OK, I'm going to buy an M6!

M

merciful

Guest
Now - we've got that settled. I haven't been using my EOS-1, Rolleiflex, or Fuji GW670II, so I'm selling them all (and some EOS lenses) to finance a nice M6 .72, because I've been shooting almost exclusively with my Canonet and really need to be able to use interchangeable lenses.

So - what do I buy? On a budget of about US$2200, with say, $1100 (or maybe a little less, considering the release of the new digi-range) for an M6. I want a 50mm and a 90mm, almost all of my work is portraiture (example attached), some in very low light, almost all indoor. I have no objection to old lenses, or non-Leica lenses, or old, non-Leica lenses - in fact, I really like old stuff. But it's hard to wade through all the myths and craziness on the web to know what to do.

So - let me know! And thanks from Canada.
 
Good news! Another Leica-maniac in the forum! :D

Now... if you like using long lenses, don't dismiss the M6TTL, specially if it's a 0.85 magnification viewfinder because this one will help you work with those long glasses you like. Sure, the 0.72 will do the trick too, but if you're really sure you'll use the 90mm lens, pick a 0.85 if you can.

In any case, either the so-called "Classic" M6 or the M6TTL will be great for you.

Regarding lenses... depending on your budget, I'd recommend a Summicron of any age. In fact, my first lens was an old 1956 Summicron with hood and everything, which I later traded for the latest version (in black). Summarits and Summiluxes may be tempting (and faster!), but the f2 is a handy, useful maximum aperture. Besides, you can find a lot more Summicrons in the used market than Summarits (f1.5) or Summiluxes (f1.4). As for a long lens... your choices are larger: you can go for used Summicrons (f2), Elmarits (f2.8) or Elmars (f4), and you can get most of them in either bayonet or screw- mounts. I got a very old Elmar for $85 (including adapter ring), and even though it's uncoated, the results are very satisfactory.

This is the moment, merciful. Do you have some choices lined up? Any merchants or vendors? I can recommend two places: Don Chatterton, or Ritz Collectibles (I bought a Leica from each of them). Have you made a choice between black- or silver-chrome body? Are you ready to want a large number of gadgets and Leica-thingies? How about film?

Welcome to the terrible world of the Leica obsession for perfection! :)
 
Thanks, Francisco - I'm glad to be here.

I think I need the .72 - I should have mentioned that I wear glasses. I figure that the .58 just isn't going to work well with the 90mm, particularly.

Good suggestions, thanks. I don't think that the Elmar will work, but the Elmarit prices are certainly right for me. The Summiluxes are tempting (I just love those wide apertures) but I'll probably take your advice and start with a Summicron.

Film? I shoot Tri-X almost exclusively. Push, push, push!

I will thankfully check out the places you recommend, as well.

I suppose I shouldn't even let myself consider a nice Hexar kit with 50/2 and 90/2.8...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Merciful, welcome to the forum and hope to hear from your new Leica soon ! :) I consider myself too young to "honor" myself with one of them, but Francisco tried to convert me to the "dark" side, hehehe...

Of course I also let him know the hidden treasures of Former Soviet Union cameras ;)

Good luck !

Oscar

PS: and btw, I like a lot that shot !
 
Last edited:
Thanks, Oscar - for the welcome and compliment. That's the style in which I work almost exclusively.

I have to get to work selling in order to be able to buy that M6.
 
Welcome, Merciful! I've had my Leica gear (M2, 35 Summicron, 90 Tele-Elmarit) since the late '60's so I predate today's prices.

It's said the M2,3, M4 (before the M4-2?) and M5 had the best workmanship. With the M2 I got used to making incident meter readings with a separate meter, so don't miss the internal meters of the later Leicas. But the convenience of auto-exposure as in the M7 is tempting.

I agree about the Summicron series of lenses as an excellent default choice. There seems to be a sacrifice of some sort with faster lenses, whether sheer size/weight or compromized optical quality. But if there's a good reason to go Leica, it's surely with the wonderful lenses!

Speaking of lenses, I'm curious which one was used for your posted pic. It has a nice soft look in the near out-of-focus area, yet a distinctive harshness for the far OOF background. Interesting photo for the foreground couple too!

If there is truly a "Leica style" of photo, this is it. :)
 
Thanks, Doug.

I think there'll be faster lenses in my future, perhaps even the famed (and reviled) Noctilux. With the light I work with, it'd be a treat, even with its oddities.

That photo is with the 40/1.7 permanently attached to my Canonet QL-17 GIII - when I started working with it, I almost immediately started thinking Leica. 1/4 second at f1.7, Tri-X at ISO 6400.
 
hay merciful, welcome to the forum.

have you tried delta 3200 film? i noticed your post stating that you were shooting tri-x at 6400 and thought a higher speed film might fit your needs better.
i prefer ilford to kodak but that's more a personal decision.
i quite like the delta films in general but i love the 3200.
just an idea...

joe
 
Thanks, Joe.

I've developed a real thing for Tri-X for most of my shooting needs. My last exhibition was a mix of Tri-X and Delta 3200 prints, and I much preferred the Tri-X examples. Of course, I might very well start to use 3200 again sometime.
 
Another Tri-X maniac? Man... I have to return to my B&W roots.

BTW, Oscar, you've been successful! Lately, I've found myself thinking (and admiring) the Contax look-alike Kievs on eBay. And in Casanova they had a real one! A "veritable" Contax that just looked great, but I kinda liked the black finish on your Kiev better.

Now, I'd like to learn how to develop film at home. Otherwise, I'm a slide man! And, in B&W, a true Scala fan.

So, merciful, will it be a black- or a silver-chrome body? Rumor has it that silver is much more durable, but the black look (despite the much maligned red dot, which some tend to hate) has a definite advantage: it's nearly invisible.

I see how the Canonet led you astray. I'm in the same boat! My first rangefinder was a Canonet, and then I got a series of old, Japanese classic cameras before ending with a Contax G1 and my Leicas.
 
Yes, I develop all my own b&w - it's good fun and the only real way to know just what you're going to get.

Black would be preferable, aesthetically, but whatever comes at the right price is what it'll be.
 
There's a fellow in photo.net selling a black Leica M6TTL with a 50/2 Summicron lens for $2200 (probably shipping included).

You can always call Don Chatterton and see if he has M6TTLs for around $1295/body (Sh. included), and then contact Richard Oesterling, from KBCamera.com, and get yourself a nice, brand new 'cron 50/2 for $949. That's how I got some of my own stuff, and even though it sunk me in deep debt, I don't regret it. Good luck!
 
No, there's just too much debt already - the stuff has got to sell first, and the body and two lenses must come in under my limit. There's no real point in having the Leica if I can't afford the 90mm as well, because the Canonet is doing the job. If I have to wait - so be it, I'm used to it.

I expect prices to drop a little bit as a few users dump second bodies to buy those silly new Epson digital rangefinders. Maybe hope, rather than expect...
 
I see... you're doing a very sensible thing: first sell, then buy. I did the same thing, only my sales weren't enough to cover my purchases.

Good luck with your sales! :)
 
If you can live with a maximum aperature of F4,you might want to check out the Minolta Rokkor 90mm F4 lens that was designed for use on the Minolta CLE. It is an improved version of the Leica 90mm f4 Elmar. The Rokkor is fully leica compatible and multi-coated. You should be able to purchase a nice 90mm F4 Rokkor for about $250-$350.
 
SolaresLarrave said:
BTW, Oscar, you've been successful! Lately, I've found myself thinking (and admiring) the Contax look-alike Kievs on eBay. And in Casanova they had a real one! A "veritable" Contax that just looked great, but I kinda liked the black finish on your Kiev better.
Click to expand...

Hehe, so you liked the black Kiev eh ? :) I've seen some more custom made black Kievs on eBay lately (alex-photo had some, together with a black fake Contax). Fedka.com also has some different versions (mostly 4a and 4am) in black finish, which in my opinion gives that camera a great "new" yet discrete look.

A real Contax ? did you ask how much ? just curious...

Ironically, when talking with a guy in CasanovaFoto about the black Canonet, he told me that back then when that camera was introduced, nobody wanted to pay the few extra bucks for the black one. Check the prices today on black canonets vs. chrome ones and cry !

It's so easy to be seduced by the "dark" side :p

So Merciful, I join the others here, good luck with your sales !

Oscar
 
Hey Guys! Let's go Shopping!
(just to give some ideas, other than EBay prices)

From Woodmere Camera's listing as of 3/12/04:

M6 BLACK "CLASSIC" (9 TO 9+) $ 1049
M6 BLACK TTL 0.85,BOX (8+ TO 9) $ 1125

Older Glass, In Screw Mount, need adapters:
35/3.5 SUMMARON (8+ TO 9) $ 225
35/3.5 SUMMARON (9) $ 249

50/1.8 CANON BLACK (9 TO 9+) $ 165
85/2 CANON SERENAR (9) $ 149
 
Thanks, Andrew. Not an ideal aperture for me, with all my available light indoor work, but of interest in any case.
 
new M6 purchase

new M6 purchase

Why is everyone avoiding the Voigtlander lenses as a recommendation? When I bought my M6 in 1995 I had very few affordable lens options. I was forced to buy imperfect Leica lenses and Canon screwmounts if I could find them.
Today, thank the lord, we have the Voigtlander options. I bought the 28/3.5 and am astounded by the quality. (Better than the 1970's Leica 28/2.8 I have)

Don't get suckered into the poor house by spending thousands of dollars on a lens. It's not worth it. Voigtlander lenses are great and affordable. The Leica lenses might be better (doubtful) and are better made (it's not like you're going to take pictures in a battlefield, are you?). But they're WAY too expensive. The only time I bought a new Leica lens was when the 21/2.8 aspheric first came out, the previous model went "down" to $1100. It was a fantastic lens, but I was always afraid to take it anywhere, which is ridiculous, so I sold it.
I then bought a 1950's Canon 50/1.5 for about $100 and took it with my M6 all over Cuba and the Dominican Republic -- that's
all I needed in life (plus a bottle of rum).

When I was more into Leicas back then I was disgusted by the Leica fanatics. Take no offense, please, but they can be really dispicable people. I would watch in amazement at used-camera shows as rich old Japanese men would plunk down 3g's in cash for a silly little peice of chrome and glass. If they ever used these lenses, they would take pictures of a puppy. The rest of us could only afford a lousy scratched lens since these fanatics drove the prices of everything sky-high!
All the photographers knew that ultimately the lens means much less than the eye.
(Example: the photographer Richard Billingham's Ray's a Laugh series. He used a junky Olympus Trip!)
Find lens alternatives!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom