Recomendations for cheap LTM body

[roland]

Hi, can I start by saying what a wonderful resource this forum is: I've spent may hours now perusing through the old threads and learning all kinds of useful(/useless) things!

I would like to buy myself a little Leica camera for my birthday. At the moment I shoot with a Super Ikonta, a Rolleiflex and a Fed 4 (as well as a digital SLR for specialist shots) but I really fancy something small that'll fit into my pocket.

I have about £100 to £150 to spend and have been looking at a iiia or iiib body. The only difference between these seems to be the placement of the viewfinder window: does this make any difference when it comes to the use of the camera?

I have been looking at coupling the with an Industar-22 (available for about £20) for now (until I can affort a proper Leitz lens). Is this a sensible idea or is there another collapsible lens I could pick up nice and cheap?

Many thanks in advance for your help on this (I'm getting far too excited about the thought of owning a Leica 😀)

 

[Film dino]

The IIIf in the Classifieds, at $325 is just over 150 GBP, that is if HM Customs & Excise doesn't slap on an import tax..

David

 

[ruby.monkey]

MW Classic Cameras is currently advertising a Canon P for £139. You might find it a more useable alternative to a screw-mount Leica.

http://www.mwclassic.com/acatalog/MW_Classic_Cameras_CANON__NEW_ITEMS_ADDED__19.html (3rd from the top)

 

[Jocko]

I have about £100 to £150 to spend and have been looking at a iiia or iiib body. The only difference between these seems to be the placement of the viewfinder window: does this make any difference when it comes to the use of the camera?

I have been looking at coupling the with an Industar-22 (available for about £20) for now (until I can affort a proper Leitz lens). Is this a sensible idea or is there another collapsible lens I could pick up nice and cheap?

Having the viewfinder and rangefinder windows closer together is more agreeable. It makes for easier use and in some circumstances (low light with moving subject) will possibly make a significant difference. I would be inclined to go for the closer alternative.

The I-22 and the similar I-50 are fine lenses. They are not (as often stated) copies of the Elmar, but are very much in that spirit. Many people find them comparable to the prewar Leitz lens and use them with great success on classic LTMs.

Cheers, Ian

 

[alternatve]

I was in the exact same boat as you a few months back. 🙂

In the end, I went for a IIIc converted to a IIIf as I wanted the stronger cast body. The IIIc can be had for quite cheaply, I got one from KEH that cost me around USD $250 and I would recommend you do get from a repuatable online store. It does cost more, but it gives you a safeguard against shoddy stuff.

I got my Industar 50 from alex-photo on ebay. Hasn't failed me yet.


Regards,
Samuel

 

[roland]

Thank you all for your replies. I thank I'll follow Ian's advice and go for the 'b' or later model to get the closer range/viewfinder windows.

David/Sam: Is there any reason - apart from the flash contact - to go for a iiif rather than a iiic (as they seem to be a bit more expensive).

Ruby Monkey: I have been looking at the Canons too but (call me sad if you like) there is the allure of the word "Leica" engraved on the top plate.

 

[alternatve]

Thank you all for your replies. I thank I'll follow Ian's advice and go for the 'b' or later model to get the closer range/viewfinder windows.

David/Sam: Is there any reason - apart from the flash contact - to go for a iiif rather than a iiic (as they seem to be a bit more expensive).

Ruby Monkey: I have been looking at the Canons too but (call me sad if you like) there is the allure of the word "Leica" engraved on the top plate.

Roland,

The Leica IIIc/f have the closer rangefinder/viewfinder windows too. It started from the IIIb and continuted on for the IIIc and f.

The flash syncronisation is not really a advantage, since the fastest syncronisation speed is a slow 1/20. It's more for if you need flash at all.

And I agree on you about that part. As good as a Canon 7 is, it doesn't have the size, shape or feel of a Leica.

Regards,
Samuel

 

[clintock]

The IIf is nice too, who needs slow speeds anyway?

 

[rxmd]

I have been looking at the Canons too but (call me sad if you like) there is the allure of the word "Leica" engraved on the top plate.

You can have that on a Zorki and save a lot of money 😉

Philipp

 

[roland]

You can have that on a Zorki and save a lot of money 😉

Philipp

From what I can see the fake Leicas all seem to cost more than a real iiia would cost 😛

Clintock: yeah, the iif does look nice (especially in black) but seems to be outside my price range (if you have a nice one for £100 let me know....)

Samuel: Thanks for all your help, I think I'll go for a iiib/c. Is there any reason to go for an Industar 50 rather than the more easily obtainable 22?

 

[ruby.monkey]

Ruby Monkey: I have been looking at the Canons too but (call me sad if you like) there is the allure of the word "Leica" engraved on the top plate.

I think you're preaching to the choir here (I forced myself to stop at an M3, M2, M4, and IIIf black dial 🙂) - but if I don't get the Super Paxette I'm after, I may have another look at that Canon myself.

 

[Jocko]

Is there any reason to go for an Industar 50 rather than the more easily obtainable 22?

They do seem a bit scarce lately, but the collapsible I-50 was produced from 1953-1971 so should be much more common than the I-22. Perhaps they've all become "Elmars" 🙁 The I-50 was intended to be sharper, although some users question whether there is much practical difference in the pictures it produces. It is certainly a good lens, and the famously ugly rigid version is well worth considering if collapsibles are not essential

Cheers, Ian

 

[payasam]

It may not be easy to find a IIIb, because not so many of them were made. Having the eye-pieces close together is good, but you'll soon get used to their being separated.

 

[brachal]

They do seem a bit scarce lately, but the collapsible I-50 was produced from 1953-1971 so should be much more common than the I-22. Perhaps they've all become "Elmars" 🙁 The I-50 was intended to be sharper, although some users question whether there is much practical difference in the pictures it produces. It is certainly a good lens, and the famously ugly rigid version is well worth considering if collapsibles are not essential

Cheers, Ian

Ian,

How does the Fed-50 compare to the I-22 and I-50, particularly on a Leica? I've got a IIIf on the way and am planning to put my Fed-50 on it.

 

[alternatve]

Ian,

How does the Fed-50 compare to the I-22 and I-50, particularly on a Leica? I've got a IIIf on the way and am planning to put my Fed-50 on it.

What I know about the I-22, I-50 and FED 50.

The I-50 is the improved version of the I-22, thought both are very similar to each other. Both are great lenses and are derived from a Tessar, instead of an Elmar.

The FED 50 is something I would want to be careful with. Earlier versions have non standard thread mounts that won't focus or mount properly on any cameras other then the one it came with. Some of them are uncoated as well. But they are reputed to have the best performance of the three.

Regards,
Samuel

 

[Jocko]

Ian,

How does the Fed-50 compare to the I-22 and I-50, particularly on a Leica? I've got a IIIf on the way and am planning to put my Fed-50 on it.

Hi Bill 🙂

The Fed-50 (actually the I-10, although that isn't written on the lens) is a very similar performer to the I-22, although a while ago a member here made some measurements which showed they are not simply different names for the same lens, but are slightly different designs. I use one (but not enough) and am more than happy with it. There should be no compatibility problems with the mass-produced postwar, coated lenses, which also run from f3.5 to 16: the lenses Samuel describes run to f18 and are uncoated.

Cheers, Ian

 

[thomasw_]

try a IIIC. lots of them, so no collector premium. harder die-cast body. awesome camera. as you live in the uk, try ffordes. great to deal with.

 

[JNewell]

How big a deal for general use is the one piece die cast IIIc body compared to the IIIb and earlier type?

 

[john neal]

How big a deal for general use is the one piece die cast IIIc body compared to the IIIb and earlier type?

Personally, I don't find any difference - My II, IIIa and Standard all perform just as well as my IIIc. Since I don't often stray into the slow speeds, the only practical difference between them is the II and Standard don't have 1/1000 sec.

I actually prefer the RF on the II as it has a slight green cast with a lighter centre spot which makes focussing a doddle. I don't really notice the different distance between the windows either.

But, as the man said, diffrnt strokes for diffrnt folks 😉

 

[brachal]

Hi Bill 🙂

The Fed-50 (actually the I-10, although that isn't written on the lens) is a very similar performer to the I-22, although a while ago a member here made some measurements which showed they are not simply different names for the same lens, but are slightly different designs. I use one (but not enough) and am more than happy with it. There should be no compatibility problems with the mass-produced postwar, coated lenses, which also run from f3.5 to 16: the lenses Samuel describes run to f18 and are uncoated.

Cheers, Ian

Great news. Mine is coated, from a '55 or '56 (I think, it's a very early version) Fed2a, with the regular f/3.5 => f/16. It mounts just fine, and seems to focus properly on my new Leica.