Cheap Body , Expensive Lenses

denizg7

denizg7

Well-known
Local time
5:24 AM
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
720
Anyone here use an affordable m mount rangefinder like the Zeiss Ikon or Bessa, but with an expensive lens?

The reason I ask this is because I see a lot of people buying Leica M bodies and a lot of people who are on the budget tend to buy a leica m body and cheap out on the lens.

Now I have no problem with Cosina Voigtlander lenses, and I think they get unfair reviews by some leica fanatics.

I think a lot of people have forgotten how lenses are more crucial than the body.

I blame the fed
 
I agree. As long as the shutter is acurate, and the body is easy to handle, it's fine. But the lens is a whole different matter. I use the best lenses and the best and freshest film I can afford.
 
I have a BessaR, but I don't think my Leitz lenses are all that expensive. But I do use cheap SLR bodies with expensive Pentax lenses. I have 3 bodies that, discounting shipping, cost $26 US; total. The latest one is fully auto, but has manual override with a ring shutter selector (manual) and my lenses all have aperture selection (manual). So, real manual (no screen) and full auto if I want.
 
If I had to choose, I'd rather keep my modern Leica lenses and sell the bodies than the other way around. I love my M7 but I understand a Voigtlander R2A/R3A/R4A are more versatile than my analogue Ms
 
denizg7 said:
I think a lot of people have forgotten how lenses are more crucial than the body.
Click to expand...

The difference, say, between a US 250 Canon 50/1.8 LTM and a > 7k US 50 Apo Summicron is not crucial at all, when you consider output.

As long as a lens is good enough, nobody will be able to tell the difference when looking at your photo.

However, it's a whole different story to shoot with a camera that you like vs. one that feels cheap, unreliable, etc. How I feel clearly impacts my photos, as it should.

Also, compared to their modern DSLR counterparts, unless you look at Russian lenses, all Leica mount lenses today are expensive. 300 dollars and up is not cheap.

Roland.

PS: looking at your other thread, denizg7, I would also never cheap out on a scanner :). It's one of the pieces in my flow with the most impact on results.
 
denizg7 said:
I think a lot of people have forgotten how lenses are more crucial than the body.
Click to expand...

Good point, ironically I had a look at my old Bessa R today and just thought that it was quite well designed for a body. Nice, clear viewfinder, frameline selection not coupled with the mount, built in softie, meter, ergonomic shutter speed selector. In short, it does its job very well. Of course, if it is about technical image quality, the lens is more important than the body.

As for Cosina lenses, I can't complain. My fave is the 28/2, as good as no distortion, quite flare resistant, tack sharp and nice tones in black and white. I think that Kobayashi-san and associates did good with releasing this line and contributed significantly to the advancement of rangefinder photography.

Ironically, I am mostly using my M4-P, but with Cosina lenses. ;-)
 
Bought my M3 cos it was the cheapest decent rangefinder of the type I was after that I could find! I Use a cheap Jupiter lens but it still gives great results and I don't think I would notice a HUGE difference if I was to upgrade the lens anyway (which I want to do but can't afford just yet)

Richard
 
A solid camera and a good lens are needed. If you have the money for it, get an extra fine camera. There is nothing wrong about it. I took a Bessa R with me to Cairo two years ago, and it broke there. Most of my cameras and lenses were bought in used condition. I use them extensively.
 
ferider said:
The difference, say, between a US 250 Canon 50/1.8 LTM and a > 7k US 50 Apo Summicron is not crucial at all, when you consider output.

As long as a lens is good enough, nobody will be able to tell the difference when looking at your photo.

However, it's a whole different story to shoot with a camera that you like vs. one that feels cheap, unreliable, etc. How I feel clearly impacts my photos, as it should.

Also, compared to their modern DSLR counterparts, unless you look at Russian lenses, all Leica mount lenses today are expensive. 300 dollars and up is not cheap.

Roland.

PS: looking at your other thread, denizg7, I would also never cheap out on a scanner :). It's one of the pieces in my flow with the most impact on results.
Click to expand...

haha good call. I guess the phutek ones are the best , since its hard to find modern minola ones.
 
Yes, the combination of M3 plus the rigid Summicron firm the perfect classical Leica M set.
 
I'm of the opinion that most lenses are good enough and the reason I concentrate on the body is that ergonomics are very important to me. If it doesn't feel right in my hands, how do I expect to ever feel good using it. I don't want to be distracted by gear when photographing. High quality lenses can be had at cheap prices.
 
Come to think of it; I fist choose the camera, followed by choosing the lens when I want to load up my small camera bag for a photography activity.
 
ferider said:
............. As long as a lens is good enough, nobody will be able to tell the difference when looking at your photo. .................
Click to expand...

I find the concept of equipment needing to only be "good enough" is something not generally accepted here. I get the idea that many here whose photos would score 99% technically and 50% for content are more concerned about getting that 99% up to 99.5%. But everyone has their own motivations and that is OK.
 
denizg7 said:
Anyone here use an affordable m mount rangefinder like the Zeiss Ikon or Bessa, but with an expensive lens?

The reason I ask this is because I see a lot of people buying Leica M bodies and a lot of people who are on the budget tend to buy a leica m body and cheap out on the lens.

Now I have no problem with Cosina Voigtlander lenses, and I think they get unfair reviews by some leica fanatics.

I think a lot of people have forgotten how lenses are more crucial than the body.

I blame the fed
Click to expand...

I think it's not a good choice to get a cheap body and an expensive lens.
If you can afford to use photography as a hobby, if you can manage to buy an expensive lens, then just get the whole thing of the brand you like. In the long term you may regret it and you may loose more money with trying to sell/buy than just wait a little longer and get what you want.
 
you bring up a fine point, and my response is that a fotog can be happy and make good snaps with EITHER and expensive body and a cheap lens
OR an economic body and an expensive lens. I have done both. Put a Jupiter 8 on an M9P, or put an Asph 35 Cron on a CV R4a.
Both work great, it just depends on the synergy of the two elements: body and lens. What feels right and gets you the results you want is the most important factors IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom