Leica LTM Is IIIg worth the price > IIIf

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses

Is IIIg worth the price > IIIf

  • IIIg

    Votes: 30 50.0%

  • IIIf

    Votes: 30 50.0%
  • Total voters
    60
d.dulin

d.dulin

Established
Local time
12:29 PM
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
Messages
118
A while back I had black paint IId that I really enjoyed but decided the money could be better spent elsewhere. Long story short I miss the LTM platform for "slower" photography (slow films, old slow lenses, slow walks, etc) and would like to purchase another. I really like that the IIIg has parallax correction and actual frame lines but I am wondering if it is really worth the extra ~$200-300 over the IIIf. Those of you with experience with both I would love to hear from.

Side note: whats a good price for Summitar 50 f2, they're all over the place.
 
I almost bought a IIIg a couple years ago when one showed up at a local shop for a very good price. But decided against it. I already had a IIIf, and the IIIg's slightly larger viewfinder, though better, wasn't enough to sway me even at a IIIf's price. I had it in my hands and handled every setting and thought about it for a long while, but passed.



If I didn't already have a IIIf, I would have bought it! But the differences between it and what I already had weren't great enough to convince me (and it seems this must have been the case for most buyers when the IIIg was new too).
 
I lusted after one but was a bit disappointed to be honest. They don't feel as delicate and fine as a IIIf in the hands and lack the jewel like quality of the smaller screwmount in my opinion.
 
Keith said:
I lusted after one but was a bit disappointed to be honest. They don't feel as delicate and fine as a IIIf in the hands and lack the jewel like quality of the smaller screwmount in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I agree, I had one but when time came to start a gear reduction plan it was one of the first to go.
 
I love both, use both. I prefer the simplicity, handling, and beauty of IIIG from IIIF RD.


For based on cost I voted IIIF
 
Keith said:
I lusted after one but was a bit disappointed to be honest. They don't feel as delicate and fine as a IIIf in the hands and lack the jewel like quality of the smaller screwmount in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I agree. The smaller IIIf is more agile in use.

The IIIg felt like an M but without the benefit of a combined rangefinder/viewfinder. At the IIIg's price point, I'd spend a couple hundred more for a DS M3.
 
bucs said:
I agree. The smaller IIIf is more agile in use.

The IIIg felt like an M but without the benefit of a combined rangefinder/viewfinder. At the IIIg's price point, I'd spend a couple hundred more for a DS M3.
Click to expand...


Yes I agree ... the camera feels like an M.
 
As a IIIg owner, based on the cost difference between the two at current prices, I voted for the IIIf.

A Red Dial without the self-timer would be my preference.
 
A well maintained IIIg with a 50mm lens is a nice combo. Smaller than the M3, (possibly) more accurate focus. Looks cool, too.
 
The IIIg was the only Leica model I got rid of.

I kept the IIIc and III but I found that the IIIg was not bare-bones enough for the Barnack experience.
 
Strange, based on comments it seems like IIIf is the main choice but IIIg is winning slightly in the poll.. however, comments here reflect what I already felt, bang for buck puts the IIIf ahead, and possibly even leaves room in the case for a DS M3.
 
I got a IIIf with six month warranty from Red Dot in London, which cost half the price of any IIIg I'd seen from random dealers on ebay. With the added security that it had had an overhaul and came with a warranty I figure I got an excellent bargain.

It's a lovely camera too, everything works smooth as silk. A real joy to use.
 
The IIIG is to the IIIF as the Leica M4 is to the M5. Some love it, some don't. I had one once and even though just a little larger is felt much larger and awkward. I went back to a IIIF ST.
 
I got a nice Summitar a couple of years ago for $300. It needed some haze removed but opening them up for a cursory clean and lube is a piece of cake. There is a good tutorial online.
 
I find that I really prefer the viewfinder on the IIIg. I find no inconvenience with the separate RF/VF windows, I'm quite used to them from using my IIIc's and IIIf's. Been using those since the early 1960's.


I find the slightly larger camera body size of the IIIg advantageous when using my preferred LTM lenses; the Nokton 50mm 1.5 and the Hexanon 50mm 2.4. These are somewhat bulky optics and a better fit for IIIg relative to earlier series Barnack Leicas.

I don't pretend that a IIIg will easily fit into a pocket with either of these lenses. That is the realm of a IIIf with a collapsible 3.5 Elmar.

Good light all.
 
davidnewtonguitars said:
I got a nice Summitar a couple of years ago for $300. It needed some haze removed but opening them up for a cursory clean and lube is a piece of cake. There is a good tutorial online.
Click to expand...

Summitar comment aside, “one camera” I commend you!!! An M2 isn’t a hard choice if you only could have one though..
 
I think to compare the IIIf and IIIg based on viewfinder experience is like comparing any LTM to any M. It’s just not even fair, the IIIg obviously is better in that sense. The question is however, is that improved viewfinder worth the money, when compared to spending ~$200-300 less for a IIIf or ~$200-300 more for a M camera.. IIIg seems like a weird bridge between the two, mostly because it is/was.

IIIg still ahead in the polls though.
 
Peter de Waal said:
I have both a IIIf RDST and the IIIg. Greatly prefer the IIIg. Or the IIIb. I have two of those...
Click to expand...

The original idea was IIIf or IIIg so I could eventually get a Leicavit, but honestly any LTM would pretty much do the trick.. the IId that started this all was pretty minuscule. A black paint III would also be good!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom