I can afford a Leica M film body...

Peter_Jones said:
Would a DR Summicron not be within budget ? They seem to be avoided by the Digi-M users (I recall some issue about compatibility..)
Click to expand...

a decent one is still more than a new ZM planar.

I weighed heavily the decision between DR cron and ZM planar but ultimately decided that the ZM planar was going to work better for me due to f2 performance. It is my only M mount lens, I really dont care for much other than 50mm.
 
The first lens I bought for my M6 TTL was a Soviet made 50mm Jupiter-8 f/2, I actually bought it and a dirt cheap Chinese adapter just before I got the body. If you're lucky, it is possible to find something like a Leica 50mm Summar f/2 for under $100. You should definitely be able to get a Leica 135mm Hektor f/4.5 for under $100. Look at screw mount lenses, and factor in an additional $50 for a good Voigtlander LTM-to-M adapter.

Granted such lenses don't match the quality of current Leica lens, but they will get you started, and in some cases, they can be quite desirable. I love the ~80 year old Leica 50mm Summar f/2, and have 3 of them, each performs slightly differently due to one being coated, and each being in different condition.
 
Vics said:
Oh, I didn't mean to suggest that all Leica lenses are "better" than, say, Zeiss or Cosina. My CZ Sonnar 50/1.5 (1956) is a much sharper lens and delivers a much longer range of tones for me on my M3, but it just doesn't deliver that Leica thumbprint that my collapsible Summicron does. If I want one of those typical Leica-looking pictures, I mount the 'cron.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, personal choice. I liked my Summarit f/1.5 wide open, but I probably preferred my Nokton 35mm f/1.4 wide open. It's just a personal thing though.
 
Leica bodies are worth the money (get the cheapest you can, I'm not suggesting pay the premium prices). It's simplicity, best rangefinder, and reliability rolled into one.

Leica lenses are also worth it (obviously), but not to the same degree as the body, certainly not worth the price they are commanding right now. CV, Zeiss (not much cheaper), a serviced Jupiter 8, Canon can be had for much less, and the rest is up to the photographer.
 
CV 50/1.5 is a great match for your film body, The Zeiss 50/1.5 more expensive but also a great match, and the Ernst Leitz Wetzlar Summitar 5 cm f/2, my version is from 1951, still takes great photographs and can be found, mine cost $300.00 when I bought it.

There is also the Leica Summarit 50/2.5 . . . . .

Good luck with your search.
 
I'd consider focusing much more on the characteristics you want rather than the brand. If you want something with a modern look (sharper closer to the edges, higher contrast, etc) then a third party lens from Zeiss/Voigtlander/Konica may produce more pleasing images than an earlier Leica lens.

Similarly, older Leica glass is more likely to be fogged, scratched, covered in cleaning marks, etc. If you can't check it out in person before buying you are gambling a big relative to newer items. That could mean more money spent repairing or trying again.

If you just want something solid that produces good images, you have a wide range of options. At that point you can go for whatever you find that is in good quality.

The default go-to for a cheap, likely hassle free lens would be a Voigtlander or Canon (though the Canons can develop fogging and lose some coating when cleaned). The Russian gear can be great as well but its a bit more of a gamble, particularly if you aren't big on the idea of adjusting it yourself. Some of the older Leica gear is in this range as well but depends heavily on the condition.

A step up from those options would be some of the higher end Voigtlander gear, Zeiss, Konica and older Leica gear in great shape / slightly more modern gear.

At the high end you get modern Leica and Konica 35s.

So options to think about -

- Do you care about handling? What do you like / dislike?
- Do you care about size?
- Do you care about lens coating?
- Do you care about lens characteristics?
- Do you care about lens speed?

Once you have some those values down its a lot easier to line up potential lenses.

As for the body vs lens argument, again its all about condition. A beat up M or one with a bad finder may be worse for your needs than a new VC body. You may prefer the handling of the M to the VC. Ms have a longer track record to understand long term maintenance, VCs are less known but newer. Its a bit of a toss up really and comes down to personal choices. Unless you want a wide angle finder, in which case the R4M/A is standing more or less alone.
 
Perhaps oversimplified, but for me the matter boils down to this:

The pleasures of handling and use derive mainly from the body (hey, I'm talking cameras, sheesh). For me this means Leica M, no question, but to each his own. Output characteristics are more a matter of optics. For this, you pays your money and takes your choice, Leica or non-Leica.
 
A Leica M body is more important than the Leica lens. Orville Robertson who no longer posts here, was firm on this. He had an M5 and used VC lenses and he was very good. Enjoy the M film body. Then enjoy the pleasure of making a really rational decision as per Brian's post (post 28 above.) Standing there with your heavy DR Summicron, with 'cleaning marks', a lens you paid too much for and for which you have no need of the close focus attachment, can leave you feeling like you've been sold a pup. Conversely, choosing a brand new CV 50 2.5, light, compact and modern can leave you very satisfied. If you want fast and are willing to carry it, there is the Nokton or the Sonnar. If you must have a compact F2 there is a more recent Summicron, with a great focus tab. Having reasons for a decision makes it easier to decide and makes it easier to live with the decision.
 
buy a Voigtlander body and a Leica lens. If you do it the other way around you'll regret it. The Voigtlander carries film and winds it just as well as the Leica and dollar-for-dollar, lenses matter more than bodies in making pictures.
 
I have four Leica M-mount bodies (M4-2, M9, CL, GXR) but only one lens that has the Leica brand name on it. Bothers me not one little bit. 🙂

The Voigtländer Nokton 50mm f1.5 ASPH is a super performer. My most used lens on the M9. Can't go wrong with it.

G
 
you probably have got lots of good sound advice here already. I would probably put the majority of my money into a lens, then find an affordable body... just my spin on things.
 
 
Only a Leica lens will let the light through to expose a negative on a Leica camera, the other lenses will repel the light outward.
 
AlexanderR said:
buy a Voigtlander body and a Leica lens. If you do it the other way around you'll regret it. The Voigtlander carries film and winds it just as well as the Leica and dollar-for-dollar, lenses matter more than bodies in making pictures.
Click to expand...

I sold my Voigtlander 35mm Nokton to get a rigid Summicron, wanting to try out the mystique of Leica glass. It turned out to be a good and perfectly sharp lens, and that was it. I also tried a Summicron DR and more lately a Summarit. All great lenses, but to my eye, no better than Voigtlander at all. I also preferred the focus tab on the Nokton.

Obviously these are very personal choices, and I'd never suggest that you're "wrong", but I certainly don't regret getting Voigtlander not Leica. Although at the moment, the only 35mm lens I own is a Leica... My only point is that Leica cameras feel better than anything I've used, including Rolleiflex,Hasselblad, Zeiss. The lenses are lenses, I've yet to detect any characteristic which make the Leica lenses I've had a "must have".
 
Not Much Difference between Lenses

Not Much Difference between Lenses

Have both Leica and Cosina lenses. Don't see anything special about the Leica lenses except their price tags. Zeiss and Cosina are great lenses unless you are a Leica snob. I admit the mechanical construction of the Leica products are outstanding but most photographers will never wear out a product from Cosina or Zeiss. I have been using Leicas on and off since 1975 so I speak from experience.

I just reread your original post. I don't have a lot of experience in 50mm lenses but from what I have read here, the Zeiss offerings are outstanding. My guess is Cosina as well.

If you want to talk about 35's, those offered from Cosina are great, especially the 35f2.5 and 35f1.2. I suspect the 35f1.4 is as good as well. Have the latest version of the 50f2 from Leica but years ago before the OUTRAGEOUS prices which they are now demanding. Also have some classic Leica lenses from the 1970's and 1980's which you can find at semi reasonable prices with a bit of internet surfing.

Honestly, I very rarely see much difference between Canon, Nikon, etc on my SLR's and Leica lenses on my rangefinder. Get a lens based on your preferred focal length and how much speed you are willing to live with. And bokeh is still a total mystery to me. I am concerned with areas in focus not out of focus.

And I disagree about bodies. The feel of the M series keeps me coming back after trying other brands on and off since 1975. I presently own an M2 and M6 and honestly can't decide which is my favorite. Love the simple viewfinder of the M2 and the metering of the M6. I should probably get a customized body combining the best of both but honestly I can live with any M body except the M3 since I love the 35mm focal length.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom