Roger Hicks
Veteran
Or indeed nothing at all. I was recently given a black paint Zeiss Contaflex BC with f/2.8 Tessar and interchangeable back. When it was new, in 1963/4, it was only £6 cheaper than an M2 with f/2.8 Elmar...
Cheers,
R.
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
Interesting question; in the late 60s the Spotmatics and teh rest of the SLRs were responsible for almost killing the german photo industry.
I think they are a lot more flexible than RF; but lack the cache factor.
I think they are a lot more flexible than RF; but lack the cache factor.
ray*j*gun
Veteran
In general I believe that 35 SLR's are the absolute bargin in the film photo world! One can get a Nikon body and lens for a song and, as long as weight is not a problem, make images that are superb!
gb hill
Veteran
I got a Spotmatic with the 50/1:4 Takumar. Got it for free, the lens was yellow & the mirror was hung up. I took off the botton cover & saw that a mechanism (can't remember the configuration right now) but it was sticking, I could release the mirror by touching it with my finger. I put a spot of lightweight oil on it & the camera has worked now for over a year with no hangups. As far as cleaning the yellow on the lens I now have the lens 85% clear just by sitting it out in the sun. Carter3john a member here posted a rig on flickr setting a 50 Tak. under a lamp with one of those 15 watt swirley bulbs & I believe he had it cleaned out in 22 hours. So thanks for the thread reminding me I need to do that!
LeicaFoReVer
Addicted to Rangefinders
My first serious camera was Canon AE-1 with 50mm f1.8, same kind of lens. But for some reason I dont remember loving it that much like I do now for spotmatic...The lens definitely have a better signature and the mechanics are better...
literiter
Well-known
I'm interested in doing this to mine? Do you remember where to find the posting?
15 watt swirly bulb??
wallace
Well-known
Beside 2 MX I own a Pentax KM, successor of the Spotmatic . I was told that the K2,KX, KM and K1000 are in n fact Spotties with K mount, but someday I will catch a Spotmatic, which I think is the prettiest of all SLRs in history. Just my 2 cents....
wallace
wallace
Steve M.
Veteran
Pentax glass is very good but it isn't Leica glass. What is? If your photos are good enough w/ your Pentax, then you don't need a Leica. I was enamored w/ the idea of shooting the Pentax Spotmatics myself, until I actually bought one. The eye relief isn't good for me since I wear glasses, the metering is far too fiddly for any sort of quick work, and the camera has a rather loud shutter. Nicely made camera though.
I have given up trying to find a less expensive way to get Leica quality shots. The body is unimportant, it's the lenses that do it. Not everyone thinks the Leica glass is that different, but to me it's really, really obvious it's superb. So for me, anything but Leica optics in 35mm is throwing my money away.
I have given up trying to find a less expensive way to get Leica quality shots. The body is unimportant, it's the lenses that do it. Not everyone thinks the Leica glass is that different, but to me it's really, really obvious it's superb. So for me, anything but Leica optics in 35mm is throwing my money away.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, some of it is. I love my 85/1.9. But some of the other lenses are... well...
Cheers,
R.
literiter
Well-known
Yes.
I've got a bit of Leica M Stuff, 35mm 50mm and 90mm. Very nice, I like it but when I've compared the output from my M stuff to anyone else's output, or anything from my crusty old Nikkor stuff there is no difference.
I actually think that the quality of my cheap old Nikkor 50mm f1.4 may actually be a little sharper and as contrasty as the M's 50mm Summicron. This is by projecting slides, scanning on my CS 9000 or a few really good B&W prints.
I'd really like to see a definitive, intelligent article comparing Leica M, R lenses to Zeiss, Nikkor and Canon stuff. (whoever did this would likely have a price on his/her head for a bit, I know)
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I don't think it can be done. So much is subjective; so much depends on your subjects; so much on exposure technique and media (film/digi).
If I shot only portraits, the Super Takumar 85/1.9 might be all I ever needed in 35mm. But as I also shoot low-light general pics, and M9 digi, the pre-aspheric 35 Summilux is my 'standard' lens, and for a doubling/halving sequence (all I need for 99.9% of my pics) I can't imagine bettering 135/2.8 Elmarit - 75/2 Summicron - 35 Summilux - 16-18-21 Tri-Elmar, though the last is replaced (on cost grounds) by Frances's 18/4 Zeiss and my 15/4.5 Voigtländer.
Cheers,
R.
LeicaFoReVer
Addicted to Rangefinders
Well Leica can be superior little but we cant say others are bad. Think about the Pentax 6x7, my father used it for years, the glasses are superb. You must see the slides on Kodak e100 with incredible color and sharpness and resolution. I mean it. But because Hassys are very popular, now everybody is addicted to Hasselblads (surely they are good too). Not many people realize how Pentax 6x7 are much better with a more attractive frame size.
Hassys were mainly used by fashion industry where 6x6 was attractive.
Pentax 6x7 goes for 100-200$ on ebay where you cant find Hassy on that price...So sad...
Hassys were mainly used by fashion industry where 6x6 was attractive.
Pentax 6x7 goes for 100-200$ on ebay where you cant find Hassy on that price...So sad...
Last edited:
peterm1
Veteran
Spotmatics with original Takumar lenses make great value. The cameras are simple and sturdy and the lenses are of uniformly high standard and optical quality. I still enjoy using them myself.
Are you wasting your money on Leica? I dont think so. Put it this way, many cheap 15 year old Fords are still reliable enough to get you from point A to point B with minimum fuss. But do you really want to drive a 15 year old car that was common, everyday and nothing terribly special when it was brand new?
Most would prefer a later car even though functionally they may be much the same. So if they can afford it most do so. Same goes for European luxury cars - if you have the money and can afford to do it why not if it gives you pleasure.
I think of Leicas like this - the Mercedes of the camera world. Not more functional than Nikon or Canon but nicer to own. And if that gets you out there more shooting photos then perhaps its money well spent.
Incidentally Takumar lenses are very good but generally you will find are noticeably better in the centre than in the corners and are not designed for shooting wide open. In these respects at least Leica is generally better.
Are you wasting your money on Leica? I dont think so. Put it this way, many cheap 15 year old Fords are still reliable enough to get you from point A to point B with minimum fuss. But do you really want to drive a 15 year old car that was common, everyday and nothing terribly special when it was brand new?
Most would prefer a later car even though functionally they may be much the same. So if they can afford it most do so. Same goes for European luxury cars - if you have the money and can afford to do it why not if it gives you pleasure.
I think of Leicas like this - the Mercedes of the camera world. Not more functional than Nikon or Canon but nicer to own. And if that gets you out there more shooting photos then perhaps its money well spent.
Incidentally Takumar lenses are very good but generally you will find are noticeably better in the centre than in the corners and are not designed for shooting wide open. In these respects at least Leica is generally better.
Last edited: