Duofold RF
Well-known
While the Leicaflex SL2 is esteemed for its build quality and optical performance, it does face issues like prism desilvering and shutter capping. In contrast, the Nikon F2 offers durability and versatility, and the Olympus OM series provides a bright viewfinder in a compact form. DAG charge $400-500 for overhaul, convert to regular 1.55V battery.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
I wasn't sure if this was a statement or a question. I have an SL2 and yes, it had the prism desilvering AND shutter capping, both fixed by DAG. That was a long time ago but it's been perfect ever since. A lovely camera (and hefty) -- mine came with the 50 Summilux as well. Not a big fan of the series filters though.
I can't say whether it's the best Leica SLR, but I would agree it's the best Leicaflex. As for being the best camera of the 70s, this is about the height of the mechanical SLR, so the Canon F-1 would need to be in the conversation as well I think, and the Pentax LX (never tried one) and MX have a lot of fans. Also one I've never tried is the Minolta XK.
If I had one vote I'd go with the F2 though.
I can't say whether it's the best Leica SLR, but I would agree it's the best Leicaflex. As for being the best camera of the 70s, this is about the height of the mechanical SLR, so the Canon F-1 would need to be in the conversation as well I think, and the Pentax LX (never tried one) and MX have a lot of fans. Also one I've never tried is the Minolta XK.
If I had one vote I'd go with the F2 though.
hap
Well-known
I have an SL Leica flex. It got me into R lenses. I hardly take it out of my "collection" partly because it's not particularly better than others in the period. It is over engineered and heavy.
When I want to use the lenses I use my Leica R-E (light as a feather) or the R8 (could be a surrogate for 10lb kettlebell).
When I want to use the lenses I use my Leica R-E (light as a feather) or the R8 (could be a surrogate for 10lb kettlebell).
ddutchison2
Well-known
I love its 70's esthetics and the hand-made-in-Wetzlar vibe, but functionally it was well behind the top offerings from Nikon and Canon.
JSteed#2
Established
I had an SL2, and while it is clearly a Leica through and through, i find that the most satisfying from the perspective of projecting total quality is the Standard, followed by the SL.
Miles.
Beamsplitter
I never liked the ergonomics of the Leicaflex era but I would consider the R8/R9 my favorite battery-dependent SLR.
CP93
Established
70s, when I worked retail at Gilbert Photo in Wheaton MD.
Definitely not the best. That goes to Nikon and Olympus.
YMMV, naturally.
Definitely not the best. That goes to Nikon and Olympus.
YMMV, naturally.
x-ray
Veteran
You asked about the SL2 and a close friend owned 2 and used them in his work. He was a PhD botanist and picked the SL2 because of the 100 Macro. He said it was hands down better than Nikons Micros and the best micro he’d ever used. He bout everything new and babied his equipment like his microscope but his cameras suffered meter and shutter issues.
I was a serious M user in my work and bought 2 SL’s (1 MOT) for my work during the time they were in production. Over a few Mo this I grew to dislike them. I grew to dislike the body shape, the single stroke wind and the focusing screen. I found some lenses near impossible to focus. Mechanical and meter problems were an issue too. I also didn’t find the lenses to be any better than Nikon glass.
I believe the SL and SL2 never caught on due to cost, weight, ergonomics, lack of accessories and swapping finders and screens in the field, lack of reliability and lack of support for the professionals like Nikon NPS. I don’t think Leica ever really intended the SL’s to be professional cameras.
I wound up going back to my M cameras and 3 Nikon F2 bodies with 2 motors and a bag of lenses from the 8mm f2.8 to the 400 f3.5. In the many years I used them and shot thousands of rolls I only had one issue. A rewind gear lost a tooth in one of the motors and that was it. I fedexed it to NPS, ir was repaired the next day and I had it back in my hands the next.
I’d put the F1 in that top tier of cameras in the 70’s along with Nikon but would exclude the SL (2).
I was a serious M user in my work and bought 2 SL’s (1 MOT) for my work during the time they were in production. Over a few Mo this I grew to dislike them. I grew to dislike the body shape, the single stroke wind and the focusing screen. I found some lenses near impossible to focus. Mechanical and meter problems were an issue too. I also didn’t find the lenses to be any better than Nikon glass.
I believe the SL and SL2 never caught on due to cost, weight, ergonomics, lack of accessories and swapping finders and screens in the field, lack of reliability and lack of support for the professionals like Nikon NPS. I don’t think Leica ever really intended the SL’s to be professional cameras.
I wound up going back to my M cameras and 3 Nikon F2 bodies with 2 motors and a bag of lenses from the 8mm f2.8 to the 400 f3.5. In the many years I used them and shot thousands of rolls I only had one issue. A rewind gear lost a tooth in one of the motors and that was it. I fedexed it to NPS, ir was repaired the next day and I had it back in my hands the next.
I’d put the F1 in that top tier of cameras in the 70’s along with Nikon but would exclude the SL (2).
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Waste of money. F2 without electronics will do 
Duofold RF
Well-known
The Leicaflex SL2 is the best of the mechanic Leicaflex series. However, it couldn’t quite compete with the top offerings from Japanese companies at the time. The Nikon F2 remains the standout mechanical SLR of the 1970s, supported by a wide range of affordable, high-quality lenses. The same can be said for Canon, Pentax, Minolta, and Olympus, all of which offered strong contenders in that era.
Duofold RF
Well-known
Using a vintage clunky Leicaflex SL2 with an old Leica lens remains an enjoyable experience, even in today’s digital era.
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
The SL2 is slightly thinner compared to the SL, missing the bulge on the back door, has a hot shoe (the SL sports a cold shoe), and has the f/stop in the viewfinder which can be lit-up. Both cameras are tanks - meaning they're indestructible. In modern nomenclature, think of the SL as the "SL2-E". I've owned and used both over the years and don't really have a preference.
The Leicaflex SL and SL2 are essentially the same camera mechanically. During SL2 production, Leica was in their cost-cutting mode, looking for any way to cut costs, but according to Don Goldberg ("DAG") - who was apprenticed at Leica, Germany at the time - Leica effectively lost money on every SL2 they sold (the same is said about the M5).
The Leicaflex SL and SL2 are essentially the same camera mechanically. During SL2 production, Leica was in their cost-cutting mode, looking for any way to cut costs, but according to Don Goldberg ("DAG") - who was apprenticed at Leica, Germany at the time - Leica effectively lost money on every SL2 they sold (the same is said about the M5).
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
One final point about which SLR camera could be ranked the best in their 1970s heyday:
I had a roommate in the mid-late 1980s who taught Jr. High history. At his request I took hundreds of slides of pictures in textbooks using a macro lens. I started with a Nikon F2 and their 55mm macro lens, but I found framing was always off center, so the slides required allot of masking (or often needed to be reshot). So I purchased an R3 and a 60mm macro lens (with the 1:1 tube); with that set-up framing was spot-on perfect. It ended up being a huge time-saver as I only needed to mask slides in order to crop.
The SL I purchased as a back-up was equally precise.
So under these circumstances, which set-up would you say was best?
I had a roommate in the mid-late 1980s who taught Jr. High history. At his request I took hundreds of slides of pictures in textbooks using a macro lens. I started with a Nikon F2 and their 55mm macro lens, but I found framing was always off center, so the slides required allot of masking (or often needed to be reshot). So I purchased an R3 and a 60mm macro lens (with the 1:1 tube); with that set-up framing was spot-on perfect. It ended up being a huge time-saver as I only needed to mask slides in order to crop.
The SL I purchased as a back-up was equally precise.
So under these circumstances, which set-up would you say was best?
DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
Old cameras are like old humans - they all come with age-related problems, some serious, others less so.
There is no denying that the SL range, like all Leicas, are darn good cameras. But they are old. And they use film, which is now niche.
This partly due to how heavy they are, but mostly how expensive they can be when you have to get them repaired. And you will. Unlike my Nikkormats, if one of my FT2s goes kaput I can go online and buy another from Ebay for <$100 - and if the new one gives up the ghost, well, hoo. Ebay is there yet, to the rescue.
Another factor. A friend, sadly deceased a few months ago, bought a new Leica M6 in 2000-2001. Paid AUD $6000+ for it, a fortune then, a bargain now. Very little used. Has sat on a shelf in his home for the past decade. Now about to be sold. All the dealers we have spoken to say it will need a CLA as apparently the lube oil in those Ms tends to settle to the bottom if they are left unused. Said CLA starting at AUD $650. After all that, the eventual sale price likely to be $3000-$3500. The dealers were reluctant to get involved as they say they have to offer a warranty on all their sold cameras, and anything both (1) using film and (2) older than ten years is now a risk.
To sum all this up, oh well. Let the buyer beware.
Ending this with the sincere hope that your SL2 will avoid all these mishaps. There are some good ones out there.
There is no denying that the SL range, like all Leicas, are darn good cameras. But they are old. And they use film, which is now niche.
This partly due to how heavy they are, but mostly how expensive they can be when you have to get them repaired. And you will. Unlike my Nikkormats, if one of my FT2s goes kaput I can go online and buy another from Ebay for <$100 - and if the new one gives up the ghost, well, hoo. Ebay is there yet, to the rescue.
Another factor. A friend, sadly deceased a few months ago, bought a new Leica M6 in 2000-2001. Paid AUD $6000+ for it, a fortune then, a bargain now. Very little used. Has sat on a shelf in his home for the past decade. Now about to be sold. All the dealers we have spoken to say it will need a CLA as apparently the lube oil in those Ms tends to settle to the bottom if they are left unused. Said CLA starting at AUD $650. After all that, the eventual sale price likely to be $3000-$3500. The dealers were reluctant to get involved as they say they have to offer a warranty on all their sold cameras, and anything both (1) using film and (2) older than ten years is now a risk.
To sum all this up, oh well. Let the buyer beware.
Ending this with the sincere hope that your SL2 will avoid all these mishaps. There are some good ones out there.
Last edited:
Mackinaw
Think Different
I just traded some seldom-used 35mm SLR and lenses for a Leicaflex SL and a R 90.2.8. The meter of the SL didn't work but that turned out to be a corroded battery compartment, which I have since fixed. I have a roll of Tri-X in it right now. First impressions are all positive. This thing screams precision. I also have a Canon F-1 and a Nikon F and F2 and quality-wise, the SL fits right in with the other three. I should finish that roll of Tri-X on Friday. Looking forward to processing the film.
Jim B.
Jim B.
shawn
Veteran
If you dive in again it is really easy to diode mod the meter too. On my SL and SL2 without the diode the meter was actually pretty reasonable at lower light levels but would go off scale in bright light. The diode mod took care of that.