R vs R2

[jordi]

Good morning, I am thinking about to buy one bessa but I do not
know what to do, a R or a R2. Can you inform me which is
better, which are the differences?

Jordi (Barcelona)

 

[taffer]

Hey another Barcelonian here ! Welcome Jordi ! 😀

We have a bunch of R and R2 users here (and in fact some users of both) that will sure tell you more than I could (I'm no Bessa user) but I guess it will depend on which lenses you're planning to use.

With the R you'll be able to choose from a huge range of LTM lenses, some of them real bargains (the Russian Jupiter-8, ie.) but also some great glass from Canon, Nikon, Leitz... and of course the excellent new ones from Cosina Voigtlander !

The R2 will give you a more 'solid' metal body and with the M mount you'll be able to change lens faster, of course it's more expensive and so are M mount lenses... Also, you can use those 'cheap' screw mount lenses on a M camera with a proper adapter, but that adds more €... Good point is you'll be able to use some first class M mount glass.

If you plan to stick with one lens as your main one it's hard to beat the Bessa R price at CameraQuest. If you're planning to change lenses a lot, then the screw mount is not what I'd say *fast* to operate...

Good luck !

Oscar

 

[RML]

The most important difference is that the R is Leica Thread Mount while the R2 is Leica M-bayonet mount. LTM lenses can be stuck on an M mount with an adapter, but the other way around is not possible.

 

[RML]

Welcome, Jordi.

Tiny but impertiment question, were you named after Jordi Cruyff?

Oscar's advice is solid.
Check out Stephen Gandy's website http://www.cameraquest.com. There you'll find both cameras described in detail, and also compared to each other.
Gandy's prices are hard to beat, especially now that both cameras have been discontinued.

Also check out the Cosina Voiglander User Group forum (hosted by Stephen Gandy) at http://www.cameraquest.org. You'll need to subscribe but it is a very useful forum.

Whatever camera you decide on I reckon you'll be pleased with it. And the lenses available in LTM or M mount will give you even more decision pleasures in the future. I hope you have either a camera fund or unlimited resources. 🙂

 

[rover]

Welcome Jordi, here is a good comparison of the two cameras.

http://www.cameraquest.com/voigtchart.htm

I actually own both the R and R2, and truthfully can recommend both. It is true that the R2 has more substantial construction, mostly felt in the rear door, but the R is by no means poorly constructed. In function, both cameras operate identically. They share the same meters and view/rangefinder. The big difference is the lens mount. With the R you are limited to new CV lenses, and used LTM lenses from the likes of Canon, Nikon and Leica. With an M mount camera like the R2 you can also use current Leica lenses.

In use, both cameras handle the same. The R2 is a little heavier, nas a nicer covering, sorta feels the part more than the R. The R is a nice camera, if your budget only allows this camera, it is worth getting and enjoying with a healthy smile and a little extra money in your pocket.

Feel free to ask specific questions.

 

[Tim]

OK, here's my take on it - based on the fact that I originally bought an R, then updated to an R2.

The differences have been described in many places, but they can be summed us as R: Screw Mount, 'Plastic' top and bottom and rear plates, single stroke advance. R2: Bayonet Mount, Metal top and bottom and rear plates, ratcheted advance.

OK, so far hoopy. What that doesn't tell you is the difference in feel between the two. The R2 is heavier, solider, and has a much better feel - whatever that is!
That's not to say there's anything at all wrong with the R. I used my R with CV 35/2.5 and CV 75/2,5 lenses and got some great shots. The camera felt good in my hands, and handled very nicely indeed.

Until.........
I needed a faster lens. And when I went into the local Voigtlander dealer, they only had the Ultron 35/1.7 mounted on an R2. Bad bad mistake. It really does feel THAT much better.
Does it take better pictures? Not really......the shutter, viewfinder, rangefinder is identical. Some people have claimed that the R2 is quieter, or has a better shutter release - personally I think that's manufacturing tolerance; I've handled examples that both prove and disprove the point.
Is the metal vs plastic important? Dunno - Plastics now days are pretty damn tough and long lasting.

If feel is important to you, handle both and see.
If you are going to change lenses often, the Bayonet mount may be vital - but then you have to add the cost of an adaptor to each lens. Of course, if you want a Bayonet mount body for your M-mount Summicron 35 it's gotta be the R2.

One other thing is appearance - the R2 is not available in Silver/Chrome - so if you like that look you either go for an R or a Rollei RF 35 (Bessa R2 in drag) at an expensive price.

The final arbitrer might be availability - here at least R2's are sold out, whereas you can still get R's.

I have to say tho, the current clear out price on the chrome R with the chrome 35/2.5 lens is mighty mighty tempting....

Hope this hasn't jsut confused you more!

cheers...

tim

 

[Tim]

heh heh - looks like we were all typing roughly the same thing at the same time.....

 

[RML]

One thing I can absolutely recommend when you decide to get the Bessa R is to also get the every-ready case. The top cover comes off easily, leaving the camera's body mostly covered with the lower section of the case. Now you have a camera with a very nice feel, a good grip, and a more substantial feel. It protects the camera from bruises and bumps, and prevents the paint flaking from the body by rubbing and use (a problem reported by some users).

In hindsight (I bought first the Bessa L, later the Bessa R, and more recently an M-mount camera) I would decide on the R2 because of the M-mount.

Be aware that in a few weeks Photokina will be held in Germany, and Cosina will undoubtedly introduce a new Voigtlander camera... the as-yet-illusive R3. You might want to wait for that camera to see daylight. It could cause the price of R's and R2's to drop on CameraQuest. I know I am waiting for it. 🙂

 

[JohnM]

I have just purchased and run three rolls through an R2. I opted for the R2, in large part, because it's a smidge taller due to the metal decks and a bit heavier.

However, if that isn't important to you, the R is just a screaming bargain by comparison. A silver R with the 35/2.5 runs $399 - $425 in black. You could grab that and an extra lens for the cost of the R2 with a CV lens and adapter.

 

[rover]

A note regarding RML's recommendation for the ever-ready case with the R. That is exactly how I keep mine, for the exact same reason.

 

[taunusreiter]

If you want something to shot with screwmount lenses, go with the R. The R is true value for money (249 USD)

I started the Bessa-L and 15mm Heliar kit right after it was released. Now I build a small Non-Leica rangefinder collection of Bessa-L, -R, two Canons and 10 screwmount lenses (3 Voigtlander and, 6 Canons and 1 Nikkor). All of them are good, some of them great. There is no thing like "best one is". "Classy" is my Canon-P, "presence" votes Canon-7. The Bessa-R is my favorite "user" (unconspicious, lightweigth, TTL metering). The only disadvantage is limited focussing with high-speed lenses, i.e my Canon 1.8/85. Pity because this one is still small enough to look great on the Bessa-R.

Thats why *I* like the Bessa-R. I understand the Bessa-R2 is better finished but for the price I paid I can live very well with the R and its limits. Plastic outside is no bad thing as long as bowels are metal (alloy). I don't know if the Bessa-R will work 40 years unoticed as most heavyweight Canons do (and some Leicas), but from immediate feeling I would expect it. I see no reason why the cosmetically improved Bessa-R2 would do better as the R. Both are good old mechanical cameras which can be serviced through knowledgable people for the next couple of decades.

 

[jordi]

Thanks!!!!!!!!