Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,277   Posts: 1,534,830   Online: 843
      
Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    vpwphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,107
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    7

    35mm M3 "eyes" or "googles"

    35mm M3 "eyes" or "googles"

    Wondering in anyone out there that has a set handy, could have an optometrist measure the refractive index of the lens for the viewfinder or rangefinder, the index should be the same for either. WHY? Because I would like to make a set of "googles" that corrects for the 40mm summicron!!!

    I searched the net far and wide before posting this.
    I know about some thinking the 50 or 35 lines being "close enough". I have M3 so 35 are out and 50 is too tight.
    I like to make things anyway.

    Thank you kindly.
    --vincent
    Last edited by vpwphoto; 01-18-2013 at 04:52 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Removed my request asking folks not to tell me I am wasting my time with this.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    261
    That's not going to work because the focussing cam of the lens has to be matched to the goggles.
    Any non-goggled 35 M lens will focus fine on an M3 but the framing in the viewfinder will be off: to compensate for the framing, there has to be a wider field of view (Leitz made a few accessory viewfinders that went over the outside of the viewing field only: there was a hole in the middle to match the split image. It didn't work well. In order to match the change in viewing field magnification the rangefinder window had to be accommodated, and then the cam changed. Doing only two out of three is useless. Most people would use an accessory viewfinder or buy an M2/4/6/7 or Voigtlander

    David

  3. #3
    vpwphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,107
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    7
    Thanks Mr someonename ddavid.
    I didn't think about the cam. I did know in the back of my mind that the goggled 35s didn't work right or a myth without the goggles.
    Anyone else? PM me if you know otherwise, else the discussion is dead.
    Thank you.

  4. #4
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,178
    On my rangefinder cameras, I only bought lenses which had matching viewfinder frames in the camera. In your case why would you not just acquire one of these:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	40mmsucher_1.jpg 
Views:	5 
Size:	578.1 KB 
ID:	62897

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    261
    I have a 35 f3.5 Summaron with detachable goggles and the is an interlock which keeps the lens at infinity if you take the goggles off. Most wides designed for the M3 had the goggles held on with screws (wish I had a 35 f2.8 Summaron, with or without goggles). I have a 35 biogon for the Contax IIa which has no goggles but I use the Zeiss Stuttgart turret viewfinder .

    David

  6. #6
    vpwphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,107
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    7
    I don't like secondary finders... I am aware they exist, have used them and don't like them, the finder with rangefinder patch is where I do my business or the screen of SLR or LF camera.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    New Jersey (again)
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,976
    You know those are "goggles," not "googles," right.

    I'm not sure how to help with your particular issue - I had a set but sold them some time ago.

    I would think that maybe if someone could take their set to an optician, perhaps the lenses can be measured.

  8. #8
    ced
    ced is offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    58
    Yep "Goggles" as in oggles...
    I see this mistake all over the web and so keeps getting made as probably that is where people pick up the error.
    My apologies to any non english mother tongued users here as it is an easy habit to fall for because of the well known search engine by the same name.
    Actually I don't mind what people call it maybe "Boggles" could also be an alternative.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin