I know this topic has come up before but some of the info I've read seemed contradicting to me. Presently I use an M6HM with 35/75 lenses. I'm comfortable with the 35 framelines on the .85 (no glasses). My next lens will be either the 21asph or the 24asph. I would like to avoid an external viewfinder and consider a second body. What is the full coverage of the viewfinder of the .72 and the .58 M6 and how accurate will the framing be ?

-- Harro de Wilde (hdewilde@uni-one.nl), January 23, 2002

Answers

The reason the information you have received is contradictory is that the amount of coverage you get out of the M6 viewfinder is largely dependent upon how close you can get your eyeball to the VF ocular. The closer you can get, the more you will see.

Having clarified the above I will say the following: Personally, with my .58 body I see slightly more than the 24, but not as much as a 21 angle of view from the outer frame -- call it a 22.5mm angle of view. With my .72 body, I can get more than the 28, but not quite up to the 24 -- call it a 26mm field of view.

Hence, I feel somewhat comfortable using either body sans finder for my 24, and the .58 body sans finder for the 21, but only when critical framing is not required. So, as a practical matter, I tend to mount the finder when either super-wide is on the camera. Hope this helps!

:) Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), January 23, 2002.

Actually I was just experimenting with this, because I, too, would like to be able to avoid the external viewfinder.

You'll pretty much have to go with the .58.

With the .72x (without glasses), if you really strain hard to the absolute edges of the viewable area, and peer sideways into the corners, you can almost as much as the Leica 21mm viewfinder. The same for 24mm framing, although you don't have to strain quite as hard. But it kind of feels like your eyes are being propped open with toothpicks! Realistically the

WITH glasses, the 28 framelines are just barely visible.

With the .58x, the visible area around the 28 frame makes a reasonable 24 finder, and with a LITTLE straining or imagination you can a fair idea of the 21 field of view.

In addition, psychologically, the shrunken image in the .58 'looks' more like wide-angle perspective. Even if it isn't showing exactly what the 21 will see, it feels more comfortably like a wide-angle picture. I am now giving very serious consideration to a .58 of some kind (M7?) for just this reason.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), January 23, 2002.

missing words:

....realistically the .72 finder bottoms out at 28mm.

For critical framing, as Jack posted, you will need the 21 viewfinder - but I'm planning to just carry mine and 'sight' through it like a Hollywood film director when I need to figure exact framing. 8^).

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), January 23, 2002.

Dear Harro,

I use 24 and 20 mm auxiliary view finders, along with others, feel somewhat naked without them, and, yet, fully understand why people find them the pesky little so-and-sos that they, in fact, are. (I have things to say about finders but I've opened enough cans of worms this week).

If you use the 24 or 20 without finders either the M6 0.58, the Konica Hexar RF or the Minolta CLE will more or less work for you. A problem you will encounter with the bigger Leica lenses is viewfinder obstruction. You might want to consider the tiny Voightlander 20 or non-R.F. coupled 25. Use them without the new (and lovely) lens shades. The old Canon 25/3.5 is not a bad shooter either. I used one for years without an auxiliary view finder on my CLE. (Mine has become a delicate old dear over the years and rarely ventures in the mean streets these days.) Finally I bought it the Leica 24 auxiliary view finder. About a 2 years before Voightlander introduced its 25/4 lens which comes with a finder.

If you decide to brave an auxiliary view finder, the Leitz 24mm is nice because you can imagine a 20mm frame outside the 24mm frame.

Voightlander's 20/4 is cheap, very light, optically very good, and comes with an excellent auxiliary view finder. Highly recommended by little old me.

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@suma.kobe-wu.ac.jp), January 23, 2002.

I have a CLE and have played with the Voigtlander 25/4 on it without the viewfinder. Using the total viewfinder, it is pretty close. I believe that the CLE viewfinder is pretty close to the .58 of the M6. I don't have a spec sheet in front of me to verify the magnification factor.

-- (garylhuie@netscape.net), January 24, 2002.

Alex

There is no 20mm lens: the lens you refer to is 21mm. I only point this out because you seem to keep calling it a 20mm and it might be confusing.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), January 25, 2002.

Having checked again today - as mentioned, the CL finder (even with glasses) does a fair job of including everything the 'official' 24 finder does, if you ignor the lines and just take in everything visible - and the .58 finder is pretty much exact, also with glasses.

To get 21 framing with the .58 you have to peer into the corners a bit, but subject matter is there.

FWIW the mountain states Leica rep sez her husband shoots the 21 all the time without an external finder using the .58x.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), January 25, 2002.

Right, Robin. I meant 21, not 20.

There is a little Russian 20mm lens out there with a good finder. The rear element sticks too far in to be used on the CL because of its meter arm.

The VC 21 is fine, as is the VC 15/4.5.

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), January 28, 2002.