Dont cheap out on your lenses...

P

Prosaic

Well-known
Local time
4:58 PM
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
299
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]"If you want to save money, buy off-brand Leica M bodies, like the Zeiss Ikon, but don't cheap out on your lenses."

[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]I´d prefer an M body with a Cosina lens anytime over a Bessa with a Leica lens. But Im curious what the forum consensus is on the matter. Where to save when you have to?[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] :D
[/FONT]
 
Buy what you can afford and what you need. A Leica isn't going to make a persons photographs better. (Though I agree, I like my Leica M2 much more than my Bessa R2A.)
 
Personally, I'm much happier using a Leica body and "off-brand" lens, like Canon for example, than the other way around. I enjoy both the process and results of photography. Shooting with a rugged and precise mechanical camera body is half the fun for me.

Not sure what the consensus is.
 
If you are talking new production CV and Leica bodies and lenses in proper working condition, I doubt it would make a huge practical difference to most peoples images. I know it doesn't for me. OTH if you must have arguable ze best, have deep enough pockets and want Leica why not. I don't think you will get a concusses on this subject.

Bob
 
I think it also depends what you want to end up with. For me, when I moved on from my Yashica Lynx 1000, I kept my eyes open for the best Leica body/lens combination I could afford. I decided to start with Leica, even if that meant getting a VERY user lens and/or body. But I figured that it would be best to go with a newer body rather than a newer lens, if I was given the choice. Even though you can get a CLA on an older body, you'll often find that you can get the newer body for the same combined costs AND not have to wait for the CLA!

So I was able to find a "like new" M6 TTL at a very reasonable price and a user 50/2.0 Summicron. Then when I could afford it, I got a "like new" 35/2.0 Summicron ASPH.

After that I got the body I REALLY wanted, a brand new BPMP. A short time later, I found a "like new" 50/1.4 Summilux pre-asph at a very good price. This combination was become my favorite setup, and the lens is almost glued to the camera.

Unless you know you'll be happy with non-Leica bodies or glass, I see very little reason to start with that and move up into Leica. The only time I've broken my own rule is with the 35/2.0 Summicron, and that's because I doubt that I'll ever be able to afford the lux 35. Although it wouldn't be a problem if I would have to eat those words someday. :D ;) And as always, this is only my opinion.
 
Prosaic said:
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]"If you want to save money, buy off-brand Leica M bodies, like the Zeiss Ikon, but don't cheap out on your lenses."[/FONT]
Click to expand...

As stated, the objective is to save money. So, surely, the question of whether to achieve this objective by buying less expensive lenses or a less expensive camera body cannot be answered in the abstract. It can only be answered in relation to the purchase opportunities that the given individual will come across.

I would also add that, though the question clearly implies the contrary, there is no necessary and direct correlation between the cost and the value of lenses.
 
Last edited:
From my experience, the built quality of Bessa and Leica have huge difference where the built quality of CV lenses and Leica lenses are smaller (but still there..).

So if I have to choose either Leica body + CV lens or Bessa + Leica lens, I would choose Leica body!!

Hiromu
 
People should buy the best they can afford.

However, if you buy the most expensive camera in the world and fit a bottle end to it. You're pictures will be less than useless.

CV lenses aren't bottle ends though. I'm more than happy with the ones that I've got. The 35 and possibly the 50 will probably be replaced with Leicas when I can afford it. I'll do that before replacing the R2A.

Yes, I'd like a Leica body but I'd don't believe my images won't be any better.
 
Not all of the older non-Leica lenses are second rate in either optics or mechanics. Some really top quality examples would be the Canon 19/3.5, 35/1.8 and 35/2, and the 135/3.5, while Nikon led the pack with the 50/3.5 Micro-Nikkor and their 50/1.4 and 85/2. Now, fifty years later, they're still sought after as users and for the most part in excellent condition. Great glass and well made mounts.
 
considering that the lens makes the photograph and the camera is just the light tight box that holds the film, its hard to see any logic beyond selecting the lens that will give you the look that you are after. second comes putting it on the appropriate body to focus it with.
 
WoolenMammoth said:
considering that the lens makes the photograph and the camera is just the light tight box that holds the film, its hard to see any logic beyond selecting the lens that will give you the look that you are after. second comes putting it on the appropriate body to focus it with.
Click to expand...

I don't own a Leica RF, or glass, and doubt I ever will. But in SLR, for serious, I went for Fujinon and Zeiss T*. I can use the Fujinon lenses on any screw mount camera, and the T* lenses on Yashica cameras. The T* lenses sold me on Zeiss glass being good. For that reason, in rf, I finally went for Kiev. Yeah, I know Keiv lenses aren't Zeiss lenses, but the design is the same, so a good one will give me a similar look. At least that is what I tell myself. ;)

Botton line, I agree with WoolenMammoth and others who think the glass is most important. But I like my Fujica cameras, and liked the Contax 139Q when it worked. I understand wanting a body you are comfortable with. However, I find I also like my Yashica FX 103, and now don't miss the 139Q except for bragging rights. But to each his own.
 
A set of supermarket spanners/wrenches from Taiwan will shift nuts & bolts ( for a year or two? ) but it's so much better doing it with my 'Snap-On's' :)
Dave.
( apologies to Taiwanese viewers! )
 
Last edited:
I would certainly agree one's bulk investment in a camera set up should be in the glass over the camera, but I feel it's worth mentioning not to always overlook "off-brand" lenses when they come into your path at a give away bargain. I've come to realize over time that just about every particular lens model , regardless of it's maker or brand, has to be graded individually on it's optical performance. While there is no argument that most lenses made by Leitz, Leica, Pentacon, Schneider, Zeiss, or Contax will trustingly give you excellent images, I've been quite surprised by the performance of some "off-brand" lenses which I initially had expected to be junk. I have a late 1960's Soligor 300mm 1:5.5 (M42) mount that was given to me by a late friend who had purchased it while he was in Vietnam. I had the opinion it was crap, but accepted it so as to not offend his gesture of kindness. I later tried it and was amazed by it's optical performance. It was then I read there is quite a performance variation amoungst Soligor lenses, some exceptionally bad and some very excellent. I could show some images from a particular Montgomery-Ward zoom lens I own which has rendered contrast and sarpness that is almost spellbinding. Currently, the only "off-brand" lens I own for my M2 system is a 90mm M-Hexanon. As many of you already know, it's worth having as well.
 
Last edited:
To each his own. My preferences tend to be for CV and Zeiss lenses in most instances. There are "key" Leica lenses that I have, 50f1.4 Asph and the 75f2 Apo-Asph. These two are better than anyone else has to offer - at the moment. When it comes to the wides, the 25f2.8 Zeiss beats the 24f2.8 Asph and the 21f4.5 ZM Biogon beats any other 21 for what I use them for.
Yes, the 21f1,4 and 24f1,4 Asph Summiluxes are astounding optics, but at $6000+ each, I can survive without them. The new 24f3.8 Elmar however is probably going to join my lens stable this year. Boy, it that ever a good lens!!!!
For the more "mundane" stuff, I think that lenses like the Nokton 35f1.4 is better than my pre-asph 35f1.4 Summilux, the Zeiss ZM 35f2 Biogon outperforms my Summicron 35f2.0 IV/III as does the 35f2.8 ZM Biogon. In the 28's - I prefer the Nokton 28f2.0 to the Summicron 28f2.0 - not by a wide margin, but I find the Nokton better close in and wide open.
There is some hype attached to the Leica glass and for a long time they were better (mainly because there was no competition) - now some of their designs are a bit tired and old and Zeiss/Konica/VC improved upon the Leica designs. Just try a late Summicron 50f2 against a Zeiss Planar 50f2 - or a pre-asph Summilux against the Nokton 50f1.5 or the Zeiss ZM 50f1.5 Sonnar.
I am very happy to see Leica pick up the gauntlet with their latest offerings, however expensive they are. It does raise the bar for the competition and I am sure we are going to see offerings from both Zeiss and VC in the near future that will challenge Leica.
It really does not matter much today - most lenses offered by anybody will outperform modern Drf sensors and film anyway!
 
cwatgo1970 said:
I would certainly agree one's bulk investment in a camera set up should be in the glass over the camera, but I feel it's worth mentioning not to always overlook "off-brand" lenses when they come into your path at a give away bargain. I've come to realize over time that just about every particular lens model , regardless of it's maker or brand, has to be graded individually on it's optical performance. While there is no argument that most lenses made by Leitz, Leica, Pentacon, Schneider, Zeiss, or Contax will trustingly give you excellent images, I've been quite surprised by the performance of some "off-brand" lenses which I initially had expected to be junk. I have a late 1960's Soligor 300mm 1:5.5 (M42) mount that was given to me by a late friend who had purchased it while he was in Vietnam. I had the opinion it was crap, but accepted it so as to not offend his gesture of kindness. I later tried it and was amazed by it's optical performance. It was then I read there is quite a performance variation amoungst Soligor lenses, some exceptionally bad and some very excellent. I could show some images from a particular Montgomery-Ward zoom lens I own which has rendered contrast and sarpness that is almost spellbinding. Currently, the only "off-brand" lens I own for my M2 system is a 90mm M-Hexanon. As many of you already know, it's worth having as well.
Click to expand...
Agreed! I have an old 24mm f2.5 Tamron that equals or exeeds any of my Nikkors for sharpness and resolution!
Dave.
 
It is a matter of pocket depth and personal choices.

I am lucky to have a few Leica lenses and two M cameras, plus quite a few non-Leica high quality lenses. The feel of quality does not only come with Leica cameras. A Contax IIa or IIIa feels rock solid. A Canon P radiates reliability.

There are many options out there in terms of quality lenses and in quality cameras. My own preference is Leica M3 in cameras.
 
for 35mm, i don't think it makes much difference unless the lens is a dog.
between camera shake and my hands shaking the difference between a leica, zeiss or cv lens is pretty moot.
now, for a certain look, the brand of lens can make a difference. for the look, i finally decided on zeiss m lenses.

as to bodies, the leica's are a no go for me because i don't care for the removable base plate. no meter is fine but i want a swing back.
 
It's all about the photos, not the camera or the glass. ;)


Doesnt matter what the hell you use if you know what you are doing. Obviously, i mean use whatever makes you happy... but no ammount of gear or lens or anything else is going to give you a great image unless you know how to use them.
 
I say Holga ought to be the only camera allowed by law, for public safety reasons. The carbon footprint on the "which lens?" and "which camera?" online forum industry is a major environmental concern.


Disclaimer for the sarcasm-impaired: :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom