Wondering how necessary the add-on 24mm finder is. I'd like to do without it if I could.

-- Raymond Negus (raynegus@pcez.com), March 12, 2002

Answers

For me the edges of the .58 are an approxiamation of the coverage of the 24, and in actuallity wider. I have used this method in a pinch, but for truly accurate framing my recommendation is to use the auxillary finder.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), March 12, 2002.

I use the .58 M-6 for almost all my puctures and found the 24MM covered almost perfectly by the viewfinder. I will add that I wear gkasses. Perhaps the viewfinder covers a bit more for those who can focus without them. Ned learned (www.kajabbi.com) )

-- Ned Learned (ned@kajabbi.com), March 12, 2002.

I second the above. I need to take off my glasses to see the whole .58 finder with the 24mm where as I can see the whole image with the BL finder.

But if I've got a flash in the shoe I've no other choice than to just use the whole .58 viewing area. Works pretty well actually.

So you have hte option of not geting a finder but they are so bright and wonderful to look through.

-- Neil Swanson (neilsphoto@yahoo.com), March 12, 2002.

Let's put it this way - if you look through the .58 finder with or without glasses and sort of 'gestalt' everything visible with peripheral vision without moving your eye you won't get many surprises framing for the 24 - it's at least as accurate as any of the frame lines or brightline finders (e.g. 85% at infinity).

You can even frame for a 21, but you really have to move your eye around then - looking up, down, sideways. It gives me a headache.

But the 24? Pretty OK.

BTW the 24 brings up the 35mm frame lines so you don't get distracted by the 28 frame.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), March 12, 2002.