Leica II-D vs IIf

[msbarnes]

I recently purchased a II-D because I love the size and minimalist design (lack of strap lugs and lack of slow shutter speeds). My intention was to use this camera with a 50/3.5 Elmar and scale-focus.

Well..I am enjoying the size/weight of this cameras and so now I want to add a 50/2 collapsible ('tar, most likely).

I understand that the II-D has a lower rangefinder magnification (1.0 vs 1.5) but besides this, does the IIf hold any other advantages? (Besides flash). Everyone generally recommends the IIIc/IIIf. I'm wondering if the shutter is more reliable on the later cameras, the cameras are more serviceable, or something.

 

[Dez]

Personal opinions here, OK? Undoubtedly different people will have a different view.

I don't believe there was ever a camera designated II-D. The first Leica with a rangefinder was designated as a model II in Europe, and some dealers in NA called it a model D.

My early model II is a lovely camera, but I find it clumsy to use. There is no focusing lever on the RF, and it's really too squinty to use with glasses, so I'm trying to focus a blurry image. The IIf has a focusing control on the RF, which can be used for eyepiece correction. Yes there is a difference in RF magnification, but frankly, I had never noticed it until I read your post and checked. No big deal.

I wonder why you care about the RF design in the first place if you intend to scale focus.

I know the F series cameras have a ball bearing race at the bottom end of the wind side shutter drum, something which is not used in the prewar cameras. I don't recall whether or not the ball bearings are used in the II/IIIc models as well.

The later cameras are based on a diecast chassis instead of sheet metal, and should be stronger as a result. The postwar cameras are more complex in construction than their older ancestors, and that leads to some differences in servicability. Taking the top off is much easier in the prewar cameras, as is servicing the slow-speed escapement in the III-series models. Taking off the body shell, on the other hand, is much simpler in the later models.

As for reliability, I suspect they were originally about the same. The C and F models are newer of course, so there is less time for things to have worn out, but all these cameras are antiques, and need to have had some fairly recent service to be trustworthy.

In any case, you can have a great deal of fun with a well-sorted example of any of these cameras.

Cheers,
Dez

 

[Solinar]

The only things that come to mind is a focus adjuster for the RF, the strap lugs and maybe compatibility with modern disposable film cartridges.

By the way both are very serviceable by a tech, since they lack a slow speed escapement and the brake/clutch for the non-existent 1/1000th shutter speed.

Best Regards,

 

[msbarnes]

I don't believe there was ever a camera designated II-D. The first Leica with a rangefinder was designated as a model II in Europe, and some dealers in NA called it a model D.

Got it, that makes sense.

I wonder why you care about the RF design in the first place if you intend to scale focus.

I was originally going to scale focus with my new-to-me Elmar, but now I plan on rangefinder focusing with a faster lens.
Elmar = scale focus
Summitar = rangefinder focus

I know the F series cameras have a ball bearing race at the bottom end of the wind side shutter drum, something which is not used in the prewar cameras. I don't recall whether or not the ball bearings are used in the II/IIIc models as well.

The later cameras are based on a diecast chassis instead of sheet metal, and should be stronger as a result. The postwar cameras are more complex in construction than their older ancestors, and that leads to some differences in servicability. Taking the top off is much easier in the prewar cameras, as is servicing the slow-speed escapement in the III-series models. Taking off the body shell, on the other hand, is much simpler in the later models.

As for reliability, I suspect they were originally about the same. The C and F models are newer of course, so there is less time for things to have worn out, but all these cameras are antiques, and need to have had some fairly recent service to be trustworthy.

Thanks. This is what I'm looking for.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Lack of strap lugs is luck of design for me as amateur street photog.

Never followed this buzz about older models and IIIf.
I purchased perfect IIf under much lower price and it was functioning like new and wasn't looking like old beaten horse.
For street photography and to keep it in the pocket the slow speed option was undesirable for me. More weight, more problems with CLA.

But in case if only one RF camera I would take IIIf over IIf and olders, for sure.

 

[Dralowid]

Chances are you'd get a better IIf than II for a given sum. The IIf either black dial or red dial is one of those cameras that for no reason tends to get overlooked...

(the black dial is less common but it has no impact on price)

 

[Livesteamer]

Dez raises some good points altho it's actually just opposite for me. I have a II from 1934 and I like the RF without focusing better than my IIIc's that have the focus and I wear glasses also. I think it is an individual preference thing. It would help you to actually examine both before you buy. The die cast models are supposed to be a bit sturdier but I would think a good example of either would work well. Joe

 

[Solinar]

Condition, condition, condition

My Leica II has a new beam splitter for the RF - So, it is noticeably easier to focus than my IIIf. On the other hand, the film advance on the IIIf is noticeably smoother than on the II.

Best Regards,

 

[pete hogan]

Good points posted above. I've used a IIf for years. Film handling is a little better in cartridge positioning and with the foot projecting from the base plate for film positioning.

I like the rf focus lever under the rewind knob, and I shoot without my glasses. I don't need the slow speeds, so I would rather not have them.

Service is very accessible, so using either of these old Leicas is simple pleasure.

 

[Pioneer]

My prewar Leica II is an easy camera to work with. For me the biggest issue is whether you wear glasses, and if you prefer to use them with the camera or not. After that, if the camera is in good condition then I doubt that it will matter which one you use.

I slide mine in my pocket so I prefer the older, slightly smaller, II without strap lugs. Get a collapsible Elmar in good condition and you will be a happy camper. I also have the Elmar 90/4 with a viewfinder and the two work together wonderfully as well.

 

[Erik van Straten]

For me the big difference is the color of the camera. The II is easy to find in really beautiful black paint wile the IIf is not.

Erik.

 

[Jerevan]

If you don't worry too much about cosmetics (thinking about the likelihood of peeling chrome), a IIc is also an option. It does not exist and I suppose it could not be made either, but a IIb without strap lugs and no slow speeds would be the perfect camera for me. Black or chrome - either would be fine. 🙂

 

[Mr_Flibble]

The biggest advantage to me is the shutter. As stated above the IIf has an improved shutter design. The curtains travel time is shorter too; 1/30th of a second over the 1/20th of a second on the pre-war II.


That said, a well-maintained II or IIf both are a joy to use. I don't find the lack of 1/1000th on the II to be a problem at all.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Here's my 2d worth: firstly, keep the II and Elmar as they are the classic pre-war Leica with few complications like the slow speeds etc.

Then look at the IIIc another classic which will be post-war, solid body, lock on the slow speeds, combined (OK, closer) VF and RF windows & eyesight correction, and then get a Summitar of the same vintage, which will be coated and very near a Summicron in design.

I don't worry about the difference between a ball bearing version and the ones without, although the BB one may just be slightly less worn.

Also, the IIIc's are common and it's easy to get a good one for a good price.

Regards, David

PS The only snag to a Summitar is getting hold of a decent lens hood. The barn door, Leica made, one is a pita and came in two version. The slip on one is the better of the two as there can be a mismatch between the lens and clips. And "better of the two" means relatively better but still a heavy, clumsy lump, imo.

A modern slip on conventional vented slip-on hood is best (about 41mm). It has to be slip-on as the Summitar has no filter thread. I'll wish anyone searching for one the best of luck finding it. I'm experimenting with a vented Leica style 46mm screw in one and padding to fit the Summitar...

 

[Dralowid]

This little beauty from way up north is very tempting:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/301253727060?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649

However, who knows, the seller seems more interested in the case rather than the camera...

Seems to me that the low number, collimation plug and the later shape round the shutter dial implies a nice factory conversion...

No connection etc...

 

[Erik van Straten]

Yes, it is a conversion from a Leica II into a Leica II. We will never know why the camera was converted.

I cannot see if the lettering is Woods metal or paint. Looks more like paint.

The case is not by Leitz. Must be a Zorki or a FED.

Erik.

 

[nikonosguy]

you need the scnoo winder

 

[Dralowid]

Erik, on closer inspection I think it is Wood's metal (bizmuth). We can only suppose the top got damaged and replaced at some point.

 

[Erik van Straten]

We can only suppose the top got damaged and replaced at some point.

Also the shutter has been replaced, see the opened bottom. The early II's look completely different. They have no brake and the spring tensioners do not have six teeth.

Erik.

 

[David Hughes]

And 1/4" screw in for the case...

OK it's trivial but I'd dearly like to know when 1/4" replaced 3/8" as it would solve some mysteries for me. Like has someone switched the base plates on my one, or what?

Regards, David