Decisions - which film body??

[ZeissFan]

There's no way to preview depth of field, as on an SLR. With a rangefinder, as you can tell, everything is focus all of the time (depending on your vision). Sometimes, you just previsualize what won't be in focus. More often, you just rely on your experience.

The rangefinder also isn't the best tool for macro work. It can be done, but it's not the best tool for this type of work.

On the plus side, it's a smaller camera, and because the viewfinder doesn't black out, it makes it easier to pan with the scene in front of you. You also get to see outside of the scene, which helps you frame, as well as anticipate the action.

Much of photography is about compromise. Good luck. I think that you'll have a lot of fun.

 

[Mephiloco]

I just recently got my M2, and so far have invested just over $1000 for my whole rig, including a lens repair and having the rangefinder arm replaced in my m2. I put off getting a Leica for a long time because I thought it would be too expensive, but I've found the opposite to be true. Granted, I'm not buying noctiluxes or aspherical lenses, but they're decent lenses no less.

So, 1958 M2, a 50mm/1.5 Summarit, CV 35mm/2.5, Nikkor 135/3.5, Canon 100/3.5 and then the two repairs. If I had bought Canon lenses for my digital it wouldn't have been that cheap, granted, the 135 and 100 would've been almost a stop faster, and newer technology, but still, 4 decent lenses and a body for $1000 seems like a good deal to me.

 

[Matthew Runkel]

You have some classic R lenses in hand. An inexpensive and rewarding option would be to sell whichever of your two 50mm lenses you like less and buy a nice used R8 for around $600. The R8 is an exceptionally well designed camera and a joy to use. At current used prices, it's also a terrific value. There is not a material difference between the R8 and the later R9 for shooting film.

You are likely to take very well to rangefinders after a period of adjustment. Adjustment may also be needed to transition from the camera you have to the fully-manual, unmetered M bodies you are considering. An R8 would let you use the great lenses you already have, as they were intended with full auto-diaphragm function, with great metering and with excellent automation if desired.

 

[ZoomP]

I would also recommend getting a Canon SLR - a 1V, 3 or Elan 7 depending on how much you want to spend. You get to use film and your current lenses. If in 3-6 months you are still liking film, then look into a rangefinder.

I personally like shooting on a rangefinder, but it's not for everyone. Actually, its not for most people, which is why most of the market moved on to SLRs 50 years ago. Some things like DOF and framing are more casual. If you like taking pictures with just one eyelash in focus, you might be better off on an SLR.

DOF considerations usually go like one of the following for me:
1 - I don't think about it at all.
2 - I'm scale focusing, so I try to have enough DOF (as judged by the DOF scale on the lens) to work with.
3 - I want a shallow DOF, so I shoot around f/2-2.8 on my 50mm, which is enough to give some isolation, without being disruptive.

f/1.4 use is usually low light and falls under number 1 above.

Thanks for the advice. So basically a RF is not WYSIWYG now. I have to get used to the concept.

 

[ZoomP]

ZoomP,
Leica SLRs aren't my thing. But you've bought three nice lenses for one. I suggest that you buy a used Leica R body to try them with. A knowledgeable seller should be able to help you get one that suits your lenses. If/when you want to try a rangefinder Leica, I suggest an M2 or one of the versions of M4 and a 35mm lens. My favorite is a 35mm f2.5 Nikkor in Leica screwmount with an adapter ring to the M2/M4 that I've had for more than forty years. Good success.
JustPlainBill

May just look for one of the cheaper R body, now that most suggest I go for the RF.

 

[ZoomP]

There's no way to preview depth of field, as on an SLR. With a rangefinder, as you can tell, everything is focus all of the time (depending on your vision). Sometimes, you just previsualize what won't be in focus. More often, you just rely on your experience.

The rangefinder also isn't the best tool for macro work. It can be done, but it's not the best tool for this type of work.

On the plus side, it's a smaller camera, and because the viewfinder doesn't black out, it makes it easier to pan with the scene in front of you. You also get to see outside of the scene, which helps you frame, as well as anticipate the action.

Much of photography is about compromise. Good luck. I think that you'll have a lot of fun.

Sounds like fun. I need to get used to the idea.

 

[ZoomP]

I just recently got my M2, and so far have invested just over $1000 for my whole rig, including a lens repair and having the rangefinder arm replaced in my m2. I put off getting a Leica for a long time because I thought it would be too expensive, but I've found the opposite to be true. Granted, I'm not buying noctiluxes or aspherical lenses, but they're decent lenses no less.

So, 1958 M2, a 50mm/1.5 Summarit, CV 35mm/2.5, Nikkor 135/3.5, Canon 100/3.5 and then the two repairs. If I had bought Canon lenses for my digital it wouldn't have been that cheap, granted, the 135 and 100 would've been almost a stop faster, and newer technology, but still, 4 decent lenses and a body for $1000 seems like a good deal to me.

Wow!!! THat's not bad for an investment. All the third party lens are M mount or with adaptor?

 

[ZoomP]

Guys,

I am meeting up the seller for the black repainted M2. Think he has decent rep on our local photography forum. I will see check out the paintjob and mechanism. Anything I should look out for? He will bring his M lens to test for me.

Btw, I am thinking of getting one of the following Voigtlander lens for the M2 first.

VC 40 f1.4. Should I get SC or MC?
VC 50 f1.1. This is a very sharp lens from the pics I saw despite the shallow DOF.

If not, what's other options to consider if I want to stick to Leica lens?

 

[ZoomP]

Hey, rangefinders, learning to focus first and then frame, manual wind, setting your own shutter speed and f-stop, and so on...don't forget that some of us went from mixing bear grease with powdered charcoal and putting our pictures on cave walls straight to rangefinder Leicas and film back when we couldn't afford a light meter. You can adapt. If money is a major issue get an elderly Leica. Make sure that it functions properly but don't worry about scratches or brass showing through the chrome or chips of vulcanite (that black leather like covering) missing. Unless one comes with the body in a private sale DO NOT buy a 50 at this point. Get a 35 and an 85 or 90. Nikon and Canon glass is as good or better than Leitz glass of the 60's and 70's and a lot cheaper, even if you have to buy M bayonet adapters. Sometimes they're already there. A beat up mount or some scratches on the glass won't affect your photos but your wallet will love you.

I just posted some pictures on my blog http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com that I shot of anti war demonstrators way back in 1969. I'm still using the same stuff I used then. It's well trained! With a bit of patient searching you can do it for a thousand bucks.

Use the depth of field scale on the lens, or focus on something about 1/3 of the way back from the closest thing you want reasonably sharp. Take a gander at your exposure counter from time to time. You don't want to run out of film at ther wrong moment. Enjoy the buttery smooth wnd lever and the nearly inaudible "thwwwp" of the shutter and the release button's ease to push.

On Saturday morning put your DSLR's film card in a stamped self-addressed envelope and drop it in the post. Now you HAVE to shoot with the Leica. No better way to learn fast! Load the camera, put a spare roll in your pocket "just in case". Tell yourself "I will NOT make more than 3 or 4 pictures of each situation". Try to get maybe 10 good photos on that roll. You won't, but you'll find that your percentage of keepers goes way up.

That's some nice historical pics you got there. I love Rachel too. Hehe!!! What's the camera in the first pic?

 

[Al Kaplan]

I don't know who the guy is in the first picture. It's NOT a Nikon F for sure. He was standing in front of the Miami Beach Auditorium photographing the war protesters.

Calm down there, ZoomP. Just remember that Rachel is now about 60 years old, probably had a few kids, and might not even be alive anymore. After forty years the best I can do is tell you that I had a couple of M bodies, an M4 and an M3 double stroke at the time. I was most likely using my 50/1.4 Nikkor.

I can also tell you that I ran across a few more pictures of assorted naked ladies who are also now in their sixties, mixed in with thousands and thousands of other pix, everything from Janet Reno to Janis Joplin, Bill Clinton to Jefferson Airplane, but they're all wearing clothes...stay tuned!

 

[Tim Gray]

If you are going to get an RF... what focal lengths do you like now? I'd consider looking at a 35mm or a 50mm depending on what you like now. Maybe a 28mm if that's something you really like. Get one for now and get a feel for it. I'd look for an f/2 or f/1.4 lens. There are a lot of really nice 50 f/2 lenses out there - Leica Summicron and Zeiss Planar come to mind. Or even a Leica 50/2.8 elmarit. If you want a 35, try out the VC 35/1.4 or the Zeiss 35/2.

I might personally stay away from the 40mm lens for now, just because the lack of correct framelines might frustrate you being new to RFs. I'm sure the 50 f/1.1 is a nice lens, but as a first lens, maybe try something a bit more compact for an everyday lens.

 

[ZoomP]

If you are going to get an RF... what focal lengths do you like now? I'd consider looking at a 35mm or a 50mm depending on what you like now. Maybe a 28mm if that's something you really like. Get one for now and get a feel for it. I'd look for an f/2 or f/1.4 lens. There are a lot of really nice 50 f/2 lenses out there - Leica Summicron and Zeiss Planar come to mind. Or even a Leica 50/2.8 elmarit. If you want a 35, try out the VC 35/1.4 or the Zeiss 35/2.

I might personally stay away from the 40mm lens for now, just because the lack of correct framelines might frustrate you being new to RFs. I'm sure the 50 f/1.1 is a nice lens, but as a first lens, maybe try something a bit more compact for an everyday lens.

Good advice. I was also thinking abt the VC 40. I am quite impartial to 50mm so will likely look at that. Even on my fullframe 5Dm2, I am using the Cron and Lux 50 most of the time. The 35 is just too wide to me. How's vingnetting control on a RF?

 

[ZoomP]

I don't know who the guy is in the first picture. It's NOT a Nikon F for sure. He was standing in front of the Miami Beach Auditorium photographing the war protesters.

Calm down there, ZoomP. Just remember that Rachel is now about 60 years old, probably had a few kids, and might not even be alive anymore. After forty years the best I can do is tell you that I had a couple of M bodies, an M4 and an M3 double stroke at the time. I was most likely using my 50/1.4 Nikkor.

I can also tell you that I ran across a few more pictures of assorted naked ladies who are also now in their sixties, mixed in with thousands and thousands of other pix, everything from Janet Reno to Janis Joplin, Bill Clinton to Jefferson Airplane, but they're all wearing clothes...stay tuned!

I love the sixties and was deeply into music like Led Zep, Cream, etc. Though it's not from my era, I've learned to appreciate the things that happened during that decade. Not sure if I like to see Janet Reno or Bill Clinton in the nude. Haha!!! Was joking about Rachel. 🙂

Anyway, most likely the M2 the way to go. I just need a good lens to go with it.

 

[Rogrund]

Anyway, most likely the M2 the way to go. I just need a good lens to go with it.

If you prefer 50mm over 35mm and plan using fast lenses (like the Nokton 50/1.1 you mentioned before), the M3 would probably suit you much better. The higher magnification gives you better focusing accuracy with fast lenses.

I prefer the M2 since I'm more of a 35mm guy myself...

 

[Tim Gray]

Vignetting is fine on an RF with a 50, in my experience. Things can vignette a bit on the wider lenses since they tend to be more symmetrical in design than in SLR lenses. Also they tend to be smaller, partially so they don't block the viewfinder, which I think can introduce some design choices that lead to vignetting.

The M3 is a good suggestion, though I've never had a problem with a 50 or a 90 on a .72 viewfinder. Also, wide lenses are a good fit with an RF, so you might find yourself opening up to them when you own one.

I'd look into the Zeiss 50/2 Planar or a Leica 50/2 Summicron. The Planar you can get new for ~$700 and used for a couple hundred cheaper. The summicron is most likely going to cost you more, though if you buy an older one you can keep the price down. If you get lucky, you can find the newest version for less than $600, but I wouldn't count on it.

The Leica 50/2.8 Elmar is supposed to be a great lens as well. Very compact. Zeiss has a 50/1.5 which is supposed to be a great lens, but I don't know if I'd recommend it as a first lens due to its focus shift. Leica Summiluxes are very nice, but are expensive. There are a lot of other lenses out there too, LTM lenses, the Hexanons, etc., but in the end, you don't save that much money over the Planar, which is readily available.

I think the Zeiss Planar is the one I'd recommend for a first time user---high quality, new, and affordable.

 

[Mephiloco]

Wow!!! THat's not bad for an investment. All the third party lens are M mount or with adaptor?

Adapters for all, they're all LTM lenses. Though currently I only have 1 adapter. I plan on getting another 2, I figure I can use the 90mm framelines for the 100mm lens and compensate a little, the 135 I guess I'll need a finder, though I'll probably just take some test shots with all the lenses and get a feel of where the 135 crop lines are and just compensate for that as well. Not sure I'm keen on paying as much for a finder as I did the lens.

 

[Mongo Park]

You have R lenses and want to try film. Forget the M s for the moment - M lenses can be quite expensive. RE yes, R6 or R6.2 yes or R7 - prices for the RE, R6 and R7 are not too high at the moment nor the R8. However, I'd suggest the R7 to use with your glass. I have 2 - they are superb you get aperture priority, shutter priority, manual and programmable - which for me beats manual only ala R6 and R6.2. If cash is an issue the RE should suit. I trust this is helpful.

 

[ZoomP]

Guys, couldn't resist and bought this M2 painted black body from a local guy in Singapore. Believe he got this body through one of the Canadian forum guys here. CLA by Youxin Ye and Black painted by Rangefinder restorations.

Now help me find a lens. I saw a Zeiss Planar 50 f2 ZM just now but too much dust for my comfort. Wanna consider other lens or even Leica lens.

I also looking for soft release and straps. The casing is Zhou case.

Here's some pics taken by the seller:

The serial no. is 9837####. Can't find any infor from here.

http://www.cameraquest.com/mtype.htm

 

[x-ray]

Whats about buying a film EOS-body like EOS30, 3,5 or so?
You can share all EF-lenses you used on your 5D until now and
shoot film as much you want.
And you can use your Leica-lenses on it like you do now with your 5D.

Regards, Axel

This is really a good solution. I bought a EOS 3 to use the lenses I use on my 1DsII.

Look closely at the Zeiss lenses for your M. They are my overall preference over the newer ASPH Leica glass and IMO they far exceed the older Leica glass in performance. I own a good complement of Zeiss, Leica and CV glass and really feel the Zeiss has the edge.