"HERECTIC" Leica M user- are you?

i've only used leica glass to date, however i must admit lusting over the 35mm 1.4 piece of candy offered up by CV. If the lens manages to fit on the camera I see no reason why you shouldn't use it.
 
I do not think of it as "heresy" to use non Leica glass on a Leica, just as i would not disdain using a Leica Hektor 50f2.5 on a canon Rf or a RD1. The hype surrounding lenses and cameras is fuelled by GAS mainly. Some of the older lenses by Zeiss/Leica/Canon/Nikon are still good performers, but most of the new glass today, outperforms these "oldies" in resolution, contrast and "image" quality. My approach is you use what suits your style of shooting!
CV started a lot of this by introducing the Heliar 15f4.5 - a lens that outperformed the Hologon at the price that was 1/2 of a used Hologon finder!!! The fact that today we can get lenses from 12mm to 90mm in other brands just makes using a rangefinder so much easier (and afforable).
Both Zeiss and CV provides alternatives at reasonable cost. Lenses like the 35f1.2 (in my opinion a far more useful lens than a Noctilux), the 12f5.6 (how wide do we need to go beyound that. Also imagine what the eqivalent lens would cost if it was made by Leica!
I do use and have Leica lenses, currently from 28mm through to 135mm and I do use them, but I also use CV lenses and ZM lenses and at no time has my M's rejected any of them. In the end it is what the picture shows that counts.
The fact that todays PJ's use digital has nothing to do with "rejecting" the rangefinder or film based cameras. It is strictly a business requirement. They have to be able to file images NOW! However, many of them still carry a M or something like that for their personal work.
 
The standard 50mm lens for my MP or M3 is a Canon 50/1.4 in LTM. I love to have a 50 Summilux ASPH but just can't afford it. On the other hand, the only way you'll get my 35mm Summicron ASPH away from me is to pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

Jim B.
 
During the 50's and 60's and even into the 70's - there was really no alternative to the Leica lenses. We wanted to have a lens, you had tu buy Leica. There were other lenses around but they were not always that easy to find, particularly in Europe.
Leica's Importer in Sweden at the time, Brandt Optik, also had a good service. You could go in, get a selection of lenses, go and shoot a roll with each of them and have them hold them untii you had processed the film and picked the best one! There are variations in lenses, even Leica ones. The parameters are +/- 10% and that can make a difference, particularly for wide open performance.
If you were really lucky and knew someone at Leica AG in Wetzlar, you could also get "blue printed" lenses. These were handmade, checked and double checked and corrected until they gave you optimum performance. I still have a Summilux 35f1.4 that was "blue printed". Better than the run of the mill early 35 f1.4's - though it still have the smearing of the highlights and a bit of field curvature.
 
I use Leica, and 3rd party lenses.
In LTM: CV 15/4.5, Canon 85/2 + 135/3.5, Nikon 35/2.5, and a leica Summarit (50/1.5)
In M: (All leica) v1 Summilux (50/1.4), DR Summicron w/goggles (50/2), v2 90/2, and the elmarit 135/2.8
They're all good and most of my non-leica are in my lineup either because there is no Leica equivalent or it was far far out of my price range. With adapters, the LTM hop between my IIIf and my M3, and occasionally my gf's CL.

Lenses on my "would like to try" list:
LTM: The original voigtlander ultron (50/2) or nokton (50/1.5), Nikon 105/2.5
M: either of the leica 75's. one of the faster 35's, any of the wides from leica or Ziess.

I might be able to get some of them, or not. But it gives me something to look for.
 
I think that Leica lenses do deserve a high price, but quite not has high as they have historically been. Now that CV and Zeiss are making native M mount lenses the Leica stranglehold on M mount and its extreme prices will really be broken. This is a good thing.
 
findwolfhard said:
Just for the records,- can you give an example for HCB?
best regs Wolfhard
Click to expand...

AFAIK he used a 50/1.5 Zeiss Sonnar in LTM for most of the 1940s and 50s.

Should have mentioned Winogrand as well ... well known to use the Canon 28/2.8.

Roland.
 
Last edited:
I am thoroughly enjoying this thread, especially as I am sitting here with my new (Gerry's old) M5 with my Canon 0.95 mounted ... and looking forward to shooting twilight stuff.
The freedom to choose is part of the Leica screwmount and m-mount mystic ...
 
Use What Works for You

Use What Works for You

I have been playing in photography for 40 years. My advice is to use what you can afford and what works for you especially if you are trying to achieve a certain look.

If you just want a specific focal length, there are lots of choices and you don't have to sell your first born to buy something with an M mount. I have a couple Bressa lenses which are every bit as good as anything Leica or Zeiss puts on the market.

Now Leica as a brand attracts more snobs then just about any other camera. My advice, ignore them and get something so you can start using that M2.
 
ferider said:
findwolfhard said:
Just for the records,- can you give an example for HCB?
best regs Wolfhard
Click to expand...
AFAIK he used a 50/1.5 Zeiss Sonnar in LTM for most of the 1940s and 50s.
Click to expand...
I think it is fairly well known that he used Zeiss glass, especially the Sonnar 50/1.5. Here's an interesting quote from a forum thread Lenses/film used by HCB? by John Dorfman, Aug 24, 2005; 03:38 p.m. "There's a cool picture in a recent book of photos by Clemens Kalischer showing HCB in NYC in 1946 using a Leica with a Zeiss Biogon 35/2.8. It's a Contax-mount lens with a screw-mount adapter ring."
 
In one Beaumont Newhall book there was a small photo of HCB circa early to mid 1950s, using a Canon bottomloader camera with what looked like one of the rigid chrome Canon/Serenar 50mm lenses .
 
I prefer Leica glass whenever I can afford to buy it. Else, I take what I get. This includes some awesome lenses by Canon, Nikon, and Zeiss. I stay away from CV lenses though. I know, they are supposed to be first class, but I don't like them.
 
In 35mm, I prefer the look of what I get from the older Leitz lenses, 35/1.4, 35/2.0, 50/1.0, and 21/3.4. 🙂

For corner to corner sharp photos, rich in tonality, I like a Hasselblad Planar 80/2.8 T* with my 500 C/M.
 
15mm CV, 25mm Canon, 35mm F:1.5 Canon (replaced a 35mm F:1.8 Nikkor); 50mm F:1.2 Canon, and 100mm F:2.0 Canon. It was what could afford growing up - and I've never felt slighted or underserved by any of them. Most people who make a big deal about Leica vs. Canon, et al are about equipment and not images. Many wouldn't know a doorstop from an f-stop. That's been my experience of 40-years with M-2s.
 
Given the quality of competing modern lenses, for me the real beauty of Leica is the bodies. IMO there's nothing today that feels as good or is as easy to use as a Leica M2.

Most of my RF lenses are CV lenses. They're within a smidgen of Leica in terms of quality (and most people, however much they might protest, would not be able to tell the difference in most cases), but they're a fraction of the price. I do also have a few Leica lenses, lots of FSU lenses, one Canon lens, and a Rokkor-90 (effectively Leica), but I mostly use CV lenses.

So I say use whatever lenses and whatever bodies you want, and don't let the snobs tell you otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom