Leica LTM Leica IIf vs IIIf

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
A

angeloks

Well-known
Local time
6:09 PM
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
407
I'm about to buy myself a Leica IIf, is there any major difference between the two models beside that flash thingy that I won't use anyway ? Or both models offer the same durability/usability/etc... ?

About the price, should a Leica IIf be less expensive than a Leica IIIf ?

Thanks,
Julien
 
The IIf doesn't have the slow speed knob (no shutterspeeds below 1/25th or 1/30th, apart from B), and has a top speed of 1/500th. There are a few variations of the IIf and some later models has the 1/1000th sec speed. The price all depends on condition of the camera, but the IIf is less common. Both models offer the same durability and works in the same way.
 
Well Julien, the only difference afaik. is the slow speeds. All III versions have them, all II versions don't. At some point in time the flash sockets were added to both II and III.
Pricewise a good IIIf should be more expensive than a IIf.
 
I'd hold out for the IIIf, those slow shutter speeds can come in very handy when you get used to handholding it steady. It can make the difference between a slightly blurry shot at 1/8 and no shot at all at 1/25.

I mention this because I remember your PMs about low-light ability(?).
 
Yah true... I didn't know about the missing slow shutter speeds. As I love to use wide angles at low speeds. Hum... this makes me wondering again...

Thank you all for your prompt replies !
 
Last edited:
angeloks said:
I'm about to buy myself a Leica IIf, is there any major difference between the two models beside that flash thingy that I won't use anyway ? Or both models offer the same durability/usability/etc... ?

About the price, a Leica IIf should be less expensive than a Leica IIIf ?

I have a IIf and I used to have a IIIf. They are identical with regards to flash use. They differ in that the IIf does not have the slow speed dial on the camera front. IIf's were made in fewer numbers than IIIf's so I don't know about being cheaper.

Thanks,
Julien
Click to expand...


I have a IIf and I used to have a IIIf. They are identical with regards to flash use. They differ in that the IIf does not have the slow speed dial on the camera front. IIf's were made in fewer numbers than IIIf's so I don't know about being cheaper.
 
As for handholdability and slow speeds, I can use the IIf down to something like 1/15 if I can manage to hold still. And the subject too ofcourse. Longer is not really useful to me. 1/15 is about the fastest I can press and release at 'B'. I tried with a stopwatch and it is accurate enough for an exposure.
 
Back in the 50's Leitz offered a factory conversion service to make IIIf's out of the lower priced IIf's. As a result theree are a lot fewer IIf's around than were originally manufactured. The prices for IIf's are usually a lot more than for the IIF.

It wouldn't sirprise me if you could buy a IIf, sell it and buy a pair of IIIf's.

-Paul
 
Sure, the IIf might be a more uncommon camera, but I highly doubt it's worth enough to buy a pair of IIIf's. Seriously, look at the online retailers of vintage Leica equipment (like ritzcam.com) and see for yourself. Ritzcam.com has a large selection of IIf and IIIf camera for sale right now, and the IIIf's are generally more expensive than the IIf's. Plus, the situation has been the same on auction sites like ebay. In this instance, I believe the demand for the IIIf is far greater than the demand for the IIf.

Rarity is not the only determinant for value. It's all about demand! If rarity was the only concern, then M2 cameras should be selling for about 3 times more than M3 Leicas (since there were only about 80,000 M2's made, versus about 230,000 M3's). And the Perfex Speed Candid would only be owned by the rich!

Back on topic, the IIf is still a useful camera, but as has been previously mentioned, lacks the luxury of a slow speed escapement. If you intend to use the camera with shutter speeds below 1/25th, I would pass on a II series Leica. However, remember you do have flash capability, which somewhat makes up for the lack of slow speeds. If all you are wanting is the option for 1sec., 1/2sec., etc. on the shutter dials, and flash use isn't important, you might look into a IIIc or IIIa. These cameras almost always sell for less than a similar condition IIIf. And this isn't just speculation based on rarity, it is a fact!
 
One minor difference is the shoe, and the way it secures an attached accessory. The IIIf has a pair of spring-loaded rails identical in design to the M bodies, while the IIf has bent metal leaves. The same difference can be seen between the IIIg and Ig. Must be a cost-cutting measure.
 
Daniel

Those I really like - you can "feel" the situation

I like all three, but the second one "has it" for me

Cheers
 
Last edited:
There is a Leica lllf with Summitar 5cm/2.5 Lens plus case on UK Ebay right now

Looks nice, the seller has a 100% feedback record but it looks like he does not regularly sell cameras

Item number: 320120848972 with a BIN price of £250

I have no connection with the seller, but this seems to be the price that they sell for these days.
 
on the plus side for the IIf, at least there will be less of a chance of making a blurry hand held photo due to camera shake, as the slow speeds are not there, although some of us cannot even hand hold 1/100 of a second at times without camera shake.
just look at the IIf and IIc as the bare essentials, the Fender Telecaster of the camera world,or a super quality version of the Zorki 1 or the Fed 2 and we do very well with these two FSU cameras, sans slow shutter speeds.
 
My hands can shake like a spanish donkey on a church steeple at times, but I've managed 1 second exposures with the 21mm lens I had that have looked nice at 8x10 and perfect on the web.

Of course, it is all subjective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom