To buy or not to buy...

the leica experience is a fleeting pleasure, but the first few weeks of satisfaction are totally worth it.

as they say, the chase is better than the catch.
 
One way to make the jump easier is to think of the purchase price as money reinvested rather than money spent. After all, Leicas are pretty good on the depreciation front, and sometimes, if you do it right, or get lucky, you can actually make a few dollars when you come to reinvest again. Enjoy the experience!
 
after many years of SLRs I decided to go RF.
I started with a BessaR with a couple of CV lenses (35-75) I later added the cv12 (this was not essential to my experience)

Than I wanted a Leica, when I found a preowned M7 almost new I bought it using the CV lenses (with adaptor).

Later I bought a 50 and a 35 summicron (both preowned).

Now I oft use both system, Bessa with cv lenses and Leica with Leica lenses. I'm satisfied with both.

robert
 
Hi,

Life's too short to dither; just buy the d**m thing and enjoy it. Others have mentioned the M2, which I'll second. It's a work horse but a thoroughbred at the same time. Second choice, in your shoes, would be the M4 but neither have meters but both are bargains/good value.

As for the lenses, the usual workers, can be acquired later on and you may then find you missed nothing with the substitutes. I use ex USSR ones and an adapter as well as the posher ones.

Also in your shoes I'd go to a dealer and handle one, decide and buy from th dealer as that way you'll get a guarantee. M's are nice but we are talking big money if there are problems with it.

I'll wish you luck.

Regards, David
 
Ko.Fe. said:
CV CS 35 2.5 PII is the 35mm I use and no intention to change it for Leitz.
Click to expand...

I sold a 35mm Summilix FLE recently and picked up the compact and nice Voigtlander 35/2.5. It's a nice lens and nice on film. The FLE is an awesome piece of glass. But I wanted to go lighter and the extra stops didn't make much difference for me. I got bit by the lust for perfection, but in reality, the Zeiss and CV lenses I've owned make great images. And for a fraction the price. I do like the tabs of the Leicas and CVs better then the bumps on the Zeiss glass though. It is part of the experience and it shouldn't be a hindrance to your process.

The only Leica lens I've kept is the latest model 50mm Summilux. I can't seem to part with that no matter how good the alternatives are - and there are many good alternative.

I've owned M3, M6 and M7. I kept the M7 as it works the way I work and I splurged and got a new a la carte model, but both the M3 and M6 are great cameras. I've also tried other rangefinders, Voigtlanders, Mamiyas, Bronicas, and nothing really compares to the Leicas I've owned. Espeically the film Leicas (the digitals add a layer of complexity, but are loads better than the menu systems in the mirrorless and DSLRs I've had.)

If you really lust for the Leica lenses, Summicrons are reasonably priced. But I really enjoy the Summarit line. I've owned all but the 90mm and they were all fantastic lenses. Kick myself for selling them.
 
Ideally, you would get an M body and a Leica lens but as others have suggested, grab whatever M body excites you and a non Leica lens, to start.

While glass is an extremely important part of the equation, it's not as important, imo, than the body. The body is direct connection to your hands and nothing feels like an M tbh. A Leitz lens on a non M body doesn't get me excited at all.
 
If you want an M get one. Lots of people say that it must be Leica glass. To that I say "BS" as I doubt that they can tell the difference between a photo taken with Zeiss, CV or even Leica glass, especially if reproduced on the internet.

I have used just about every M body and enjoy both metered and non-metered. I have owned lots of Leica glass since 1975 but also have Zeiss and CV in my collection. Unfortunately, Leica has become more jewelry then useful when you look at the price compared to non Leica products.

When a lens goes up 3 to 5 times in price compared to inflation, dollar vs euro, etc, it is now, like my Rolex a piece of jewelry which does produce great images but not necessarily better images then the CV or Zeiss lens.
 
A well cared for film M will last a life time 😉

I guess you will enjoy moving from your Leica IIIc with Summitar 5cm f/2 to the finder of a film M... and boy-oh-boy, you have been dithering for a few years...

But then again it was not wasted time...

Enjoy the change... when (not if) it happens 😉
Casey
 
There are plenty of nice M's coming through the classifieds, as well as an ad just posted for an nice looking M-Rokkor 40/2 that is nearly identical to the Summicron-C. I have both, and can't tell a different between the two...other than that the Rokkor takes more common 40.5mm filters and hoods.

Really, just jump on one at a price that looks right to you. If you buy here, you're unlikely to lose much money if you end up selling the body or lens later.
 
Pfreddee said:
I can afford a body but a body and a lens seem to be a daunting proposition. But I want to use Leica glass with it, not a non-Leica lens. Doesn't seem like I would be getting the Leica experience with non-Leica glass...
Click to expand...

Stephen, for me, the above statement does not apply.

For those who can justify paying for the Leica lenses, of course, get those and you'd be getting the whole package.

I can't justify that, so I have been using a Voigtlander-Cosina. In the course of a few years now, I discovered that the body is the reason I like the Leica M, not the lens.

I enjoyed shooting with the camera and the non-Leica lens has produced photos that I'm very happy with.

Would I get a different "look" with a Leica lens, maybe, but will it be significant enough for me to care about? No.

Had I been a Leica-lens snob, I would have missed out all the fun these past years. 🙂
 
ktmrider said:
If you want an M get one. Lots of people say that it must be Leica glass. To that I say "BS" as I doubt that they can tell the difference between a photo taken with Zeiss, CV or even Leica glass, especially if reproduced on the internet.

I have used just about every M body and enjoy both metered and non-metered. I have owned lots of Leica glass since 1975 but also have Zeiss and CV in my collection. Unfortunately, Leica has become more jewelry then useful when you look at the price compared to non Leica products.

When a lens goes up 3 to 5 times in price compared to inflation, dollar vs euro, etc, it is now, like my Rolex a piece of jewelry which does produce great images but not necessarily better images then the CV or Zeiss lens.
Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head. I've done a couple of tests presenting images shot with Leica, Zeiss, CV and Nikkor lenses and no one could identify what image was with what brand. I've been a Leica user for nearly fifty years and I wouldnt be able to tell if I didn't know what I shot the images with. There's so much myth around Leica glass.

I had several of each body since the M2 with the exception of the M5 and M7. I do like the M bodies for certain work but realistically they're not for every kind of shooting. Within their limits they are excellent. I've had only short periods since 1968 that I've not owned M gear.

Back to lenses, I have both Leica, Nikkor, CV and Zeiss. I feel each have specific lenses that excell over anyone else's. I love my 15 and 28 1.9 CV lenses, Leica 75 Summilux, v1 35 summicron and v1 90 Elmarit. In my Zeiss lineup I recently purchased my second 35 Biogon f2 and 50 Planar whih I feel are the best for me and I've had 2 50 asph Summilux and 35 FLE Summilux. These two Zeiss lenses are my all time favorites. Although I love my v1 35 Summicron, if I could own only one 35 it would be the Biogon. My 75 Summilux is Magic and my 90 Elmarit v1 is smooth and sharp and my 105 Nikkor is sharp and smooth as well and a great FL.

Mix and match your glass and get the best of all worlds.
 
M4-2 with a Leitz 40mm Summicron-C or a 50mm or 35mm Summicron if you can somehow afford it and depending on which focal length you would prefer. If you buy a lens from another maker there will always be that nagging doubt if not it would have been better....
 
Pfreddee said:
f16sunshine: my primary focal length is 50mm.

With best regards,

Pfreddee(Stephen)
Click to expand...

In that case go for an M3 and don't look back 🙂
The M3 has a higher viewfinder magnification which is great for 50mm.

After years of trying fast aperture lenses from Leica, Zeiss, and CV I have "settled" on a CV Color Skopar 50mm f2.5. It also happens to be very inexpensive (usually under $300).
It has a beautiful rendering and small size with wonderfully smooth focus tab.
I love the look with traditional B+W films.

Others who have commented on Leica glass vs Zeiss or CV glass have it right.
The experience of using a Leica M is the body and direct view of the viewfinder.
Zeiss and Cosina Voigtlander off many lens options that will create wonderful results at considerably lower expense compared to Leica lenses.
Personally My second choice to the CV f2.5/50mm I mentioned is the Zeiss Planar f2/50mm.
My preference usually is for medium to higher contrast .
If you prefer lower contrast look for an older Single coated lens from Canon or Nikon or older LTM Leica.
The Want to buy forum here on RFF has been very fruitful for many of us.
Cheers
 
shortstop said:
I think Leica strength is in its lenses. My first choice would be an M3 with 50 Summicron.
Click to expand...
Me too! That's what I started with and stayed with. It's the body AND it's the glass. (Actually, I wish I could shoot my 'cron on my Contax IIIa, which I think is the better shooter, but my Amadeo adapter don't work that way!)
 
f16sunshine said:
...
After years of trying fast aperture lenses from Leica, Zeiss, and CV I have "settled" on a CV Color Skopar 50mm f2.5. It also happens to be very inexpensive (usually under $300).
It has a beautiful rendering and small size with wonderfully smooth focus tab.
I love the look with traditional B+W films.
Click to expand...

I was going to recommend the same lens. Its rendering qualities remind me a good bit of the classic Leitz Elmar 5.0cm f/3.5. I bought mine (new) a few years back and use it mostly on the M4-2, but I've also used it on the M9. It's a wonderful, small, and reasonably priced lens. It's only available in LTM, so you'll need an adapter, but it hardly makes any difference once fitted.




Leica M4-2 + Color-Skopar 50mm f/2.5​

f16sunshine said:
Others who have commented on Leica glass vs Zeiss or CV glass have it right.
The experience of using a Leica M is the body and direct view of the viewfinder.
Zeiss and Cosina Voigtlander off many lens options that will create wonderful results at considerably lower expense compared to Leica lenses. ...
Click to expand...

Indeed, as I said before, there are many excellent M-bayonet (and LTM) lenses to choose from. A body and any of these lenses does very well.

That said, I do find something special about the rendering qualities Leica lenses provide. They're expensive so I spend time researching them carefully when I get the urge to buy one. My most recent purchase was a 1978 issue Summilux 35mm f/1.4 v2, one of the Walter Mandler designs. I dithered over the purchase for three-four months while I let my bank account grow to accommodate the expenditure. It wasn't horrendously expensive (as Leica lenses go) but it wasn't cheap. That said, I'm delighted with it, and it produces a completely different look and feel from the Color-Skopar 35mm f/2.5 or Nokton 40mm f/1.4 MC.


Leica M9 + Summilux 35mm v2​

It's all good. 🙂

G
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I
Used Leica’s serial unknown to Leica?
2 3 4
Replies
68
Views
1K
sojournerphoto
S
A
Bulk loaded film gets fogged/ Leitz cassettes
Replies
11
Views
483
Alizarinus
A
kxl
Considering my first Leica M body (film)
3 4 5
Replies
93
Views
3K
rfaspen
rfaspen
D
New MP vs Vintage
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
ktmrider
K
The lives of others
Metered or unmetered?
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
Pioneer
Pioneer
Back
Top Bottom