zeitoun
Established
I am considering a 1932 Leica II but I was wondering whether I should rather look for a III for its 1.5X rangefinder. Any one has any direct experience with these two models? Is the II rangefinder usable? How much better is the III's rangefinder? I do intend to use the camera, not put it on a shelf.
Thanks in advance,
Paul
confused
Thanks in advance,
Paul
confused
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
if both models are of equal mechanical and optical condition and you do not use slow shutter speeds the II is a great camera.
I do not find the 1x rf of the Leica II to be inferior to the 1.5x rf.
in fact the 1x rf is really great for two eyed use.
I would be more concerned with the lack of strap lugs on most Leica II's.
I do not find the 1x rf of the Leica II to be inferior to the 1.5x rf.
in fact the 1x rf is really great for two eyed use.
I would be more concerned with the lack of strap lugs on most Leica II's.
Last edited:
zeitoun
Established
Thanks, Xayraa33(!). I was aware of the lack of strap lugs, but loved the "historical" place of the II in the Leica mystique. I'll keep on ruminating!
Paul
Paul
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
What's the "historical" significance of II ?
I didn't know that the rf is only 1x in II and 1.5 in III.
You guys can tell that I'm scouting for one myself
I didn't know that the rf is only 1x in II and 1.5 in III.
You guys can tell that I'm scouting for one myself
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
the Leica II was the first Leica with a built in rangefinder.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
I'd go for a III, partly due to the strap lugs, and also for the slow shutter speeds (in other words, a little more useful than a II). And hey, if you want historic (or at least a little more unique), go for a black III. I've been using III's since I was 15 (almost 30 years), and even though I have other Leica's (IIIf, IIIa, IIIb, M2, M5, and have owned M3 and M6), I always go back to the III's. Good Luck!
Virgil
Newbie
My 2 cents.........I have a IIIA (1938) CLA by Oleg. I never use the finder but have the 50mm Voightlander Finder with 3.5 Elmar. I just love it!!!
zeitoun
Established
Thank you all. The info you provided was quite helpful. I was worried about the II's rf, and you answered that. The fact is that I am looking at what seems to be a nice II, black and all nickel hardware and that I don't seem to see for the moment an equivalent III. So, I'll have to decide whether I'll go for the II or wait until a nice III shows up. This is quite a tough life!
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
the Leica II is not as common as the III or IIIa.
and with a collapsable 50mm Elmar, the II makes for a handy pocketable camera.
I think this is the reason these hand no strap lugs as to easier fit a gentlemans jacket pocket.
and with a collapsable 50mm Elmar, the II makes for a handy pocketable camera.
I think this is the reason these hand no strap lugs as to easier fit a gentlemans jacket pocket.
zeitoun
Established
Well, I took the plunge and ordered my "new" Leica II. As usual with an ebay purchase, there is the "anxiety" of waiting to see what one has really ordered!
Thanks a lot to you all for the input. It helped a lot in getting me to make up my mind. I may have now to learn how to load film into an LTM Leica! This should be fun as should using it.
Paul
Thanks a lot to you all for the input. It helped a lot in getting me to make up my mind. I may have now to learn how to load film into an LTM Leica! This should be fun as should using it.
Paul
Luddite Frank
Well-known
My first Leicii were a "pair" from Ritz Collectibles: a III-f in the 600,000 range, and a D (II), in the 72,000 range, with nickel Elmar.
I got Every-ready cases for each (snub-nose for the D),
I planned on the III-f being the "user" and the "D" being a shelf-queen.
Turns-out that the "D" is in better repair... it's nice enough (excellent paint and minimal brassing) that I don't want to put too much wear on it, but it's a fine user, and I really didn't notice any difference between the two two cameras as far as the RF/VF's go...
It would seem that the early III-f cameras might be victims of post-WWII material quality issues, so things like shutter curtains don't age so well... mine needs curtains and a general CLA.
The old "D" seems to work pretty darn well... have to be concious of where the sun is, with the un-coated optics, but that 's part of its charm.
I really like the "D" because it is the first Leica w/ integrated RF, and it looks very much like the Standard and "A"...
That's my thoughts on them... the only other possible down-side to the "D". aside from it's possible "preciousness", would be the lack of flash sync, but then you could always scrounge a VACU or Hakosyn bolt-on sync or find the flash baseplate...
Enjoy your black Barnack when it arrives !
Luddite Frank
I got Every-ready cases for each (snub-nose for the D),
I planned on the III-f being the "user" and the "D" being a shelf-queen.
Turns-out that the "D" is in better repair... it's nice enough (excellent paint and minimal brassing) that I don't want to put too much wear on it, but it's a fine user, and I really didn't notice any difference between the two two cameras as far as the RF/VF's go...
It would seem that the early III-f cameras might be victims of post-WWII material quality issues, so things like shutter curtains don't age so well... mine needs curtains and a general CLA.
The old "D" seems to work pretty darn well... have to be concious of where the sun is, with the un-coated optics, but that 's part of its charm.
I really like the "D" because it is the first Leica w/ integrated RF, and it looks very much like the Standard and "A"...
That's my thoughts on them... the only other possible down-side to the "D". aside from it's possible "preciousness", would be the lack of flash sync, but then you could always scrounge a VACU or Hakosyn bolt-on sync or find the flash baseplate...
Enjoy your black Barnack when it arrives !
Luddite Frank
john neal
fallor ergo sum
I had both, and sold the III. I never use the slow speeds so it was not an issue. I prefer the RF on the II as I can see more of the scene I am shooting.
Actually I sold the III and a IIIa to keep the II - that's how much I prefer it.
Just a personal opinion
Actually I sold the III and a IIIa to keep the II - that's how much I prefer it.
Just a personal opinion
Sanders McNew
Rolleiflex User
I went through the same gyrations and
ended up with a II and a IIIa both. So
much for restraint.
The finders are not so different in use.
It's more important to find one that is
bright and sharp -- I've not found the
magnification to be an issue, or the
adjustable diopter on the IIIa to be a
plus.
I tend to shoot the IIIa only because it
has a new shutter curtain and the II's
shutter started to misbehave the last time
I used it. The II's body is a touch smaller
and you wouldn't think it matters ... but
it does. I prefer the II's size.
Your next stop, I predict, will be a Fed-2
from Russia. It bears a resemblande to
the Leica screwmounts but combines the
rangefinder and viewfinder quite nicely.
Have fun with your II -- it's a fine camera.
Sanders
ended up with a II and a IIIa both. So
much for restraint.
The finders are not so different in use.
It's more important to find one that is
bright and sharp -- I've not found the
magnification to be an issue, or the
adjustable diopter on the IIIa to be a
plus.
I tend to shoot the IIIa only because it
has a new shutter curtain and the II's
shutter started to misbehave the last time
I used it. The II's body is a touch smaller
and you wouldn't think it matters ... but
it does. I prefer the II's size.
Your next stop, I predict, will be a Fed-2
from Russia. It bears a resemblande to
the Leica screwmounts but combines the
rangefinder and viewfinder quite nicely.
Have fun with your II -- it's a fine camera.
Sanders
vickersdc
Established
I've got a 1937 Leica II and a FED-2 (except the FED came first, so Sanders may well have a point!). I've just bought a f3.5 50mm Elmar Red Scale to go with the II body.
It's surprising the difference in weight and size between the FED and Leica II - the II is much smaller and lighter - and feels great. The FED is cold to touch and feels 'hard', the Leica is, well, super.
I'd waited years and years to get a Leica, then when I did I went for the II as it was within (my somewhat limited) price range; but it had been serviced and had new shutter curtains fitted and the rangefinder alignment done. The VF/RF is clear and bright.
In use, well, I'm thrilled to bits. It turns out that I generally don't bother with the RF window for focussing (just set the dial), but do use the VF window for composition.
I can't tell you how pleased I am with my little Leica
PS: Have to say though, the FED is a much under-rated camera, I used it as my daily shooter for several months before the Leica and I liked it.
David
-----------------------------------
Visit http://creativeimagemaker.co.uk - the online magazine for the traditionalist photographer.
It's surprising the difference in weight and size between the FED and Leica II - the II is much smaller and lighter - and feels great. The FED is cold to touch and feels 'hard', the Leica is, well, super.
I'd waited years and years to get a Leica, then when I did I went for the II as it was within (my somewhat limited) price range; but it had been serviced and had new shutter curtains fitted and the rangefinder alignment done. The VF/RF is clear and bright.
In use, well, I'm thrilled to bits. It turns out that I generally don't bother with the RF window for focussing (just set the dial), but do use the VF window for composition.
I can't tell you how pleased I am with my little Leica
PS: Have to say though, the FED is a much under-rated camera, I used it as my daily shooter for several months before the Leica and I liked it.
David
-----------------------------------
Visit http://creativeimagemaker.co.uk - the online magazine for the traditionalist photographer.