rotational issue and have seen others post elsewhere about this problem as well. As some don't seem to have this issue, is it possible it was the alignment of your particular copy or did you see this with other Zeiss finders?

 

d2Mini: Some above appear to speak only of the plastic finder which sports a bulbous front element that the 21/25 does not and so it is likely a different design. I was referring to this newer one.

 

I have a bead on a Leica, still for lots of money ($500) but the CV is $210 these days. The extra $290 won't make or break me but I'd rather spend the extra cash on something more pressing. Is it worth it the premium??

[james.liam]

 

 

MarkP: I did read your posts about the rotational issue and have seen others post elsewhere about this problem as well. As some don't seem to have this issue, is it possible it was the alignment of your particular copy or did you see this with other Zeiss finders?

 

UPDATE: found a link in rangefinderforum showing the issue with poorly aligned internal optics on the Zeiss (Jaap even chimed in there).

 

[cbretteville]

My copies of the three Zeiss VFs I have are fantastic, though somewhat pricy compared to the CVs. I don't think the slight difference in positioning on the M vs an Ikon makes any real difference on a 21mm. 

Cheers, Carl 

[Chuck Albertson]

I use that lens, and use the Leica finder. It works fine, but it's your money. All three finders work fine, with a 21mm any external finder is going to be horseshoes and grenades.

[james.liam]

I use that lens, and use the Leica finder. It works fine, but it's your money. All three finders work fine, with a 21mm any external finder is going to be horseshoes and grenades.

 

 

LOL. 

 

I've tracked down a Zeiss for the cost of a new Voigtländer. Just want to clarify the controversy re: hotshot position and accuracy.

Have better uses for the money if it can be saved.

[stephen.w]

I assume you have seen my old posts regarding offset and rotational error when framing with the Zeiss 21mm finder.

 

 

 

My experience confirms your observations about the framing accuracy of the Leica v Zeiss VFs, but I prefer the Zeiss for its outstanding brightness and clarity. 

 

 

 

I wonder, would this framing inaccuracy be worse or better with a narrower focal length? I'm tempted to get the Zeiss 25mm finder to use with a Leica 24mm lens. Mark's comment about it being like looking through the finder of a Leica S just sold it to me.

[250swb]

 

 

250SWB: how severe is the distortion in the Voigtlander? is the Leica free of this?

 

 

 

Distortion is only on the 21mm finder (not the other CV finders), and it isn't very much at all, but I mentioned it because I know how every little last aspect has to be perfect with many LUF'ers even if it doesn't affect the image. A finder is only for composing the edge of the frame and seeing a reasonable approximation of what is happening inside the frame, such as action, it doesn't matter at all if a finder is optically perfect.

[james.liam]

Distortion is only on the 21mm finder (not the other CV finders), and it isn't very much at all, but I mentioned it because I know how every little last aspect has to be perfect with many LUF'ers even if it doesn't affect the image. A finder is only for composing the edge of the frame and seeing a reasonable approximation of what is happening inside the frame, such as action, it doesn't matter at all if a finder is optically perfect.

 

The nagging issue is the 'rotational' issue mentioned for the Zeiss and distortion on the CV. The link I included seemed to show a skewed internal optics to the finder, resulting in poor framing. As Chuck Albertson aptly remarked, VF's are 'horseshoes and grenades'. Want to minimize the inaccuracy as much as is realistically feasible, understanding that all of them are a compromise and none are particularly inexpensive.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Winedemonium]

I like the brightness and quality of the Zeiss finders.

[NB23]

Zeiss = voigtlander. I owned both. On each eye, they are indistinguishable.

 

Marketing. Marketing. Marketing.