Time to buy my first Leica

[ustedalen]

Thanks for all the answers folks.

Alright, I'll stay away from M3, and consider a M2, M4-2 or an M6 instead. I already have a meter that I use with my Rollei, so a built in meter is not necessary. A M6 is very expensive, but is it really worth using that much more money on an M6 instead of a M2 (to you guys that recommended M6)? Is there any huge cons with a M2?

I've been looking around for lenses for a while now, and those one can really rip a man's wallet apart. However, I've found this one at Red Dot Cameras (great store danmitch. I'm definitely going for a visit there. I only hope that I'm able to find the street while I'm there): http://www.reddotcameras.co.uk/product_info.php?cPath=34_36&products_id=1451
How would this one work with an M2, M4-2 or an M6? Do you need the "specs" with these cameras, or is it only with M3? Is it a good lens?

A lot of you guys have been recommending lenses that are not from Leica. Where do you find them?

Thanks for your help.

Jon


PS: Check out James Whitlow Delano http://www.jameswhitlowdelano.com
Great photographer, using only M3. He uses 3200 film that he pushes up to 6400.
I thought that I should share him with you guys, if you didn't already know about him.

 

[BillBingham2]

Jon,

I owned an M6 and an M4-P (slightly newer than the M4-2) and there was no difference between them. I would highly recomend an M4-P, M4 or M2. While I loved the M6 and enjoyed being lazy, I should have just stayed with the M4-P and spent my money elsewhere way back when.

The only con on the M2 side is the loading, it uses removable spools and you have to manually reset the frame counter (I am dumb some times). You can get around the spool issue by purchasing two extra (search for a Tom A description of how he does it) or getting a rapid loading kit and have it installed (making it load as quick as the M4-P).

The M4-2 and M4-P were made in Canada so some turn their noses up at them. I never found anything bad about my M4-P. There is nothing that could have happened at birth that a trip to DAG or Sherry could not fix.

As you are a 35 sort of guy, you might look at the new CV 35/1.4 as a place to start. While the ZI 35/2 rocks, it is a bit bigger physically size-wise. I've not held either but I got spoiled by using ZI lenses and loving thier small size. Something about RF and small packages.

B2 (;->

 

[ustedalen]

So the M2 isn't too bad?

Oh yeah, how's the focusing with a Leica? Do you guess the meters to your object, or do Leica have a more advanced focusing system?

Jon

 

[akiralx]

Thanks for all the answers folks.

Alright, I'll stay away from M3, and consider a M2, M4-2 or an M6 instead. I already have a meter that I use with my Rollei, so a built in meter is not necessary. A M6 is very expensive, but is it really worth using that much more money on an M6 instead of a M2 (to you guys that recommended M6)? Is there any huge cons with a M2?

I've been looking around for lenses for a while now, and those one can really rip a man's wallet apart. However, I've found this one at Red Dot Cameras (great store danmitch. I'm definitely going for a visit there. I only hope that I'm able to find the street while I'm there): http://www.reddotcameras.co.uk/product_info.php?cPath=34_36&products_id=1451
How would this one work with an M2, M4-2 or an M6? Do you need the "specs" with these cameras, or is it only with M3? Is it a good lens?

That lens should only be used with an M3 - the goggles gives the camera a 35mm view which it otherwise wouldn't have.

Just buy a straightforward 35mm lens from Leica, Zeiss or Voigtlander - a used Leica Summicron or perhaps the Zeiss 35 f/2 or f/2.8 (I have the latter) or Voigtlander 35mm f/2.5 Colour Skopar II: good and cheap.

I'd look around the classifieds here or on the Leica User Forum - secondhand should usually be fine for lenses.

Leicas use the rangefinder focusing system, where you align the image in the square rangefinder patch in the viewfinder.

 

[oscroft]

A M6 is very expensive, but is it really worth using that much more money on an M6 instead of a M2 (to you guys that recommended M6)? Is there any huge cons with a M2?

I have both M2 and M6, and I really like them both. The M6 has the convenience of the meter (and a TTL meter is often very useful, especially when shooting slides), and also the 28mm frame - 28 is a favourite of mine, but if it isn't something you would use then you won't need that.

M2 has purity and simplicity on its side. I love the single frames - with a 35mm lens and b&w film, an M2 is perfection. In fact, if I had to choose any single body and lens combo, it would be M2/35.

A lot of you guys have been recommending lenses that are not from Leica. Where do you find them?

Voigtlander and Zeiss lenses can be got from Robert White, here:
http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/

I use Voigtlander lenses mostly and I think they're probably the best value for money you can get - the 35/1.4 Nokton is a great companion for an M2 (well, or an M6, for that matter), as is the 35/2.5 Skopar - very cheap and very sharp lens.

Overall, I think Tom A's advice is spot on - get one simple body and one lens (for me it would have to be a 35), try to keep well within you budget and spend the rest on film. Then just shoot lots and lots.

 

[peterm1]

Funnily enough I am beginning to feel it is about time that I sell my Leicas. I have two M bodies and a 111a all of which I love to pieces and adore for the pure joy of their craftsmanship. But I am just not using them as much as I should be. I try to make myself do so but find I am shooting digital more and more. If only I could afford an M8.2.......................if only if only if only....................

As recently as last year I some bought new (Old) lenses - Leica and Canon in LTM thinking I would definitely still be shooting Leica but it is just not so. I love lenses and think its my personal addiction when it comes to gear aquisition syndrome.

But you see, the thing with digital is that it so so damn seductive. You can instantly see what you have shot and whether its any good including tone curves. You can shoot as much as you want effectively at no cost (OK leaving aside the ridiculous capital cost of equipment that will be out of date in a year) and I most of all I have found that I am a better photographer because of it. I now post process everything - something I could never do in film and this means the end result is more professional. And of course the extra photos I shoot "for free" means I have more practice.

Damn Damn Damn. I want to go on loving film but I think the love affair is over.

But I wont rush out and file for divorce ( sell ) right now. I think we will stay together for just a bit longer - for the good of the children. :^)

 

[Matt(1pt4)]

Lenses: either the zeiss biogon or the cosina 35 1.4. Hard to go wrong with either one, and cheaper than all but the most abused summicrons.

 

[naql]

I too will be joining the ranks of the Leica users. I bought an M2 from KEH.com (rated excellent) and a CV 50mm f/2.5 Color Skopar from Cameraquest. I already have a 35mm f/2.5 Color Skopar and a Voigtlander VC II meter for it.

What should I be on the lookout for with buying it used? Are there some tests to run it through to ensure everything works the way it should? I trust KEH's ratings but it is a 40 or so year old camera.

 

[mwooten]

...

What should I be on the lookout for with buying it used? Are there some tests to run it through to ensure everything works the way it should? I trust KEH's ratings but it is a 40 or so year old camera.

What I did, after I bought my M4-p, was to run a roll of c-41 black & white film through it, and then run that roll down to the drugstore to be developed.
After I got the hang of things, I shot a roll of slide film. I also "dry fired" the camera for a TV movie or two. That loosened things up a bit.

--michael

 

[djonesii]

I'm going to beat a bit of a counter point here .... Get a Voigtlander Bessa as your first range finder, find one used. Stick with the CV 35mm as well. Make it a color Skopar. If you shop used, your into the range finder world for well under $1000 US, my guess is with good shoping, you can find one for and the lens for $750. Spend the balance going some place to take photos! I have had both the Bessa R2, the screw mount version, and an M6, I settled on the M6, but not till after around a 100 rolls and the remose of selling the Bessa drew me back to the rangefinder world. The "rental" loss on the Bessa was tiny, and once I had sold it, the rangefinder bug came back.

Dave

 

[elshaneo]

Jon,

After reading all the posts again, I personally think that Tom Abrahamsson gave you the best advices.

Since You want to buy your very first Leica rangefinder camera, then get the Leica M2, since you already got a lightmeter, it's not going to be a problem for you.

Then the lens should be the Zeiss Biogon ZM 35mm f/2, it is indeed the best value - super high performance lens ever made I believe.

Don't bother yourself with the lens that You send us from the Red Dot Cameras link...

In the end, You should have money left to buy plenty of 35mm films and also a good scanner ;-)

M6 is very expensive, but is it really worth using that much more money on an M6 instead of a M2 (to you guys that recommended M6)? Is there any huge cons with a M2?

I've been looking around for lenses for a while now, and those one can really rip a man's wallet apart. However, I've found this one at Red Dot Cameras (great store danmitch. I'm definitely going for a visit there. I only hope that I'm able to find the street while I'm there): http://www.reddotcameras.co.uk/product_info.php?cPath=34_36&products_id=1451
How would this one work with an M2, M4-2 or an M6? Do you need the "specs" with these cameras, or is it only with M3? Is it a good lens?

 

[BillBingham2]

Jon,

You will be fine with a good user M2. Perhaps the most important thing to look for in any used M is a good clear finder. Take a look at the cameraquest site for a great list of things.

Take a look here for a PDF version of the users manaual.....

http://www.butkus.org/chinon/leica/leica_m2/leica_m2.htm

Mike is a great guy who helps out thousands of people looking for a bit of information.

With respect to which lens should you get there are tons of options. Luckily today there are a number of great lenses you can buy that are priced less than the wonderful but very expensive Leica glass. Here are my 2 cents (almost free opinion).... You can not go wrong buying new Leica glass, but you can quickly go broke. ZI glass is wonderful but many of their lenses are much physically larger than Leica or CV. The glass is as good as or better than Leica of the same length and speed with much lower prices. CV glass has been great from the start and they have improved their design of the lens body and build quality from good to very good. As you are looking for a 35mm lens for your first and there are lots of great lenses available new within your price range, buy this one new.

While I know you want a Leica lens I really think you will get more bang for your buck if you go with CV. I purchased new Leica glass 25 years ago at what looks like now a bargain price. Most of the new stuff is stratospheric priced. The ZI lenses all come up as great glass but many are larger than others (both Leica and CV). For me, I look to both the optics and the physical characteristics (size, feel, filter size) when I look at which lens to buy too. On the system I use now I started with two Nikkors (one new, one used) and two CV (my wides). The only reason I swapped out my CV 35/2.5 for a Nikkor 35/1.8 was price and speed. I got a great deal on it. I was very happy with the CV and my 25/4 will never be replaced. I just love that lens too much and the Nikkor 24 does not have the same great handling design the CV does. Every lens made has a specific signature, a look that it renders. There are several different version of the Leica 35/2 'Cron, version 4 is said to be the best. Would you notice the difference between a version 2 and 4 or even a new ASPH version, my guess is no. While I had a version 4 I used a CV 35/1.7 for a number of years quite happily and moved to a CV 40/1.4 (long before the 35/1.4 was released) only because of the build/handling improvements. To me they are that important. I would strongly recommend that you pick up a CV 35/1.4 or a ZI 35/2. Either would be a great choice, my personal one would be the CV.

One of the things I really hate about zooms and learning photography is that you do not learn perspective, view and to see as well as you do with a single focal length lens. I have owned some fine zooms over the years but the primes (single focal length lenses) are what have stuck with me.

A good M2, perhaps two or three extra take up spools, a 35/1.4 CV, a light meter and lots of film. It does not get any better than that.

B2 (;->

 

[amateriat]

Almost seems like an epidemic, but I'm on-board with the M2 idea as well. Yes, I have one, alongside my pair of Konica Hexar RFs, and the M2 is a model of concentrated simplicity. Taking the camera out with me, with just the 35 f/2 Summicron (first version), together with a few rolls of film, puts me in mind of that famous line from The Who's "Pinball Wizard":

Ain't got no distractions
Can't hear no buzzers and bells
Don't see no lights flashing
Plays by sense of smell

Granted, it takes a certain understandning of both light and the film you're imprinting upon with it, but rocket science it ain't. I had my Sekonic on hand, but rarely reached for it. The camera/lens combination was so damn much fun that I simply picked up on certain lighting cues, making adjustments where absolutely necessary, which wasn't often. It might seem easy for me to say this, as my other two RFs have been referred to as an M7 on steroids, but I can't help but feel Leica got it together in a special way with the M2 that makes for a very uncanny M.

I'm with Bill: an M2 body, plus several extra take-up spools, and you'll jave all you need from a camera-body standpoint.

As for a 35 to put on it? So many good ones, next to no lousy ones. I use a first-generation f/2 Summicron because that's what came with the M2; luck of the draw. It's a great lens. Yes, you'll hear way too many arguments over which version (1 through 4, and that's before getting into the ASPH versions) is "best", but the big think to keep in mind is that you can't really go wrong with any of these, or, in fact, several others outside the Leica fold. You should also wind up with enough change in-hand to buy a good amount of film, and perhaps a decent film scanner. After all this, you'll need time. Time to load the camera, perhaps carry a spare roll or two in your pocket, and just explore. Let it be enjoyable. That's how this all gets started.


- Barrett

 

[payasam]

David Hughes: "I'd suggest that you ignore all the other makes of lens (although they are perfectly respectable) simply because the point of having a Leica is the glass on the front."

This part of your otherwise excellent advice goes completely beyond me, David.

 

[matt335]

everyone is entitled to their own point of view, at the end of the day it's what feels good on your hands and and what pleases your eye 🙂

 

[David Hughes]

David Hughes: "I'd suggest that you ignore all the other makes of lens (although they are perfectly respectable) simply because the point of having a Leica is the glass on the front."

This part of your otherwise excellent advice goes completely beyond me, David.

Hi,

Well, if we are looking for the Leica experience then I think only a Leica will do and - in the "M" era - their lenses were the main reason for buying - it's what they do best. I've nothing against the other makes, it's just a matter of purity. If I wanted the Rolls Royce experience I wouldn't buy one and fit a diesel taxi engine in it for economy... not even one from a Mercedes.

You may not believe this but I moved a 35mm Skopar to one side to type this. It's sitting on the desk looking blankly at me! So I've nothing against them at all but...

Back to the subject in hand: the difference between the M3 and M2 is the frames that appear in the view-finder. Perhaps I should explain that the view-finder covers a wider area than the lenses (which is a very good thing - no surprises as people wander into the shot) but the lens being fitted causes the frame outline to change.

So the M2 shows frames for 35 - 50 - 90mm and the M3 shows frames for 50 - 90 - 135mm. The M3 then needs the extra optics to use a 35mm lens and, of course, the M3's 35mm lens is a special one; here "special" means "more expensive".

My money is on the M2 being more usefull and the M2 + f/2·8 35mm and f/2·8 90mm being a bargain.

Perhaps our friend should look on the www for an instruction manual for the M2 and M3 and then download them and look carefully through them?

As for film loading, nowadays I'd say using the M2 would be a hobby, meaning for the fun of it, and not as a journalist. So the loading shouldn't be a worry but should be part of the experience/fun, and it's only done once every 37 or so shots.

Incidentally, I don't know how the rest of you feel but bitter experience with any elderly M series suggests it's wisest, when buying, to take the lens off and fire the shutter at the slow speeds (1/15 and longer) just to be on the safe side.

Regards, David

 

[Svitantti]

I suggest you consider a cheap M2 for about 350 EUR, then a handheld light meter like Sekonic Twinmate or Gossen Digisix. You can get a 35mm lense like a Voigtländer Color-Skopar 35/2.5 for around 150-200 EUR or a 35/1.7 Ultron for around 200-250. For the Ultron, you would also need an adapter for M-bayonet.

If you think you really need the light meter, then there is M5 or a beater M6. Of course you can think about a Bessa too.

My choice is M4-P + Ultron, but I'd get an M2 if I got some money for the trade, as M2 is the cheapest Leica with 35mm framelines.

I really think you should forget Leitz glass, because it is so much more expensive than for example Voigtländer, which still is great.

 

[Svitantti]

After reading further I wonder how do you know you want a Leica and to spend all that money for it, when you dont know how it focuses or works?

I really think the focusing way of it is the reason to buy it, so I am wondering why would you want it so bad without knowing about it...

 

[johannielscom]

So the M2 isn't too bad?

Oh yeah, how's the focusing with a Leica? Do you guess the meters to your object, or do Leica have a more advanced focusing system?

Jon

Jon, by now I question your motives, and I think you should do too.

Why have you decided you want a Leica? It seems you do not know the most elementary specifics of it. Is there somebody that should be impressed with the Leica? Is it THE thing to have, being a Norwegian photography student?

It's not that the M2 ' isn't too bad', it's a stellar camera of brilliant quality.

Frankly, I suspect you have enrolled for a photography course, but are not a photography student in the sense we understand.

All of this is fine with me, but please read the darn CameraQuest pages and then come back with questions left, okay?

Enjoy the read!

 

[b.espahbod]

I say spend less on body and more on Lens, Buy a R4a/R4m Voiglaender (it covers 21mm lens from rangefinder) $600 and go for a nice Leica lens like elmarit-m 28mm f/2.8 ASPH.