$1000 gear budget

Don't forget the Konica Hexar RF, these were running about $600 used the last time I looked. You could go with a Canon 50mm f1.8 or f1.4 ltm (with voitlander ltm to M converter) and still keep your costs under a grand here.

THe Zeiss Ikon RF's seem to rarely come up used and the new prices put them over a grand.
 
Well, you mentioned interchangeable lenses, but didn't say much about focal lengths earlier.

If you like shooting 40mms and are only thinking about buying one lens... there are fixed lens rangefinders that could potentially give Bessa/R3A a run for the money - though it wins on lens speed, wonderful finder, etc. If you see yourself adding another lens or two in the near future, an interchangeable system may make sense. It would just be that initial time period where your new camera would be similar in functionality to your current set.

I have a friend who just started shooting with rangefinders using the R3A/40mm 1.4 pair. I've been shooting primarily fixed lens rangefinders (...a lot of different ones...) and LTM cameras. In terns of sharpness, I think the only camera I have that gives his lens a run for the money is a Retina IIIc. Throw the low light performance in there - and the wider field of view - and I really like the Bessa lens.

If I ever wanted something with optional aperture priority, I'd go with this pair too.
 
I used an R3A for about a month last fall, and now I own a camera that's twice as expensive (Zeiss Ikon ZM off eBay for $900). Even though there are things that I like about the Ikon, the Bessa is a very solid camera, and I'd definitely recommend it.
 
The Konica S2 and Yahsica GSN have 45mm lenses, quite a bit different from 40mm. The Olympus SP has a 42mm F1.7 on it, 7 element design and is sharp. The Body of the camera is not as good as it's lens. The Canonet QL17L and QL17GIII have 40mm lenses. The Minolta Hi-Matic E has a 40/1.7 on it that is very sharp.

I do not have the 40/1.4, find the Voigtlander lenses that I own to be quite good. I have the 35/1.7, 50/1.1, and 35/1.2.
 
Rezultz said:
Wow, so many varied opinions. I'm surprised that some think the Yashica Electro 40mm 1.7 lens is better than a Nokton 40 1.4. I would certainly be upset if I spent all that money only to discover that my $75 Yashica has better IQ than my new $1000 kit. I also noticed that no one mentioned the Zeiss Ikon M mount RF. Seems like a used one goes for around the same price as a new Bessa R3A. I just read Ken Rockwell's review of it who says it's an upgrade to an M7. (he said it not me so please don't bash me on this thread 🙂 )
Click to expand...

In all fairness I have no experience with nokton and color, i shoot b&w only... But you can't imagine my anger when a Konica Auto S2 (which is superior to GSN btw) that I bought just for fun turned the table on my nokton so badly that i stopped taking pictures with the notkon and then sold it... I even ended up liking the KAS2 viewfinder because of its RF patch contrast that so far it has never failed me in all sorts of lighting conditions. The gigantic R3M viewfinder has a tiny RF patch that is hard to focus and hard to see in less than ideal light.

Anyway as far as the GSN and nokton image quality is concerned, here is the flicker pool for both, you be the judge.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/nokton40mm/

http://www.flickr.com/groups/yashicaelectro35/pool/with/5227589005/
 
A thousand dollars for an rf & lens? I'd go with a classic kit - Nikon S2 & 50/1.4, Canon P & a 35/50/100 set or M2 & collapsible Summicron.
 
All of these fixed lens RFs that I mentioned are cheap so you can keep them along with your main kit and sell the ones you don't like.

As far as getting your first serious RF kit is concerned, go with Leica because everyone gets into this RF-thing because of the Leica lust, as somebody mentioned before, get the Leica lust out of your system and then everything will be much clear.

Don't cheap out on overpriced CV stuff. The only reason they appear cheap is when compared to Leica and Zeiss prices, otherwise they're not worth half their cost. Just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
GSNfan said:
All of these fixed lens RFs that I mentioned are cheap so you can keep them along with your main kit and sell the ones you don't like.

As far as getting your first serious RF kit is concerned, go with Leica because everyone gets into this RF-thing because of the Leica lust, as somebody mentioned before, get the Leica lust out of your system and then everything will be much clear.

Don't cheap out on overpriced CV stuff. The only reason they appear cheap is when compared to Leica and Zeiss prices, otherwise they're not worth half their cost. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...


Don't cheap out on overpriced CV stuff. The only reason they appear cheap is when compared to Leica and Zeiss prices, otherwise they're not worth half their cost. Just my opinion.

clearly you not tried any cv gear...or perhaps you have a problem of another kind?
 
Personally, I find the CV RF lenses especially, to be fantastic value. I have several that I use on Leica M2 bodies: 21f4, 40f1.4, and 50f2.5.
 
Last edited:
GSNfan said:
All of these fixed lens RFs that I mentioned are cheap so you can keep them along with your main kit and sell the ones you don't like.

As far as getting your first serious RF kit is concerned, go with Leica because everyone gets into this RF-thing because of the Leica lust, as somebody mentioned before, get the Leica lust out of your system and then everything will be much clear.

Don't cheap out on overpriced CV stuff. The only reason they appear cheap is when compared to Leica and Zeiss prices, otherwise they're not worth half their cost. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...


Well, I have over thirty Leica lenses and picked up a 35/1.7 Ultron, 50/1.1 Nokton, and 35/1.2 Nokton. All well made, comparable to my Type 2 Rigid 50/2 Summicron. The 1950s Leica lenses are made to very tight tolerances, sometimes too tight. The newer ones- well, no one could afford to manufacture lenses built like Leica did in the 50s.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but best to gather informed opinions in order to make your own.
 
leica lust aside, from what i've learned on this site, you could get a very nice leica LTM and lens - say a canon 50/1.8, for $600 or less, with $400 left for film. there's the rollei version of the bessa r in the classifieds - with a possible 40mm lens teaser - well within the OP's stated budget.
 
As I said before, my experience with 40/1.4 SC is with b&w only. I ended up really disliking the lens signature, so its subjective in that way... I like the 1:1 VF of R3M only when I was using it in zone focus. Otherwise i found the RF patch really tiny and hard to see especially in daylight, and thus hard to focus... So, in my humble opinion if someone wants a 40mm RF kit, they at least should give the fixed lens RFs a try before spending their money. Also they should check the image quality using flicker pools.

In the end perceived image quality of a lens is subjective, if OP likes the photographs taken with of 40/1.4 he should go for it.
 
Got a Bessa R4M. Got an M2. Got a squadron of lenses. Here's what I think:

1. A used Leica with a meter, either with a recent CLA or adding in the cost, plus two Leica lenses, all from trustworthy sources, will easily cost more than $1000.

2. CLA's or not, old Leicas are old cameras. Stuff happens. I used to own an M3 that was CLA'd just before i bought it. Within 90 days the VF went black.

3. Bessas may not last 50 years. But, neither will most of the folks posting here. A Bessa is not a rattletrap camera. Mine is reliable and sturdy. It's also noticeably lighter than the M2, a big advantage when you are out all day with it. The VF is brighter. Loading film is simpler and you don't have to worry about losing a film spool. (A Leica is useless without a film spool. Spare Leica film spools are not cheap and not easy to come by.)

I really like my M2. But, if I could have only one, I'd keep the Bessa. It's more practical.
 
Last edited:
Brian Sweeney said:
Well, I have over thirty Leica lenses and picked up a 35/1.7 Ultron, 50/1.1 Nokton, and 35/1.2 Nokton. All well made, comparable to my Type 2 Rigid 50/2 Summicron. The 1950s Leica lenses are made to very tight tolerances, sometimes too tight. The newer ones- well, no one could afford to manufacture lenses built like Leica did in the 50s.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but best to gather informed opinions in order to make your own.
Click to expand...

Leica clearly has a brand monopoly in RF cameras and every other price compared to them feels like great value. So, this is why i feel its much better to get the Leica-thing done first, because one can always sell Leica products almost the same price that they were purchased (second hand purchases).
 
paulfish4570 said:
gsn, you might need a corrective eyepiece on that r3m to make the patch right for you. it takes nikon eyepieces.
Click to expand...

I ended up selling the R3A and Nokton 40/1.4 combo. Konica Auto S2 does pretty much everything better. I also bought a Canonet QL-Giii as back up, I really like it but the lens is not as good as Kas2. I'm also thinking about getting the Olympus 35 SP. So, my 40mm Rf need is covered with a lot of money to spare for film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom