Author Topic: Recommendations for a 35 mm Rangefinder (Read 8947 times)

glider · « **on:** May 10, 2010, 02:28:43 PM »

Hey all, I am interested in obtaining a decent rangefinder- not sure i want to bust out the type of cash needed for a leica m3 or a besa but i am interested obtaining something with decent glass- any recommendations and helpful hints would be appreciated.

Been thinking about: zeiss contax, leitz minolta, canon? but open to anything with good optics
looking to get into using it as a go to daily driver and as an adjunct to my crappy cameras (diana and brownie hawks). thanks in advance for the recommendation

Francois · « **Reply #1 on:** May 10, 2010, 04:23:45 PM »

I guess it all depends if you want changeable optics or not.

In the fixed lens field, Yashica made some pretty sweet cameras. Electro-35, Lynx-2000 come to mind.
There's also the well underrated Olympus Trip-35 which, while mostly automatic, has an outstanding lens.
There's also the Minolta Hi-Matics... though I've never tried one.

On the removable lens side, there's the Voigtlander Bessa R series, Leicas, Zeiss-Ikon has a new series of cameras out, Contax T series, Hasselblad X-Pan... Or on the low budget side, there's always the Russian Fed...

LT · « **Reply #2 on:** May 10, 2010, 05:08:15 PM »

I love my bessa R3A - a superb camera - lots of other users here too who will contest to their greatness I'm sure.

Pete_R · « **Reply #3 on:** May 10, 2010, 06:25:07 PM »

What sort of budget are you thinking of? The Bessas aren't expensive in comparison to most. I used to have a 'T' which is a bit different.

The Minolta CLE is great if a bit limited in viewfinder frame lines. I regret selling mine. But you're looking at 400 pounds for a good one and that's without lenses. The current Zeiss Ikon I can recommend but cost is high - though not as high as a Leica.

If by 'Zeiss Contax' you mean the original Contax rangefinders made by Zeiss Ikon, then I would recommend an early IIA (black dial). They're more reliable than the later colour dial ones. The IIIa is the same but with a meter but the meter might not work. I wouldn't bother with the II or III. Older and less reliable. If you consider any of these, budget for a service as most will need it.

As for lenses, I don't think you'd be disappointed with any of the Cosina Voigtlander range.

If you want something with a decent lens, not too expensive, small, easy to carry etc. and can accept a non-rangefinder, look at a the Yashica T Zoom. It's what I carry in the car all the time and is more than capable of decent pictures.

(Did you see how I managed to fit some porn in here).

Blaxton · « **Reply #4 on:** May 10, 2010, 06:30:58 PM »

I've had pretty good luck with my Canonet G-III 17: http://www.cameraquest.com/canql17.htm

It has a fast, fixed, 40mm lens, fairly bright range-finder and operates perfectly well without a battery (albeit without a light meter), which is a good thing since you can't buy a battery for it.

There are other, earlier and probably less good versions of this camera which went out of production around 1980.

A used one in excellent condition usually casts around $100 on ebay. Plan on replacing the light seals or paying someone else to do it for you.

Nigel · « **Reply #5 on:** May 10, 2010, 08:42:21 PM »

Here's a FED 3, CLA'd for $65 = shipping. (and you'd be stopping me buying it - which would be a good thing!)

http://tinyurl.com/33chump

Francois - which FED do you recommend?

Francois · « **Reply #6 on:** May 10, 2010, 10:35:46 PM »

I don't know since I don't have one...
All I know is that they're classic Soviet mechanical smoothness and quality...

Though 65 bucks sounds pretty darn sweet...

I personally have a thing against cameras that use the M39 mount. ~~The choice of optics for those cameras is somewhat limited~~. well, I just love being wrong

http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Leica_Standard
But saying that, I have my grandpa's old Leica 1C which uses the same mount.

I was reading up on it on Camerapedia and the earliest Russian M39 lenses have a different thread pitch from the Leica M39 standard. This was later corrected.

That being said, the Fed3 looks like a decent "start-up" rangefinder.
Since this is an Olympic model, it means it was made in 1980 (if I remember) so no mounting problem there.
I only wish it had the Leica M mount...

sapata · « **Reply #7 on:** May 10, 2010, 11:32:55 PM »

Quote from: glider on May 10, 2010, 02:28:43 PM

Hey all, I am interested in obtaining a decent rangefinder- not sure i want to bust out the type of cash needed for a leica m3 or a besa but i am interested obtaining something with decent glass- any recommendations and helpful hints would be appreciated.

Been thinking about: zeiss contax, leitz minolta, canon? but open to anything with good optics
looking to get into using it as a go to daily driver and as an adjunct to my crappy cameras (diana and brownie hawks). thanks in advance for the recommendation

If you're looking for cheap and decent glass apparently the russian "Industar" lens are pretty good. I was in the same situation as yours few months ago and loads of people recomended me that. The reason i didn't buy is that I didn't know how reliable the body would be.

Now, you might want to get a decent Leica III F which will cost you about 300.00 pounds without the lens, then all you need is get an Industar for 50.00 pounds and you're sorted!

DS · « **Reply #8 on:** May 10, 2010, 11:47:07 PM »

i have a bit of a thing for cheap RFs.....

I like the Zorkis- I have a 4 and a 4K. They're esoteric but pretty good. The Jupiter lenses are great if you find good ones. The bodies are also surprisingly well made and they're cheap. I haven't used any Feds but I guess they're much of a muchness. I also have a Kiev 4 contax copy- which is frankly a better camera than any of the M39 soviet rf's- the finder is clearer and the lenses are cheaper and less likely to be out of adjustment. The handling on the body is strange and somewhat more unwieldy than the Zorkis though.

The problem with the FSU stuff is finding good ones. I find that most of the ones that are junk have been junk since the day they were made and look pretty new- the more worn ones that have obviously been shot with a lot are a better bet (but maybe that's just me).

The Konica rangefinders are pretty sweet too- I've got 2 Auto S2s- They were quite common camera and can be had very cheaply but give great results.

The Olympus 35RC, 35RD & 35SP are really worth looking out for as well

I'm going to stop now before I reveal the terrifying depths of my addiction to high quality, cheap photographic junk

LT · « **Reply #9 on:** May 11, 2010, 06:22:29 AM »

Another vote for the Olympus 35sp - they don't come up very often though. They're a bit chunky, but very good cameras wth spot metering and a supersharp f1.7 lens.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympus_35SP?wasRedirected=true

Skorj · « **Reply #10 on:** May 11, 2010, 06:39:49 AM »

Yup! Two:

http://filmwasters.com/forum/index.php?topic=772.0

http://filmwasters.com/forum/index.php?topic=770.0

Skj.

roman · « **Reply #11 on:** May 11, 2010, 07:27:38 AM »

I would recommend olympus XA as a poket cam/rangefinder. good optics and cheap!

Karl · « **Reply #12 on:** May 11, 2010, 10:03:46 AM »

I use a contax G2 with a 45mm lens. The lens quality is superb and it's very, very well made. The viewfinder is a bit small and it has quite a noisy autofocus (manual possible but not user friendly). Great as a high quality, quick shooting camera with exactly the right amount of controls.

Francois · « **Reply #13 on:** May 11, 2010, 04:12:13 PM »

There's also the Minolta CLA/Leica CL. Both use Leica M lenses. Quite nice though a bit on the expensive side.

glider · « **Reply #14 on:** May 11, 2010, 09:36:20 PM »

any comments on a contax g1 - i am eyeing on up and the price seems reasonable

neelin · « **Reply #15 on:** May 11, 2010, 11:24:46 PM »

I've got a G1, R4M, Zorki4, (& a *igi M8)

The G1 is a great camera and really fine lenses for the price. The best in hand feel of any camera I've ever held and a great size. I don't like the setting of the distance when zone focusing. It will literally move by breathing on it. Other than that, I'm not all that crazy about autofocus, AND the silly light it emits in low light for boosting focusing ability of the electronics. It really attracts attention to the camera. Fairly expensive batteries.

My R4M with a LTM CV 25mm/f4 with click focus stops (& not rangefinder coupled) gets by far the most use these days

Robert

Ed Wenn · « **Reply #16 on:** May 12, 2010, 12:19:31 AM »

I'm a Yashica GSN (or GTN) 35 Electro kind of guy. Super cheap (usually around GBP30 at most). Amazing lenses. Very, very good 'bang for buck' ratio.

http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/index-frameset.html?YashicaElectro35GSN.html~mainFrame

wavebeat · « **Reply #17 on:** May 14, 2010, 06:20:07 PM »

I wouldn't recommend a rangefinder at all, but this, a Leica standard, the original miniature 35mmm camera.

... just pull focus and shoot.

[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]

Phil Bebbington · « **Reply #18 on:** May 14, 2010, 07:17:20 PM »

Wavebeat, that is pretty! Almost enough to tempt me into shooting 35mm $:-\$

Francois · « **Reply #19 on:** May 14, 2010, 10:37:36 PM »

While being on the Leica theme, here's a bit of drooling material for you: My grandpa's Leica 1C
On Ilford XP2 shot with my Nikon.

[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]

wavebeat · « **Reply #20 on:** May 15, 2010, 01:58:27 PM »

Very nice Francois, according to the Leica pocket book this is circa 1949 - 1952 with a total production run of only 1200, so, since it looks pristine, I'd guess its worth a lot of money.

Francois · « **Reply #21 on:** May 15, 2010, 03:16:47 PM »

The camera is in very good shape. Only a minor scratch on top (the silver paint flaked off). I also have the separate rangefinder and the original case!
Grandpa took really good care of his stuff.

choppert · « **Reply #22 on:** May 16, 2010, 12:02:30 PM »

I'm afraid to say I toyed with some cheaper RFs but just found I was wasting money.

I saved for an M6 and didn't regret it for one second. It's still worth way more than I paid for it - more than can be said for any of my other investments!

Chops

This-is-damion · « **Reply #23 on:** May 16, 2010, 02:39:50 PM »

i can give props to the Bessa r3 a, the Yashica electro and the yashica T4.

All cameras i own and use (to different degrees) love them all.

gregor · « **Reply #24 on:** May 16, 2010, 04:30:12 PM »

for a relatively inexpensive and for excellent optics, I'll second (or third) the Canonet G-III 17 as a great starter RF. Batteries? Shops here sell the silver substitute for the mercury battery if you want to shoot aperture priority.

I use both that and a leica m3.

Andrea. · « **Reply #25 on:** May 16, 2010, 05:34:09 PM »

I'd second the Industar lens'. I have a Industar61 I use on a Zorki6. Both are excellent - although I did have Oleg cla the body some years ago.
The Zorki6 is small and nice to use. The RF patch ok but speeds are limited. If I require something with a slower speed I use a Kiev with Jupiter lens.

Info Red · « **Reply #26 on:** May 17, 2010, 02:47:22 AM »

A great place to find out about all things rangefinder is Rangefinder.com: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/
They are always willing to discuss rangefinders with the uninitiated!

Info Red

patois · « **Reply #27 on:** May 22, 2010, 05:03:04 PM »

My bessa r3m is not a leica in any way but I love it and have made some amazing images with it. I've also had a ton of fun with my Yashicas so I'd say go with either one.