Leica vs Bessa vs Ikon

[Pioneer]

Just thought I'd throw in my 2c.

I was in a similar position, went with a 'user' M6, cheap, mechanically excellent, cosmetically not so good, pitting in the zinc etc.

I went with a Leica because as others said, its a Leica, and if you went with one of the others, you'd always be wondering.

However, if I were to do it again, I'd get a cosmetically better one to begin with. If I had done that I wouldn't be looking to buy a nicer condition model now and you won't loose money.

Off topic, getting a rangefinder changed my photographic outlook completely. Be prepared and enjoy.

Michael

I can absolutely agree. Owning a rangefinder has changed my own photographic perspective. And I can certainly agree that owning a Leica is a wonderful experience that everyone should have a chance to have.

Cosmetic condition is less important for me. If I were trying to make money buying and selling cameras it might mean more, but I'm not trying to make it a business. Don't misunderstand, having a good looking camera is nice, but when you are dealing with older cameras sometimes the more used it looks, the better it works. 🙂

 

[jakobfoto]

Speaking of the Sonnar 50...how does one know it's optimized for 1.5? Is there a way to tell?

 

[Peter_S]

New: f/2.8
Used: probably f/2.8 also, unless it was changed. If you use it, you will know...measuring stick or book shelf test will do.

 

[mfogiel]

For the C Sonnar:
While you can get very interesting images with the wide open optimized ( usually people who sell them will tell you they are set for f 1.5)version, the f 2.8-f4.0 range is very versatile, because while it gives you enough DOF to cover minor focusing problems (particularly if you recompose), the in to out of focus passage is quite abrupt - it gives an impression of shooting at least one full stop wider. The end result is a sharp image with some highlight bleed-in, that mitigates microcontrast, and a very pleasant background appearance.
Then, by f 5.6, you start seeing the biting sharpness shine through:


2008020307 by mfogiel, on Flickr

 

[Peter_S]

I agree with Mfogiel, the Sonnar C is generally the more useful lens when optimzed for f/2.8 (hence they are usually sold like that). I overall, looking through my archives, probably prefer the rendering at f/2.8 (http://cargocollective.com/peter_s/Tskhaltubo-IDP-Collective-Center - first two are shot at f/2.8), it is smoother.

I also agree that the film and developer + technique will matter too. Some find the Planar 2/45mm too harsh - with Neopan and HC-110 and that lens I took some of my smoothest yet sharpest portrait/sensual images, however (that remains that best allround-lens for me, be it portrait or landscape, too bad there is none for M-Mount...should picked up a converted one when I was in Japan)

 

[jakobfoto]

Thanks guys. I guess my concern is that (if I buy new), there may not be enough time (to have it exchanged or replaced) to tell if it's ok wide open since I have shoot a roll of film and have it developed and scanned. Maybe better off buying a used one from a reputable reseller.

 

[jakobfoto]

Btw, I only use my 50s between 1.4-2. I very rarely stop down more than that.

 

[Peter_S]

Btw, I only use my 50s between 1.4-2. I very rarely stop down more than that.

Guess you will want the f/1.5 optimized version then. Try to find one modified for f/1.5 and film (like mine) by Zeiss themselves. Or: buy new, send to Zeiss for optimizing to f/1.5.

 

[judsonzhao]

It really depends on your need and budget.
But overall and assuming you use in normal conditions, Zeiss Ikon ZM could be the most cost-effective choice, with probably best finder, easiness of use, great price, somewhat nice looking.

An M6/M7 is nowhere close to wrong choice, you will be delighted.

 

[biomed]

All three are good cameras. The Bessa R3 is like General Motors Chevrolet, with the Ikon being a Buick and the Leica a Cadillac. If you want the Leica then go for it. I have the Bessa R3A and have been very pleased with it. The 50/1.5 is a fine lens. I own the LTM version and continue to use it with my digital cameras.

 

[Dez]

I think all three are excellent cameras, but I would vote for the Leica (for ultimate build quality) and the Bessa (for versatility and cost effectiveness). I tend to be a bit leery of the CV Zeiss Ikon: few of them were made, it's out of production, and I worry about ongoing support.

Now THIS kind of Zeiss Ikon is a different story!



Cheers,
Dez

 

[gb hill]

I wanted a Leica until I got to fondle a Bessa, M6, M2, & a ZI. To my eye the M's didn't even match up to the brightness of my Bessa R. But I will say I don't know the magnification those finders had. The ZI was spectacular in the VF. This is why you need to look through one before you buy. Finders are like eyeglasses, your eyes are your own. For me the "Leica gas" is gone.

 

[Wulfthari]

Nobody suggested the M5...I only handled a Zeiss Ikon for few moments but it feels like a great camera.

 

[kiss-o-matic]

I own a ZI. It was my first entry into range finders, so I don't have a lot of experience, but I have no complaints about it. The fact that I dropped it and a lens (aperture blades would no longer move, finder was totally borked) and Cosina fixed them both for a combined cost of about $100 further assures me I made the right choice.

I've got a Bessa-R which is fine for the most part, but it doesn't have Ae mode which is a bit of a deal breaker for me. I bought it b/c I needed to take it to a very bad place, condition-wise, and it was cheap. I think I'm going to sell it and the one LTM lens I have for a CLE.