Got Lenses, Need M Body

W

wgerrard

Veteran
Local time
5:39 PM
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
2,451
View My Gallery
OK, my two lenses are back from Sherry K.'s, looking really good. (See my whiney post elsewhere about it taking so long.)

When I sent the lenses to Sherry I had a nice M3. Now, I don't. So, I need a new M body.

I'm thinkin' I want to spend a lot of time shooting 35mm, with a 50 and a 90 also getting some play.

The two lenses just back from Sherry are a collapsible Summicron 50/2 and a collapsible Elmar 90/4. Not elite lenses, but still...

The 35 in the mix would be a Nokton 35/1.2. Also got a Nokton 50/1.5 and a Zeiss Planar 50/2.

An M2 is probably the logical choice. The M5 intrigues me, though. Will the collapsible lenses work on an M5?

I've got an R4M. I've thought about buying another Bessa, but really don't wanna carry two bodies.

I know you all love these "What Should I Buy"? posts. 😉
 
Viewfinder of course - though they are easier to fix. Shutter condition. Only problem that can plaque the M2 (and M3) is a worn film advance (take up spool "spinning" on the shaft - resulting in overlapping images - rare, but can happen on a heavily used camera.
The M3 and M2 are mechanically similar - the main difference is the viewfinder system.
The shutter brake on the M2 is the same as on the SS M3 and is quite robust. The DS M3 can have problem with it after a long hard life.
 
As I understand it you cannot collapse a lens into the M5 while the shutter is engaged (meter arm is in the way, may break or damage rear element of lens). I have attached one to my M5 but never collapsed it.
 
I don't understand the appeal of a 35 1.2. A huge lens for less than a stop more light. I don't get it. Why not a little 35 1.4?

I got an overlapping frame on the last roll from my M2. Hope it's a fluke.
 
capitalK:

If memory serves, the M5 edition of the "Leica Manual" addresses collapsible lenses rather ambiguously in one location, but in another forthrightly says Don't Do It lest you break or bend the meter stalk. I think you've made the right call.

Melvin:

The weight and size of the 35/1.2 haven't been an issue for me. The fraction of a stop was a secondary factor in my decision to buy it. I really liked some of the sample shots I saw here and elsewhere. I tend to buy things rather impulsively after mulling things over for weeks on end. (It's the "Oh, What The Hell!" shopping algorithm.) So far, I'm pleased with the lens.
 
You need a good body with a 0.72-0.74 magnification ( since you wear glasses) The best one for your lenses would be the Zeiss Ikon, otherwise any o.74x Leica will do. As for the CV35/1.2, if you ask why, then you haven't used one...
 
Melvin said:
I don't understand the appeal of a 35 1.2. A huge lens for less than a stop more light. I don't get it. Why not a little 35 1.4?
...
Click to expand...

I think they call it the Law of Diminishing Return. That is, beyond a certain point, a small increase in value (a fractional f-stop) requires a large increase in cost (size, weight, price.)
 
Since I have one example of "classic M simplicity" (M2), and two examples of a seriously tech-y M-mount body (Hexar RF), I can only offer the classic answer: It Depends.

I love the M2's straight-ahead, no-nonsense gestalt: three framelines, presented one-at-a-time, no self-timer (at least on my example) to get in the way of handling, a pretty crisp VF/RF, truly smooth action, that quiet and near-vibration-less shutter, and, yes, I'll grant you, that slightly-mysterious X factor regarding a Leica held in your hands. (My Kool-Aid glass is half-full.)

Then again: I've been using my Hexars for nearly eight years now. Loved them at the beginning, love 'em now. They make a point of not wearing their high-tech on their sleeves, so to speak (the little LCD on the top deck is about the only giveaway), but one gets spoiled quickly by them: essentially-effortless film-loading, motorized wind-rewind, aperture-priority AE option, vertical-traveling shutter with 1/4000-sec top shutter speed (and 1/125-sec flash sync speed), DX auto film-speed setting (with override), and over 100 36-exposure rolls of film between battery changes. All in a body roughly the size of an M7.

Two extremes, sharing the same lens mount, it would seem. But I like, no, love both. I've only had the M2 for less than a year, but I'm grokking the M thang strongly. the fact that I wanted a non-motorized alternative to the Hexen makes the M2 an even sweeter fit. And the fact that the M2 is meterless is less of an issue than I imagined: I do keep a Sekonic L-428 around for certain occasions, and it usually accompanies me when the M2 is my Main Axe for the day, taking an occasional reading and working with (and around) that reading for the better part of the day, until I feel the need to take another.

I suppose that, if I was going to have just one M-mount body (and assuming, just for example, the Hexar wasn't in the running), I'd probably go for a ZI, which I have used, and like a whole lot. Good build quality (with occasional issues with the VF/RF being out-of-spec out of the box, but entirely fixable, so do not let that scare you off), great meter, terrific ergonomics, great metering system, and priced sensibly for what it is. It's a camera that's made to be used, not merely ogled. Between this, your pair of lenses, and a fistful of your favorite film, al you need do is head out the door and follow your whimsy.

(I'm in the middle of making prints for Saturday's NYC meet-up, so forgive my waxing a bit poetic, with some friends have remarked is dangerously similar to waxing one's carrot.)


- Barrett
 
Barrett, mfogiel, the Ikon is in the running, as is the RF.

In my experience with glasses, any framelines near the edges of the VF are seldom seen in their entirety. E.g, I can see some sides of the 50mm framelines on an M3. So, I just compensate as best I can. The tradeoff with smaller magnification is that, well, things are smaller.

I've handled, used and liked the Hexar RF. My only concern is the service issue. It's difficult to judge based on threads here. My own feeling is that if a hybrid electronic/optical device like an RF or an M7 has been in regular use and is working, it is likely to continue working for a long time. Meaning that the electronics in Barrett's Hexars are no more or no less likely to fail tomorrow than are the electronics in a new Ikon.

My concern about the M2 is that they're almost as old as I am. As I learned from my brief exposure to the M3, stuff happens to old cameras, no matter how good the CLA. I'll admit, too, that part of the appeal of the M2 is that the two old Leica lenses, I think, look better on it than on more modern cameras. Lame, but true.

Decisions, decisions. This will go on for weeks, and then I'll just "Screw it", or words to that effect, and buy something.
 
If you really like 50mm focal length, there's no reason to consider anything else other than an M3.

The viewfinder is almost 1:1 so you can open both eyes and focus/compose, very neat.

However if you prefer 35mm focal length like I do, you'll like an M4-P (black paint, and quick-load system already built-in).

It has everything you need without the Leica mystique price-tag.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom