Hi,

Wondering if owner/users would pass on a few comments about their experiences with the .58 finder. Obvious comparisons with the .72 welcome. Also info on lenses used too please.

Cheers.

-- Simon Wong (drsimonwong@hotmail.com), June 30, 2001

Answers

I use the Konica Hexar RF, which has an 0.60 finder, virtually the same as the 0.58. Remember that the 14% decrease in magnification has less impact on the 90 and 135 frames than the larger ones. I use a 135 lens and wouldn't buy the Leica 0.58 because it lacks the 135 frame. I wear glasses and can see the 28 framelines in the 0.60 but I still prefer an accessory finder because it simulates the wideangle perspective "look" of the 28mm lens better. Mostly I use the Tri- Elmar on the Hexar, though I've used everything from 15mm Heliar up to the 135 APO-Telyt (and even the 400/6.8 with a slightly modified Visoflex housing but that's irrelevant to the finder magnification). I no longer own a 75/1.4 but that would be one lens I'd be worried about using on the 0.58--I hardly ever got sharp images on an 0.72-- but that lens' ergonomics were so contrary to why I use a Leica that it wasn't a big thing to part with it.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), June 30, 2001.

I have both a .58 and .72 body, and generally grab whichever one has film in it, because in use, I don't find them that much different. But, I tend to prefer using the .58 with the 3E or the 24 because the 28 framelines are much easier to see, and see around in the .58 finder, while the outer edges of the frame are pretty close to the 24. Also, for me, the .60 finder on the Hexar was not all that similar to the .58 finder on the M6. I'm not sure exactly why, perhaps the rf patch on the Hexar is just smaller, but the whole view seemed compressed relative to the .58 M. Maybe I just didn't give it enough time...

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), July 01, 2001.

Having noticed a bug in my .6 Hexar RF’s rangefinder, I checked out a Leica .58 locally and it has the same bug to a smaller extent. It may or may not be a problem for you and others, just something to watch for and make your own decision on.

The bug is this: With the low-magnififcation finders the image in the rangefinder patch moves around slightly if your eye moves behind the finder window, which makes finding exact focus difficult. Where the lens ends up focussed depends on where your eye is behind the finder.

It was enough of a problem with the Hexar to cause visible focus errors with a 90 wide open - but not with the 35 or 21. The error was about +/- 3 to 6 inches at 6 feet, maybe a foot at 20 feet. In the Leica the error looked to be a half to a third as severe.

By comparison, with my .72 bodies my eye has to be right at the edge if the viewfinder to start seeing a shift, and by that time half the 90 frame is no longer visible either - a good tip-off that my eye is out of position.

For that and other reasons I traded the Hexar yesterday (in part) for an M4-P. And I think there’s a good reason Leica left out the 135 frame in the .58.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), July 01, 2001.

Thanks Jack, Andy.

Jack, do you notice that the .58 finder is a little brighter and less prone to flare/fadeout, especially on the RHS 35 frameline? I compared both in my local shop but didn't have the time to really check it out.

Interesting news on the lower magnification centering problem Andy. Wonder why the Hexar has a greater variance. Even 3 inches at 6 foot is enough to have fuzzy eyes when doing portraiture? Hmm.

Still undecided. Cheers.

-- Simon Wong (drsimonwong@hotmail.com), July 02, 2001.

A titbit of information. Appears Tom Abrahamsson likes the .58 so much he had his Black Paint Millennium changed to the .58 finder. But then he only uses the .58 for wides.

Still undecided though:)

Do any of you guys with the .58 where glasses? I do and have almost no "space" outside the .72's 35 frameline. Wondering how important this is.

Cheers.

-- Simon Wong (drsimonwong@hotmail.com), July 02, 2001.

1. I wear glasses. 8^)

2. I now have 2 .72 bodies - one with the 28 frame and one without - sort of a poor man's version of a .58/.85 M6 combo ;^). I shoot with 35, 90 and 21.

3. I am getting used to the wide frames and with the 35 I am learning to see the compositional gestalten with my peripheral vision. So I feel less and less like I need the smaller viewfinder (this from a former happy G2 user!!) I think it's possible that not having the whole picture neatly boxed in an easy-to-see frame (e.g. SLR viewing) may actually be improving the composition and content of my pictures. But then, as the bumper sticker says: "Leica poeple do it the hard way." =:>(

4. If and when I finally get a 28, I may reconsider. (And for 24mm users the .58 has the advantage of allowing focused viewing by ignoring all the frame lines - no .72 can do that.) ?:^|

5. The .58 Leica and .6 Hexar also pair nicely with the Tri-Elmar, if that's a lens on your shopping list. $^)

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), July 02, 2001.

Effective base length of RF (EBL) = RF Baselength x Magnification

1) EBL of the M6 0.58 : 69.25 X 0.58 = 40.165mm, VF/RF has only 64.4% of viewing.

2) EBL of the M6 0.72 : 69.25 X 0.72 = 49.86mm. VF/RF has 86% of viewing.

The difference of EBL's is 9.695mm, it’s so much. For accurate focussing with fast normal, mid-, and tele- lenses the M6 0.72 or 0.86 are better.

Note, that EBL 40.165mm is much less than even EBL of Leica LTM (58.5mm).

-- Victor Randin (ved@enran.com.ua), July 03, 2001.

I have both the 0.85 and the 0.58 and if I had to pick only one it would be the 0.58 since most of my shots are with the 35 and 50 mm. the 0.85 is better for use with the 90. I have no desire for the 135mm.

-- Don M (maldos@home.com), July 03, 2001.