Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Part of the difference between the M2 and the M3/M4 is that on the latter, the release also "frees" the film counter dial so that when you advance, the dial turns. On the M2 the dial turns, but it does not need to declutch the dial as it is a advance lever activated movement. Personally I dont feel that there is much difference between the M2/M3 release or the M4. It is also very individual to the camera. I have a couple of "lesser favourite" M2's that are a bit harder in the release and I have an old DS M3 that is silky smooth. If you use them enough, they tend to smooth out the action. The M2 just has that simplicity in its operation. no extra finder windows to deal with, no film counter return spring to go "sprooing" in the night and you tend to limit your lens use to one or two lenses, which is a/good for your back and b/probably good for your wallet. Most of my walking around kit is based on 400 asa bl/w and a 35 or 40mm lens and a 21 or 25 on the second body. I might be using other bodies or lenses, but that is the basic kit.
PetarDima
Well-known
Tom A said:
That is the way to go!
vrgard
Well-known
Just wanted to say thanks to Tom A for his explanation above. Sharing of such expert knowledge is one of the many reasons I like this forum so.
-Randy
-Randy
ferider
Veteran
vrgard said:
Hi Randy,
I have big fingers, and that may be why I don't feel any difference between
M2 and M3 release. It might be much more important when the camera
was last CLA'ed and to what pressure it was calibrated. I like the
external M2 film counter for other reasons, though, in connection
to the Quickload system, and because it's me, not the camera who
defines the beginning of the film.
Best,
Roland.
vrgard
Well-known
ferider said:
Makes sense. Thanks, Roland. And I know what you mean about big fingers - I'm not overly tall but based on my hands I shoulda been a basketball player!
-Randy
phatnev
Well-known
Tom what's your favorite 35 for the M2?
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Tricky question, because if I mention one, the others are going to be upset and having at least 20+ 35mm lenses protesting can be a health hazard!
From a comfort point of view, I have to say either the 35/2 Summicron III or IV. They are small and easy to hold and operate and my fingers know exactly where the controls are.
For pure "image" quality it is a toss up between the 35f2 Asph (sharp and contrasty - a bit too contrasty in bright light) and the Biogon 35/2 ZM (smoothest tones of any 35 in black/white, more than sharp enough).
For convinience and small size, the VC 35f2.5 II and occasionally my old 35f2 I from 1958.
For all practical purposes, most of the modern lenses, particularly "prime" 35 rangefinder lenses are more than adequate for most every shooting situation, particularly if you are shooting black/white. I find that ergonomics of a lens is as important as performance. If the lens fits your hand and style of shooting, you are going to get better pictures than with a lens that is uncomfortable for you to use!
If you are looking for a classic package, a M2 and a Summicron 35, either version i (expensive collectible 8 element version) or the version III (less "collectible and thus cheaper) would be fine. The version IV and Asph f2 are too pricey for what they offer - at least in black and white. I much prefer spending less on the camera and lens initially and more on film. Once you are familiar with the camera, you will know what you need or want.
Lenses like the Konica/Minolta/Canon are other alternatives and they are all good - I particularly like the Canon 35f2 (or f1.8, virtually the same lens, just reduced in size for the f2 version). There are differences in rendition between all lenses, but not enough to disqualify any of them as useful 35's. In the end it is you as the photographer that determines the quality of the image, not the lens and the camera. My criteria is that the combination is going to perform for a long, long time and that I should never have to "think" about if it is "good enough".
I usually only blow prints up to 11x14 these days, but I have done 24x36" prints from old and rather scruffy 35f2's from the early 60's without much trouble. maybe a bit lower contrast and if shot wide open, slightly softer corners, but that is not whats important, it what is on the image that counts.
From a comfort point of view, I have to say either the 35/2 Summicron III or IV. They are small and easy to hold and operate and my fingers know exactly where the controls are.
For pure "image" quality it is a toss up between the 35f2 Asph (sharp and contrasty - a bit too contrasty in bright light) and the Biogon 35/2 ZM (smoothest tones of any 35 in black/white, more than sharp enough).
For convinience and small size, the VC 35f2.5 II and occasionally my old 35f2 I from 1958.
For all practical purposes, most of the modern lenses, particularly "prime" 35 rangefinder lenses are more than adequate for most every shooting situation, particularly if you are shooting black/white. I find that ergonomics of a lens is as important as performance. If the lens fits your hand and style of shooting, you are going to get better pictures than with a lens that is uncomfortable for you to use!
If you are looking for a classic package, a M2 and a Summicron 35, either version i (expensive collectible 8 element version) or the version III (less "collectible and thus cheaper) would be fine. The version IV and Asph f2 are too pricey for what they offer - at least in black and white. I much prefer spending less on the camera and lens initially and more on film. Once you are familiar with the camera, you will know what you need or want.
Lenses like the Konica/Minolta/Canon are other alternatives and they are all good - I particularly like the Canon 35f2 (or f1.8, virtually the same lens, just reduced in size for the f2 version). There are differences in rendition between all lenses, but not enough to disqualify any of them as useful 35's. In the end it is you as the photographer that determines the quality of the image, not the lens and the camera. My criteria is that the combination is going to perform for a long, long time and that I should never have to "think" about if it is "good enough".
I usually only blow prints up to 11x14 these days, but I have done 24x36" prints from old and rather scruffy 35f2's from the early 60's without much trouble. maybe a bit lower contrast and if shot wide open, slightly softer corners, but that is not whats important, it what is on the image that counts.
ernstk
Retro Renaissance
I'm upset. No 35/2.8 Summaron?
Regards
Ernst
. No 35/2.8 Summaron?Regards
Ernst
HuubL
hunter-gatherer
ferider said:
That's what I think. I have two M4s and an MDa. The M4s have slightly different tactiles, the one CLA'd last year is the better one, but the MDa's release beats anything I ever felt. That one was heavily used in its time as a documentary camera and was regularly CLA'd. Pity that it has no finder. I use it infrequently with the 135 on a Viso.
If my new M2 beats the MDa, I'll be convinced!
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Ernst, sorry about forgetting the 35f2.8. I have already heard its wailing scream from the cabinet! They used to be the bargain 35's, but now they have attained "collectible" status and gotten expensive. I like the 35f2.8 and to some extent it is a better lens than the 35f2, particularly in close up performance.
As a penance for having forgotten it, I shall load another M2 with Presto 400 in IXMOO cassette and the 35/2,8 and proceed to shoot it today!
As a penance for having forgotten it, I shall load another M2 with Presto 400 in IXMOO cassette and the 35/2,8 and proceed to shoot it today!
vrgard
Well-known
Yeah, I'm sorry to see the "collectible" price the Summaron 35/2.8 seems to garner. I recently found a Summaron 35/3.5 at a very good price (started another thread about it at the time) which I've just shipped off to Sherry Krauter for a cleaning to remove a bit of haze. I'm hoping that it performs almost as well as does the 35/2.8 (anyone have any thoughts on this?). If not, I'd be interested to hear from anyone (including you, Tom A, who is apparently letting that poor lens go unused... ) who would be willing to sell me their 35/2.8 at a reasonable price.
-Randy
) who would be willing to sell me their 35/2.8 at a reasonable price.-Randy
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Randy, just took a walk on the beach and finished the Presto 400 roll in the M2 and loaded another in the camera. I keep forgetting what a delightful lens the 35f2.8 is. With Vancouver having an unseasonable sunny weather for the next couple of days, f2.8 is not a problem as a maximum aperture!
sirius
Well-known
I bet those will be lovely. With the sharp definition and low contrast of that lens I bet it will perform well in intense sunshine. Sheesh, I wish it was warm here.
kevin m
Veteran
Amen.
Thank goodness advice of this sort is usually ignored, otherwise the camera industry would go belly-up overnight.
vrgard
Well-known
Tom A said:
Aw gee, Tom, now you're just rubbing it in!
But glad to hear that you're putting that lens to use and I look forward to seeing any results you deem worth sharing.-Randy
P.S. I'm also glad, Tom, to be reminded by kevin m of your advice re the user of a 35mm lens being more important than which lens that user happens to be using. (Translation: I should focus on enjoying my 35/3.5 when I get it back from Sherry rather than on hunting down a more expensive 35/2.8.)
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Randy, of course you should continue the search for a 35f2.8. The old adage "Do as I say, not as I do" really comes into play here! Just to give even more insanity to gear!I had to go and mail something, so this involves a walk of 4 blocks (uphill and steep at that) so I equipped myself with yet another piece of less used equipment. An old Nikon S and a 50f3.5 Tessar lens and a roll of Lucky 400. The reason seemed good at the start of the hill "wonder if the times are OK on the S" and " Zeiss Contax lenses are not matched to Nikon helicoils". It took 40 minutes up and down the hill but I did shoot the roll. Oh, I was also trying to figure out how the Lucky 400 is working with my Td 102 developer? Some reasons for taking pictures are better than others!
The old Nikon S is an interesting piece of equipment. Film gate is 24x34 mm and it is built like a tank and about as heavy. My upcoming project is to shoot with all my Zeiss Prewar and Postwar Contax lenses (21f4,5, 28f8, 35f3,5, 35f2.8 pre-war, 35f2.8 postwar T*, 50f2 and 50f1.5 and the 85f2). First test will be with Nikon's and second will be with Orion style adapter on M's. No scientific purpose whatsoever, just a reason for using up a 100ft roll of Tmax 100 before it gets old enough to vote or drink in public.
The old Nikon S is an interesting piece of equipment. Film gate is 24x34 mm and it is built like a tank and about as heavy. My upcoming project is to shoot with all my Zeiss Prewar and Postwar Contax lenses (21f4,5, 28f8, 35f3,5, 35f2.8 pre-war, 35f2.8 postwar T*, 50f2 and 50f1.5 and the 85f2). First test will be with Nikon's and second will be with Orion style adapter on M's. No scientific purpose whatsoever, just a reason for using up a 100ft roll of Tmax 100 before it gets old enough to vote or drink in public.
vrgard
Well-known
You're evil, Tom, just plain evil! (as if I needed anyone to further motivate my camera/lens GAS tendencies!)
And good for you for keeping all that old gear operational. Looking forward to seeing some results, particularly those taken with a Sonnar lens.
-Randy
(as if I needed anyone to further motivate my camera/lens GAS tendencies!)And good for you for keeping all that old gear operational. Looking forward to seeing some results, particularly those taken with a Sonnar lens.
-Randy