Just got a Leica IIIf. Please educate me on good lenses.

[Duofold RF]

For IIIf, the primary lens would be a collapsible 50mm f/2 Summicron, paired with a 135mm LTM and a Voigtländer 25mm f/4 LTM. The built-in rangefinder can handle approximate framing for the 135mm, while the external viewfinder is used for the 25mm. The three-click focus scale on the 25mm is excellent for street photography.

 

[Coldkennels]

The built-in rangefinder can handle approximate framing for the 135mm

I would very much not trust that setup.

This concept was mentioned elsewhere on here, so I tested it: Leica IIIc rangefinder window field of view

The short version is that the RF window is nowhere near a 6x4 view, and even if you can mentally crop it to 6x4, the parallax is a huge problem. Comparing the view from the RF with a VIOOH set to 135mm with the correct distance, the RF is about 33% out vertically and 12.5% out horizontally. Considering a VIOOH can be had for £45 in the UK and a dedicated 135mm SHOOC can be had for £35, the only reason to faff about like that is if you're allergic to external finders.

On a related note, the "multi-magnification" finders in early Canon screwmounts are pretty equally terrible for framing a 135mm lens. I know people say "framing on rangefinders isn't accurate anyway", but there's "not accurate" and then there's "framing by luck, hope, and a little bit of faith".

I'll stick with an external finder, thanks!

 

[Duofold RF]

Leica LTM cameras have their limitations. Switching between the rangefinder window and an external viewfinder is tedious, which is why Canon rangefinders are generally considered superior to Leica’s in terms of usability.
The main advantage of Leica LTM bodies lies in their compactness. This makes them particularly well-suited for super-wide-angle lenses, which often don’t require precise focusing. When paired with an external viewfinder for the wide focal length, focusing becomes fast and intuitive—ideal for candid snapshots.
Personally, I avoid constantly switching between rangefinder focusing and an external viewfinder; it’s too much hassle and risks missing the decisive moment. For focus length longer than 50mm the M body with build in frames are better. 135mm on a IIIc is practical and usable.

Leica IIIc Nikkor 13.5cmm f4

 

[Coldkennels]

As someone who uses 135mm lenses a lot, I'd wildly disagree with pretty much all of that.

The main benefit of the III-series cameras for me is the high-mag RF. Swapping to any M other than the M3 massively reduces the focusing accuracy, so while the framing might be faster with an M, the focusing is a lot less reliable. I've even tried the goggled 135mm Elmarit on an M240 and it's still less accurate than a IIIf and a screwmount 135mm. I never understood why so many people said long lenses don't work on a rangefinder until I tried an M; the III is a lot better for them.

As for the Canons: I wear glasses. I can't see the edge of the viewfinder on any early Canons, so they're basically worthless to me. And even if I could, the combined 50mm finder and RF patch is so low magnification and so low baselength that I wouldn't trust it with any fast 50, meaning you're having to flick a lever to get to the 1.5x view, move that finger to the focusing tab and focus, then move the finger back to flick the tab back to the 50mm setting. I gave up on it and just left it at 1.5x and mounted a SBOOI on top any time I wanted to use a 50/2 or faster. It was quicker and less hassle to use an external finder than it was to mess about with that thing.

 

[38Deardorff]

There are many choices in wide angles for the lllf.... Leica Elmar, Summaron, Nikkors, Canons.
As far as Voigtlanders.... 21mm, 28mm, 35mm, 40mm....all in focusing mounts..... besides the somewhat unique 25mm 'snap-shot skopar'.

 

[Richard G]

I foolishly passed up the opportunity to get an LTM snapshot Skopar, and bought the M version, one of the very few lenses I’ve bought new. I hadn’t yet seen the light.,.

I don’t view the external finders as some cumbersome impediment. The SBOOI for 50 might be redundant, but it provides a glorious view. Separate to that, with zone focus the camera body is never quite up to the eye. This has a surprising effect on the perception of others. Gary Winogrand used external finders on later Ms and fiddled around with his camera in a crowd (at least in the online movies I happen across) like a klutz who’d borrowed the camera from his brother in law that morning. I find people just don’t realize you’ve taken a shot. Some don’t recall you having a camera when they see themselves in a photo of mine. This is why a III and external finder is close to the perfect street camera. And small, always, on, no shutter lag and no searching autofocus.

Even with the Ms the SHOOC (135) makes for a very different experience. Much more enjoyable and more engaging. Through the M finder you can’t viualise a shot with a 135 mm lens despite the frame lines. Maybe if I used a 135 a lot I’d previsuakise like with other Leica lenses. With 50 and 35 in the M2 it’s immediate even the first time you use the camera. For events, concerts, speech nights, rowing regattas I found it much better to use the SHOOC. I’d take more pictures.

 

[Coldkennels]

I think that's one of the things I grew to love about external finders: you can completely change the way the camera works/feels just by swapping out the external viewfinder. Meanwhile, if you were stubbornly only going to use an integral viewfinder no matter what, you're locked into one experience. It might be amazing (M3), it might be just about tolerable for one or two lenses, (Canon 7), or it might be miserable for everything (Canon IIIa), but that's what you're stuck with.

Looking at my viewfinder shelf, I have five different viewfinders that cover the 35mm field of view - the Soviet turret, a VIOOH, a VIDOM, the SBLOO, and the Voigtlander 28/35 mini finder. If the only 35mm finder I could ever use was the 28/35, I'd literally never use that focal length. And in some scenarios, I'd rather use the VIOOH than the SBLOO, as controversial as that may seem (I find that sometimes a cropping finder is easier to compose with than a brightline finder).

Case in point: despite the fact my IIIg has 90mm "framelines" in the viewfinder, I'd still rather use the collapsible SEROO on it. It's just a much better viewfinder.

 

[lynnb]

For a modern look I have the CV Color-Skopars: 35mm f/2.5 and 21mm f/4. Both are very compact (with small lens hoods) and have identical handling (I believe they share the same lens barrel). I have one in chrome and one in black to easily tell them apart. I like them both.

 

[38Deardorff]

I use the accessory finders all the time, I have the ones from 21-50mm & routinely use even the 35 & 50mm on my M cameras as well.

 

[Coldkennels]

I will add that in addition to the 90mm f/4 Elmar, there was also a 90mm f/2/8 Elmarit in LTM thread mount [...] I checked eBay before posting this; the 90/2.8 is now trading for around $750. That's quite a bit more than the Elmar; but if a faster 90 is needed, the Elmarit is a good choice.

According to the Leitz wiki there were only 2,067 of those early Elmarits made in LTM. I'd love one, but getting one in good condition seems pretty unlikely based on those numbers.

I guess I'm already eating my words:



Out of curiosity after these posts I went looking through all the dealers in the UK and found that the Leica store in Manchester had a 90mm Elmarit in LTM in incredibly good shape for £400. Grabbed it that night, they shipped it on Friday, and it arrived yesterday. Immediately took it on a 9 mile hike, and developed the film today.

First thoughts: feels denser than the 90mm Elmar and weighs about 55g more, but the size isn't too egregious - nothing like as ridiculous as the 90mm Summicron (which I played with in M mount years back). Same length, just slightly fatter barrel. The non-rotating front is nice for useability, and it feels good in the hand.

I've not had chance to do a proper side-by-side comparison yet, but the few shots I took with it yesterday came out good:





I'm still not sure I'd recommend tracking an LTM one down over "settling" for the 90mm Elmar unless you were dead set on having a slightly faster lens, but they are out there, @Rob MacKillop. You're not having this one, though.

 

[Richard G]

Very nice. It’s not the same formula as the Elmarit M, but looks to have more ‘bite’ than the Elmar.

 

[Coldkennels]

The biggest difference I could tell in the 10 shots I took yesterday is that the Elmarit seems to have a lot more contrast than the 90mm Elmar. Part of that could just be the harsh winter sun, of course. But I was also surprised by how well it dealt with that - the sun was just out of shot on this one, and even with the IUFOO hood, I was convinced it was going to be a flared-out mess. The Elmarit handled it surprisingly well.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Here are three shots from the first test roll - Ilford HP5 - with the Canon 50mm 1.4. Developed and scanned by Analogue Wonderland. I was using the TT light meter, but am not convinced by it. I must say I loved using the camera, and over the course of the roll got used to it. I hope to do better shots in the future.

 

[38Deardorff]

The Canon lens you have is excellent. For 28, look at the Canon 28mm f2.8 is you want a classic lens. For 90mm the Leica 90mm f4 Elmar is inexpensive and EXTREMELY sharp.

The 28mm is a gem! Love mine.

 

[Godfrey]

I have a Leica IIIc (about 1947-48 vintage). I use an LTM Voigtländer Color-Skopar 35mm f/2.5 along with the Voigt 35mm viewfinder as my standard setup.

In addition, I have a collapsible Leitz Elmar 5cm f/3.5, a Voigt Color-Skopar 28mm f/3.5, Voigt Color-Skopar 50mm f/2.5 as well, with Ricoh 28mm and Voigt 50mm viewfinders to match (the standard viewfinder is a bit squinty for my eyes-with-glasses). And ... an SMC-Pentax-L 43mm f/1.9 Special which I use on it occasionally with the 35mm viewfinder and just frame tight to accommodate the longer focal length. This latter is a little bulky on the Barnak bodies, but it works very well.

All of the above lenses produce very nice results.

Bob - Mountain View 2024
Leica IIIc + Elmar 5.0cm f/3.5


Not A Door #2 - Santa Clara 2024

“. . . a stone, a leaf, an unfound door; a stone, a leaf, a door. And of all the forgotten faces.

Naked and alone we came into exile. In her dark womb we did not know our mother's face; from the prison of her flesh have we come into the unspeakable and incommunicable prison of this earth.

Which of us has known his brother? Which of us has looked into his father's heart? Which of us has not remained forever prison-pent? Which of us is not forever a stranger and alone?

O waste of lost, in the hot mazes, lost, among bright stars on this weary, unbright cinder, lost! Remembering speechlessly we seek the great forgotten language, the lost lane-end into heaven, a stone, a leaf, an unfound door. Where? When?

O lost, and by the wind grieved, ghost, come back again.”

― Thomas Wolfe, Look Homeward, Angel

Leica IIIc + Color-Skopar 35mm f/2.5, green filter


Fulvia Parked on Deserted Street - Mountain View 2024
Leica IIIc + Color-Skopar 35mm f/2.5, green filter​

I have both wider and longer M-mount lenses (10, 21, 75, 90, 135 mm...) but have no intent to find similar in LTM for the Barnak. They're more suited to the film or digital Ms, IMO. The short baseline of the Barnack rangefinder is, to me, most ideal for the 28 to 50 mm range of focal lengths, and the smaller, shorter lenses work on it with good balance. When I spend a lot of time with either the 28 or 35 on the camera, and then switch to the 50mm, I feel like I've just put a super telephoto on... 😀

enjoy, G

 

[Bolo Kukus]

I have a iif (or it could be a iig, the jury's still out on this) with a 50/2.0 collapsible Summicron. Decades ago I owned an M3 with the once-legendary 50/1.5 Summarit, sadly now sold.

I love my 'cron and I loved the Summarit.

If I were again in a situation where I was buying an LTM Barnack, I would unhesitatingly go for the Summarit. Mine was tack-sharp and gave a tonal rendering I can only describe as lovely. If I ever come across one for sale, in reasonable condition, I will surely break my bank balance to buy it, I liked it that much.

I also have a 50/3.5 Elmar, sadly not in the best of condition. Agree with others that it's needle-sharp. Someday I'll surely get it serviced, but for the moment it's a shelf queen, in a place of honour in its own Leitz small case in my camera cabinet.

The Summicron and the Summarit 50s are now highly sought after and consequently expensive.

My next most-used lens is the Elmar 90/4.0 - as a few others have already posted, it's a beaut lens.

I can also say nice things about the Summaron 35/3.5, the contrast it gives could be described as "1950s European", like the pastel colors you see in those wonderful old Italian films of that era. A little help from post processing works wonders with the images it makes. My third fave lens.

 

[Coldkennels]

I have both wider and longer M-mount lenses (10, 21, 75, 90, 135 mm...) but have no intent to find similar in LTM for the Barnak. They're more suited to the film or digital Ms, IMO. The short baseline of the Barnack rangefinder is, to me, most ideal for the 28 to 50 mm range of focal lengths [...]

I'm pretty sure I'm repeating myself, but even purely on a technical level, I'd have to disagree.

As per the RF accuracy chart, any Barnack with a 1.5x magnified viewfinder actually has more accurate focusing than any M other than the M3 (and even compared to the M3, it's close). If you're using Canon's 135/3.5, any 0.72x M actually falls short of being able to focus it reliably wide open, according to the chart. Using it on my M240, I have to agree.

The only real downside to the Barnack's short baselength, high-mag setup is that the rangefinder has to be calibrated correctly. But as a side bonus, the Barnack design is much easier to calibrate at home - and much easier to calibrate accurately, too.

 

[yossi]

....

The only real downside to the Barnack's short baselength, high-mag setup is that the rangefinder has to be calibrated correctly. But as a side bonus, the Barnack design is much easier to calibrate at home - and much easier to calibrate accurately, too.

Cannot agree with this more. It's a PITA to calibrate the horizontal RF of Leica M camera's due to the two-degree-of-freedom adjustment.

 

[qqphotos]

Cannot agree with this more. It's a PITA to calibrate the horizontal RF of Leica M camera's due to the two-degree-of-freedom adjustment.

At least the IIIf and IIIg also have an eccentric adjuster under the roller on the end of the coupling arm.



Both of my IIIg bodies need focus adjusted and it just seems like such a pain in the ass I don't want to deal with it. If you're always shooting stopped down you'd never have to care, but up close with a fast lens it's an exercise in frustration to get really sharp focus where you want it. And of course focus shift is a thing too.

 

[Godfrey]

I'm pretty sure I'm repeating myself, but even purely on a technical level, I'd have to disagree.

As per the RF accuracy chart, any Barnack with a 1.5x magnified viewfinder actually has more accurate focusing than any M other than the M3 (and even compared to the M3, it's close). If you're using Canon's 135/3.5, any 0.72x M actually falls short of being able to focus it reliably wide open, according to the chart. Using it on my M240, I have to agree.

The only real downside to the Barnack's short baselength, high-mag setup is that the rangefinder has to be calibrated correctly. But as a side bonus, the Barnack design is much easier to calibrate at home - and much easier to calibrate accurately, too.

Having used both Barnack and M bodies, side by side, since 1969, I simply disagree ... the Ms, particularly those with the higher magnification viewfinders, are easier to get the focus right on the money ... focus more accurately ... compared to any of the Barnack bodies I've owned. That's about 5 different Barnacks and about 11 different Ms that I've owned now, all in absolutely perfect condition.

I don't have to look at specs, charts, and all that to say this and feel justified with its truth: I speak from my actual use of the cameras, and several tens of thousands of exposures over these fifty-some years.

And that's about all I'm going to say about it. G'Night.

G