Leitz CL vs Bessa R2

Leitz CL vs Bessa R2

  • Leitz CL

    Votes: 28 53.8%

  • Bessa R2

    Votes: 24 46.2%
  • Total voters
    52
Rob-F said:
I can't figure out what you mean by this. I think language is interfering. Could you explain it a different way?



The 35mm framelines in an M2, M3, and M5 will include more in the viewfinder than we will get in the picture, when using a 40mm lens. I'm sure that's what you meant here.

But the framelines in the M6, M7, and MP are smaller than in those in the earlier cameras. A 40mm lens comes closer to showing what you actually get on the negative, with those cameras, unless you are shooting at minimum focus.

On my M9, I get a little more in the picture than I see in the finder. So the 35mm frameline of the M9 is not so undersized as on M6/M7/MP.
Click to expand...

Better late than never.

"Improved from 40 Cron lens. From optics to normal filter." simply means Minolta Rokkor 40 f2 CLE lens. Improved optics including MC and 40.5 filter.
Also, it does matter what you see within the frame, but what lens sees matters even more. 40mm is odd lens to me.

I hope, DAG was able to fix OP camera.
 
I was having this dilemma deciding which camera to buy and ultimately went with the 30 years newer, hardly bigger, and better in every meaningful way (to me) R2. Nearly a year later and I'm glad I made this choice.
 
Wanted an M mount camera with a meter, especially small. Bought a CL, the meter needed work so I had a prominent CL specialist work on it. After two trips back to get the meter to stop drifting, I sold it and bought an R2. Used it for several years and enjoyed the choice of framelines (not a 40mm fan). But could not get used to a shutter that jingled and a back door that squeaked when pressed. Through a miracle of generosity got an M2 from a friend, really liked the viewfinder and ergonomics and fitted it with an MR meter. It is not small or light, but it is just right for the way I like to work. Given all of that, I'd keep the R2.
 
rumbliegeos said:
Wanted an M mount camera with a meter, especially small. Bought a CL, the meter needed work so I had a prominent CL specialist work on it. After two trips back to get the meter to stop drifting, I sold it and bought an R2. Used it for several years and enjoyed the choice of framelines (not a 40mm fan). But could not get used to a shutter that jingled and a back door that squeaked when pressed. Through a miracle of generosity got an M2 from a friend, really liked the viewfinder and ergonomics and fitted it with an MR meter. It is not small or light, but it is just right for the way I like to work. Given all of that, I'd keep the R2.
Click to expand...

M2 and V3 summicron 35mm (sometimes with MR meter) is my main camera!
The R2 (I sold the CL) still needs repair but is a back up either way.
 
jbharrill1 said:
Plus, isn’t everyone with a bessa just settling for the m mount camera they can afford, not the one they truly want? You’ve got the one you want already and it’s the CL! :D :angel:
Click to expand...

The same could be said for the CL back in the 80s and 90s... Bessas have appreciated in value at this point. Anything with an M mount is expensive these days.
 
I've got a CL, and Bessa bodies in LTM (R), M (T), and Nikon (R2S) mounts. Got the Bessas mainly for the built-in meters, and as back-ups whenever any of the associated main cameras (Leica IIIf, M4-P, and Nikon S2) should need to go in for repairs.

After using the Bessa bodies, I'm more enamored with the main cameras they are supposed to be assisting. And I find myself taking too much time trying to get the metering right, especially on certain LTM lenses that I have to lock focus on Infinity first, take a meter reading, then focus the lens because the barrels turn when I try to set the aperture.

Plus, none of the Bessas feel as competent in usage as the main cameras. The build is a little too light for my tastes.

Their good points are the built-in framelines in the finders; commonality between bodies no matter the mount; built-in meters; metal shutters; the T and R2S take winder grips; the T is good for my super-wide lenses; the R2S has an 85mm frame line; if I break one of the Bessas I'm less likely to fret the repair costs.

I voted for the OP to keep the CL because I would, but in truth he shouldn't be afraid to get rid of either camera if he really doesn't care for it. But a CL would be more expensive to buy again than a Bessa would should the urge come further down the road. Why not keep them both?

PF
 
There is no comparison between the two, really. The Bessa R2/R3/R4 are better cameras than CLs in almost every regard. The RF baselength and the finders are better. They are easier to load. They can focus down to 0.7m while the CL can only focus to 1m. And the CLs are all over 45 years old now. The CL is smaller and its shutter speed dial is really great to use IRL. But the CLE is an all around better camera as well. At the end of the day, it's the lenses that make the shot. I like my CL but it's not the first camera I ever pick up.
 
davidde1000 said:
The RF baselength and the finders are better. They are easier to load. They can focus down to 0.7m while the CL can only focus to 1m.
Click to expand...

I think it’s actually 0.8m for the CL. The RF base is indeed short (not that the R or R2 is all that long, either) but for a small camera like the CL it doesn’t make much sense to use large fast lenses that stretch the RF capabilities or block the view; it was designed for compact lenses, being the ‘compact Leica’, after all. :)
 
davidde1000 said:
There is no comparison between the two, really. The Bessa R2/R3/R4 are better cameras than CLs in almost every regard. The RF baselength and the finders are better. They are easier to load. They can focus down to 0.7m while the CL can only focus to 1m. And the CLs are all over 45 years old now. The CL is smaller and its shutter speed dial is really great to use IRL. But the CLE is an all around better camera as well. At the end of the day, it's the lenses that make the shot. I like my CL but it's not the first camera I ever pick up.
Click to expand...

Bessa R2 only focuses down to 0.9m. The R2x cameras and beyond go to 0.7m
 
splitimageview said:
I think it’s actually 0.8m for the CL. The RF base is indeed short (not that the R or R2 is all that long, either) but for a small camera like the CL it doesn’t make much sense to use large fast lenses that stretch the RF capabilities or block the view; it was designed for compact lenses, being the ‘compact Leica’, after all. :)
Click to expand...

Compact Leica?

 
You may be right -- I will have to re-check but I was pretty sure that it would not focus my 40/1.4 Nokton closer than 1m, although the lens itself can focus way closer.

splitimageview said:
I think it’s actually 0.8m for the CL. The RF base is indeed short (not that the R or R2 is all that long, either) but for a small camera like the CL it doesn’t make much sense to use large fast lenses that stretch the RF capabilities or block the view; it was designed for compact lenses, being the ‘compact Leica’, after all. :)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom