Bessa or Leica kit?

[jameshays]

Well, I ordered an R3 a few weeks ago and I'm still pondering. I have the enough to purchase one of the following kits:
Bessa R3 with a used 35/2 summicron
Leica M6(used) with a VC 35/2.5 or 40/1.4

Of course I'm interested in getting good results, but I'm equally interested in having fun using the kit.
Stephen said glasses should be no problem with the R3 but after reading some of the posts, I'm a bit concerned. Might have to change to an R2A if necessary.

 

[RML]

James, how much experience do you have with rangefinders? Going the Leica way isn't going to be cheap. Even a used M6 with a decent lens will set you back at least 4 figures.

You might want to go for the R3a (or R2a if that one suits you better) with the new CV 40/1.4. When you get the hang of RF cameras and feel the urge, you can always step up to a Leica. Remember that for the price of a used M6 you can buy quite a lot really nice lenses, and it's the photog and the lenses that ultimately make the shot.

 

[GeneW]

I'm partial to Summicrons and would do it this way: Bessa R2a + used Summicron 35/2

I have an R2 (R2a has the same VF) and I have zero problems seeing the 35mm frames with my glasses on.

Gene

 

[Huck Finn]

James, I would not buy a rangefinder camera which does not provide framelines for my primary lens. One of the features of rangefinder photography is that you can see what's going on outside the frame of your picture, as well as what' in the picture you've composed, right up to the time you fire the shutter. By buying the R3A for use with a 35mm lens, you've eliminated this feature. If you wear glasses, this will only compound the problem.

As a general rule, I am less inclined to buy a camera body used than a lens. And I feel this way about anything mechanical - although I have bought used cars, etc. but only after I've inspected them. A camera has a number of moving parts, any of which can have a problem. Buying a used body with no knowledge of its history or whether it has any problems & with no warranty - & if on ebay, sight unseen - is something I'm not comfortable with. Other than a scratch on the glass or dust or fungus inside an old lens, there is much less that can be wrong with a lens - & many minor lens problems don't interfere with taking good pictures. Of course, many people, including people who participate on this forum, have happily bought used camera bodies & have had good success with them. It's a personal thing with me.

Given the choice you propose I would buy a new, warranteed Bessa camera body with a used 35 Summicron, but I would buy the Bessa R2A instead of the Bessa R3A, which is not designed for use with a 35mm lens - even though it could be used with one in a pinch. If auto-exposure isn't that important to you, then buy a Bessa R2 & save $100.

 

[peter_n]

James, going the Leica way isn't cheap in terms of your original investment, but it might turn out to be the cheapest in the long run, because Leicas hold their value extremely well - better than almost any other camera.

I've never been of the opinion that you must spend all your money on the lens and that the camera doesn't matter. In the article linked to below, Mike Johnson says "an M6 can truly be a camera for life" and I would agree with that.

The article is actually about a choice of lens for a Leica, and you will no doubt be interested in his thoughts on the 35mm Summicron, CV, and M-Hexanon lenses.

I would agree with Huck that it can be dodgy to buy a camera that doesn't have the framelines for a particular lens, but where there is only a 5mm difference between a 35 and a 40 and given the somewhat less than precise framing that rangfinders offer (have you seen the number of posts about this?) I wouldn't have any problem using a 40mm lens on my M6.

Good luck in your choice! 🙂

The Best Lens for a Leica

 

[Huck Finn]

Some additional thoughts on lens choice . . .

A viable option with the R3A would be a used 40/2 Summicron-C or a used 40/2 M-Rokkor.

The Voigtlander 40/1.4 has received a lot of attention & discussion since it was announced 3 months ago, it has only been sold in japan so far & is just coming on the market in the rest of the world. As such, very little is known right now about the quality of this lens, so it might be better to wait until more is known about it. Regardless, I think there are better choices to use on a Leica M6.

The VC 35/2.5 is cheap & compact. If you are referring to "Classic" version, you will need to factor into the cost an extra $50 for the cost of an adapter. The 35/2.5 P II (pancake version) is made in M-mount, so there are no additional costs.

The current Leica 35 Summicron-ASPH is by all accounts an exceptional lens, far better than any previous 35mm lens. Many people, however, love the previous non-aspherical version, referring to it as "the king of bokeh." Interestingly, Leica expert, Erwin Puts, sees little difference between the Voigtlander 35/1.7 Ultron and the non-aspherical Leica 35/2 Summicron. Although he gives a slight edge to the Summicron, I'm not sure if you or I would see the difference depending on the type of pictures you're taking. If you do notice a difference, it would probably be in the quality of the out-of-focus background in the picture (bokeh). How important is this to you? For my money, the VC 35/1.7 on either a Bessa R2, Bessa R2A, or Leica M6 would be a viable set-up.

To confuse matters even further, refer to the link below for the opinion of photography writer, Mike Johnston, in yesterday's column: "The Best Lens for a Leica."

www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-dec-04.shtml

(PS - His choice is any version of the 35 Summicron, but the kicker is that he likes the bodies even better than the lenses.)

 

[Huck Finn]

Oops, Peter, I see that I was writing while you were posting. I guess we were both thinking about Mike Johnson's article. Interesting, wasn't it? He certainly is of the school that too much is made of the small differences between lenses & that more emphasis should be on the artistry of the photographer, which he feels is greatly facilitated by the Leica M. Good point. Of course, maybe he is putting too much emphasis on the small differences between camera bodies. (chuckle)

I agree that a 35mm lens can be used on the R3A although it would not be my preference. Just for James's benefit, the measurable difference between using 35 mm framelines or 40 mm framelines with a 35mm lens is this. The 35 mm framelines will cover about 87% of what the lens actually sees. The 40mm framelines cover about 75% of what the 35mm lens actually sees. For candids, this might not make much of a difference. For pictures involving more precise framing, it may.

Cheers

 

[peter_n]

Great minds think alike, Huck! 😉

Agree on the framing issue, I'm a candids kind of guy so I don't need precise framelines. 🙂

With respect to the "king of bokeh", the link below is an interesting contribution to the debate from Jim Arnold, who joined this forum recently.

Leica 35/2 ASPH Cron versus V4 35/2 V4

 

[rover]

All great advice, so I will just add a vote for what I have done.

A camera is a light tight box used to hold film in place behind a lens.

That being said, I have choosen to use Bessa bodies and invested my $ in lenses. My primary lenses are 35/2 and 50/2 Summicrons (both the versions prior to the current) which are wonderful. 75% of my photography is with these lenses, and I have filled my needs for other focal lengths with CV and other glass. I honestly can say that I have been fortunate enough to only have the highest opinion and good experiences of and with all my gear.

 

[rover]

... Interestingly, Leica expert, Erwin Puts, sees little difference between the Voigtlander 35/1.7 Ultron and the non-aspherical Leica 35/2 Summicron. Although he gives a slight edge to the Summicron, I'm not sure if you or I would see the difference depending on the type of pictures you're taking. If you do notice a difference, it would probably be in the quality of the out-of-focus background in the picture (bokeh).

I think that nails it Huck. I sold my Ultron in order to finance my 35 Summicron, "king of bokeh" version, and I really appreciate the quality of the Ultron now. I describe the difference as "character," which is in part the bokeh, part the overall type of sharpness without being harsh which is a great quality of the Leica glass, but by no means a negative regarding the Ultron. It is just different to my eye, and right for me, but I can easily see that others can think differently and prefer the Ultron.

 

[mourges]

Personally I love the Ultron 35/1.7. Great lens. If I was you I'd go for the 2nd option - M6 and the 35. The body is important, despite what other people suggest.

The R2A looks like an interesting body, and as I can't afford a M6 it will be my next

 

[Todd.Hanz]

My 2 pesos,
I would be afraid if you got both that one wouldn't get used very much, my guess would be the R3 would collect dust.
I am sure it is a great camera, the R2 was excellent, but neither is up to Leica standards. (I say this without seeing an R3 so I may be wrong.)
If you're in the hunt for a 40mm I would look to the Leica, I had one on a CL, the bokeh was incredible, better than My 35 or 50 summicrons by leaps!
If nothing else the M6 will hold it's value, if you don't like it sell it to me 😉

Good luck and let us know what you choose, either will produce great pics!

Todd

 

[former member]

I'm dropping off a whole roll shot with my 35mm f2.8 Summaron and will upload some shots next weekend. Mine has "eyes" for the M3. It was under $400 in near mint condition.