Help: Voigtlander Bessa R3m vs Bessa-T vs Leica CL and which 40mm lens?

[han.s0lo]

While the R3M is great on paper, it has two big things going against it now for me, which are the viewfinder being difficult for my large glasses, and it's cost. I can definitely see why an external viewfinder would be cumbersome, but if it is the only drawback after considering price and metering quality then I might have to live with that. I am staring to consider the Minolta cle now after a few suggestions.

 

[Wburgess]

I can vouch for the r2a and 40m nokton mc.

The camera is very well build, some websites and people would have you believe otherwise, but in the hands, it's a lovely camera.

The nokton is a lovely characterful lens, and can be had quite cheap. It also works very well with the 35mm view lines. Also I find the rangefinder patch bright and clear.

Absolutely love this combination, and if you wait, can be had cheaply.

 

[Wburgess]

P.s. Don't listen to anyone called Ken 😉

 

[k__43]

I'd follow Gabors hint .. there is nothing quite like an M-body if you want an M-mount camera. I'd rather start with a Jupiter-8 and a M2/M4-P/M4-2 than a Bessa and a more expensive lens. You can always add your 40mm later.

If you want to cheap out go for a CL+40mm - at least in Germany that would be the cheapest option. (you can get that setup for around €450 here)

 

[han.s0lo]

If you are referring to Ken Rockwell then yes I know he is not to be trusted. The fact that he specifically tells his readers not to shoot raw and then makes fun of raw shooting/shooters it's ridiculous.

 

[Scrambler]

I have a 40mm lens and camera with matching viewfinder, neither of which are on your list. The CLE (mentioned by others) is a good camera with pluses and minuses compared to the CL and the Bessas. The Bessa R series VFs are large and bright. The EBL won't be an issue with any 40mm lens (and the same is likely to be true of the CL). The CLE VF is great with glasses.

My lens is a Rollei 40mm/ f2.8. It's a decent performer, and I like the Sonnar signature. This is, AFAIK, the widest true Sonnar design lens for 35mm.

You probably won't get a CLE and Rollei 40mm for your price point (I paid about that but the camera was cheap). The Rollei is a bit of a collector lens unfortunately.

As has been said, the CL Summicron-C and CLE Rokkor-M 40s are thought to be the same lens design.

From a similar exercise previously, I would say that the CL body will be the cheapest, but despite the electronics I think the CLE is a better camera. The only real downside is the lack of metering in manual mode. It can be worked around, but it's still a nuisance. And sure it might die, but try finding a CL with guaranteed working meter for a good price.

I would suggest CLE and CV 40/1.4 as the best compromise, with (as has been said) a R2M or A as the body if you don't want the 30+ year old electronics of the CLE.

But mainly, find something that you like enough to use. Stuff the rest of the theory: EBL's, Bokeh, Sharpness etc. If you like what the camera feels like and what the lens does, go for it and don't look back.

 

[sparrow6224]

I was troubled by my love for my 40mm Summicron C and no camera with 40mm framelines until I figured out -- reading all the recommendations on filing down the lens bayonet -- to stick a little shim under the preview lever on my M2 and M6 to get the 35mm frameline, noting the interior edge on critical shots and leaving it at that. Saved money hassle and scary filing job. The Leica CL actually has a beautiful viewfinder/rangefinder in my experience but the meter thing and the battery thing and the other issues of age on a camera that is all together too delicate has finally ended my romance with them.

On the 40mm lenses. I have long believed -- but let's face it most of our equipment convictions are at least partially mythological -- that the Summicron offered a richer "look" than the Rokkor-Ms of the same era. Especially in the blacks. The later CLE Rokkors I don't know about. Everything I have seen of the VC 40/1.4 looks outstanding but it's a larger lens, if that has meaning for you. It does a bit for me. You're not going to suffer with any of these lenses.

 

[traveler_101]

I'd follow Gabors hint .. there is nothing quite like an M-body if you want an M-mount camera. I'd rather start with a Jupiter-8 and a M2/M4-P/M4-2 than a Bessa and a more expensive lens. You can always add your 40mm later.

If you want to cheap out go for a CL+40mm - at least in Germany that would be the cheapest option. (you can get that setup for around €450 here)

I don't agree necessarily with K-43's opinion, mainly because of the certainty in his tone. This is a difficult question so i thought I'd say something of my experience.

I have the Bessa-T used a lot with a recently acquired 35 Nokton which I am learning to love . . . damn it . . . because it is pulling me away from LTM lenses and my beloved Leica IIIF.

What is good about the Bessa T? Relatively compact (not as small as the Leica III series though), solid build (though not Leica solid), reasonably light, good RF--easy to focus, and you buy a nice viewfinder to match your lens. Feels very good in my hands, better even than the Leica III cameras.

Ok, if you intend to get a lot of lenses with different focal lengths maybe this isn't the camera for you, though my 15 and 25 mm Voigtlander lenses came with viewfinders.

Where people like K-43 are right is once you start down the RF path you will be attracted to the most accomplished and expensive options. I am no different. I am currently still contemplating whether to get a Leica M--and I finally got my hands on one: there are wonderful things about the M cameras, but . . . consider this, it's a bigger, heavier, bulkier camera than either of my two cameras. Just saying . . . no offence meant. In other words, it isn't an open and shut case in favour of the Leica M.

I suppose also it is what one becomes accustomed to. There are factors like the size of your hands and fingers . . . and of course for many of us there is the pocketbook question.