Tim Murphy
Well-known
Dear Ko Fe,
I'm guessing it's because the cool kids don't use them?
Regards,
Tim Murphy
williaty
Established
I have no problems buying LTM lenses made by Leica or anyone else, as I said in my post where I pivoted the question to lenses. Either M39 or M Bayonet is just fine with me. I absolutely do not, however, need it to say Leica on it just for the prestige of having it say Leica. If the Leica lens is both better and affordable, sure, I'll buy it. If the Leica lens is just more expensive but not measurably better than than the alternatives, I have no use for it.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Well, I don't know about affordability but Leica standard lenses come in a wide range of prices and the latest costs nearly six thousands pounds here, it's a 50mm btw...
The lenses they make that you ought to be looking at start with the coated post war Summitars (50mm and f/2) which later on in life became the Summicron. Alongside of them are a range of F/2.8's at 50mm also. Same applies to 35mm and 90mm lenses but all expensive. I don't think they made any duds and the newer they are the better. FWIW, I use the old USSR made lenses and Leica lenses; the newest Leica lens I use being mid 90's vintage. I have owned and used younger ones but couldn't see any point in keeping them when the older ones were as usable for what I took and how I did things.
Really, you should be looking at what you are going to do with the camera. For ordinary everyday use the old USSR ones are good and - as I have said - can be dirt cheap. BTW, by everyday photography I mean the usual run of the mill stuff and prints or enlargements up to (say) A4 or 8" x 12". It worries me that a lot of people waste a lot of money on lenses that can do billboards and then only do 4" x 6" prints in the local one hour lab... And they don't use tripods, either.
Regards, David
Well, I don't know about affordability but Leica standard lenses come in a wide range of prices and the latest costs nearly six thousands pounds here, it's a 50mm btw...
The lenses they make that you ought to be looking at start with the coated post war Summitars (50mm and f/2) which later on in life became the Summicron. Alongside of them are a range of F/2.8's at 50mm also. Same applies to 35mm and 90mm lenses but all expensive. I don't think they made any duds and the newer they are the better. FWIW, I use the old USSR made lenses and Leica lenses; the newest Leica lens I use being mid 90's vintage. I have owned and used younger ones but couldn't see any point in keeping them when the older ones were as usable for what I took and how I did things.
Really, you should be looking at what you are going to do with the camera. For ordinary everyday use the old USSR ones are good and - as I have said - can be dirt cheap. BTW, by everyday photography I mean the usual run of the mill stuff and prints or enlargements up to (say) A4 or 8" x 12". It worries me that a lot of people waste a lot of money on lenses that can do billboards and then only do 4" x 6" prints in the local one hour lab... And they don't use tripods, either.
Regards, David
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Roger Hicks
Veteran
And yet you reply again...
Am I on ignore yet? You'll save yourself a lot of time and grief.
Cheers,
R.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
In post no. 48 you said "That's probably a tradeoff I should just accept in order to test out a rangefinder for a price I can live with right now."
But - a big but here - testing a rangefinder doesn't need one with the specification you gave in your first post. As I read the spec. you were after a Leica M6 or M7 originally or something very near it, like the various Bessa R's that have been suggested.
So I am wondering if you are wondering what RF's are like or wondering and willing to spend a lot of cash now. There are compromises but they tend to be RF's with fixed prime lenses and they tend to be a lot, lot cheaper and you get the RF experience and can then move on. BTW, a lot of them in good condition can easily be sold on.
Regards, David
PS (Edit) have you seen any samples from the coated Summitars I mentioned previously?
In post no. 48 you said "That's probably a tradeoff I should just accept in order to test out a rangefinder for a price I can live with right now."
But - a big but here - testing a rangefinder doesn't need one with the specification you gave in your first post. As I read the spec. you were after a Leica M6 or M7 originally or something very near it, like the various Bessa R's that have been suggested.
So I am wondering if you are wondering what RF's are like or wondering and willing to spend a lot of cash now. There are compromises but they tend to be RF's with fixed prime lenses and they tend to be a lot, lot cheaper and you get the RF experience and can then move on. BTW, a lot of them in good condition can easily be sold on.
Regards, David
PS (Edit) have you seen any samples from the coated Summitars I mentioned previously?
Yes. I mentioned that earlier in the thread, and still think it is worth some thought. Be careful though, it might summon the resident RFF troll out from under his rock again.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Where must be rule on RFF - "read OP first".
Not only this.
No, it is just because nobody, except me is reading OP and remember at least some of it. But most seems to be reading title, last comments, but not the OP...
Not only this.
Dear Ko Fe,
I'm guessing it's because the cool kids don't use them?
Regards,
Tim Murphy
No, it is just because nobody, except me is reading OP and remember at least some of it. But most seems to be reading title, last comments, but not the OP...
Roger Hicks
Veteran
You might care to look up the meanings of "troll" and "stupid" before posting again.Yes. I mentioned that earlier in the thread, and still think it is worth some thought. Be careful though, it might summon the resident RFF troll out from under his rock again.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Of course, a really interesting possibility is a Rolleimeter -- https://tlrgraphy.com/tag/rolleimeter/ -- which would give the OP the opportunity to try both a TLR and a fixed-lens rangefinder, probably inside his budget.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
KansanTim
Established
Pretty clearly, the easiest way to get some lenses and stay within your budget is through Russian lenses, some of which were listed elsewhere in this thread by other posters. For a slightly higher price, but still well within your mentioned price range range (at least for the f2 versions), you can go for some of the older LTM lenses like the Nikon Nikkor 50/2 I mentioned. Both Nikon and Canon put out lenses that are pretty well-regarded (I certainly was satisfied with my Nikkor), and some older Leica lenses might still be in your price range. Going a bit higher still in price can get you a modern Cosina Voigtlander lens or two, particularly the first-run LTM versions. The slower of these are typically f2.5 (for 35, 50, or 75 mm, anyway), so still meet your requirement of f2.8 or faster.
Those three tiers are what I'd look at in your stated range, and the choice pretty much down to how much you want to spend. Personally, I'd go for a Voigtlander lens or two, but that's me.
If you are warming to the idea enough to go a bit higher than you originally stated, there are some great value-for-dollar lenses in the Zeiss ZM range and the Konica lenses made for the Hexar RF line. The Konica 50/2 is what I use instead of my old Nikkor today, and I think it's fantastic. Both lines also had bodies that are cheaper than Leicas, although I didn't mention them above because it would be hard to impossible to get one today for your $500 upper limit. I did get my Hexar RF + 50/2 + flash in a set for 400 euro, which was about $500 at the time, but I don't think that's typical, and the Hexar RF isn't as classic manual functioning as you seem to want (although it does have manual settings, it is totally battery dependent with electronic features).