To buy or not to buy...

[zuiko85]

You want a film Leica M. But are worried about the cost.

In that case I would first ask; What film? Black and white or color negative or color slides? Are you going to do your own processing? It is not too hard with B&W, more complicated for color neg or slides.
How much film do you shoot? Film and processing cost can quickly add up to an amount that makes even a Leica seem cheap.

My personal experience was that I too always wanted an M but the lenses are too much. I backed into the system when a deal came up on two CV lenses. I bought the lenses first and didn't get a body for 4 months. The CV lenses pushed me over the edge, that and I retired and bought the body as a retirement gift to myself.

 

[leicapixie]

Leica M film cameras are really fun.
A joy to hold and use.
I have a M3, prefer the 50mm but know,
a bad bump can finish, the viewfinder.
The M3 is OLD.

The biggest question for Stephen is what are you going to shoot?
Next is color negative or transparencies.
B/W requires do it yourself.
Scanning next step.

Leica and RFDR is NOT for everyone!
You tried out other RF cameras.
What was it that you didn't like?

I prefer finder of M3 but use the M6, more and more.
The meter a really nice feature.
I can't be bothered to do f16 rule unless,
press ganged into service!

 

[VertovSvilova]

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.

This is so true yet it seems some people take such effort to deny it. Viewing audiences are interested in the content of the image. The myth is perpetuated by hobbyists and by Leica themselves. Why so many great images were made with a Leica is because it was a desirable camera at the time in respect to size, quiet shutter, small lenses, etc.. But the images were great because of their content and the image maker's mind's-eye and their personal intelligence about viewing the world around them..... not because of the 'rendering characteristics' blah blah of Leica lenses.

When I was in school we had lots of well-known photographers as guest lecturers (Frank, Goldin, Meyerowitz, Mark, Friedlander, etc..) The only time they ever even mentioned cameras or lenses was maybe to talk about how they might have found a crappy cheap lens in a pawn shop, etc. (and no one had the money that most hobbyists have to spend on gear.) It was almost like a badge of honor to have made such great work with lessor gear.

e.g., Susan Meiselas asking Danny Lyon about his format choices:

Meiselas: "So you’re mostly working with 35 mm, but you shift to 2 1/4 inch and go back and forth?"

Lyon: "Edwards had loaned me his Rolleiflex—that was the first 2 1/4 inch I used. And I must have taken it south, because some of those pictures are square format. I had a funky old Leica M2 that scratched every picture. Eventually, the Nikon F would be my real workhorse. With The Bikeriders, I didn’t use a Leica. It was a Nikon Reflex, that early, single-lens Reflex. It was such a fabulous camera with a prism on it—no light meter. I had a 2 1/4 inch for The Bikeriders also. When I got to Manhattan in 1967 and realized what I was getting into, making architectural pictures, I went to Olden’s on Broadway and 43rd Street and got the cheapest view camera you could get—a Calumet."

 

[rlouzan]

Take a look at ...
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost-classifieds/showproduct.php?product=45846

 

[sazerac]

I think Leica strength is in its lenses. My first choice would be an M3 with 50 Summicron.

I agree with the above statement since that is what got me hooked. After borrowing a friend's M3 I borrowed another friend's M6 & current 50 'cron. I ended up buying a .85 MP and 50/2 and have been happy for the past 10 years.

Listen to what other folks say about the CV lenses. They are really nice and can be had for a good price.

 

[leicapixie]

There is a definite difference between Leitz Leica lenses and others!
Anyone who did their own printing with enlarger and wet trays, knows/knew this.
One can see the difference in the B/W negatives, hanging to dry!
There are also added advantages in using Leica lenses on film Leicas.
Erwin Puts explains some of this in his blog and superb book.
I have only a few lenses!
I can only use one at a time!
Why carry an expedition?
I use mostly the 50mm Collapsible Summicron.
The Goggled 35mm Summaron f2.8.
The Tele-Elmar f4. Ultimately sharp at f4.
Forget all the hype, all Leica lenses very useable at maximum aperture.
Every other lens, Cosina, Canon, Zeiss, Nikkor, Pentax, Minolta etc need to be stopped down a stop or two!!
Get a user M a Leica lens, the 50mm Elmar f2.8.
A small portable package, that simply begs usage.

 

[MCTuomey]

Re the choice of body -

1. need an in-camera meter and auto exposure, M7
2. need an in-camera meter and ttl flash but no AE, M6ttl
3. need an in-camera meter, no ttl or AE, M6 or M5
4. meterless, easier film load, 35/50/90/135 FLs, M4/M4-2
5. meterless, easier film load, 28/35/50/75/90/135 FLs, M4-P
6. meterless, early film load, 35/50/90 FLs, M2
7. meterless, early film load, 50/90/135 FLs, M3

Re the choice of 50's, in no special order, my favs based on what i've used, fwiw -

1. mid speed: zeiss planar 50 f/2
2. mid speed, compact: elmar-m 50 f/2.8 (latest version, just discontinued)
3. higher speed: leica summilux 50 f/1.4 (pre-asph or asph)
4. higher speed: CV 50 f/1.5

Best value and best all-around is the zeiss planar, imho. The summiluxes are pricey but wonderful. The elmar-m has a very nice look. The CV 50 gives you speed and sharpness on a budget, classic lower contrast. There are other 50's like the C-Sonnar to consider but I think these 4 cover a range of prices and looks.

Good luck with your decision. Thing is, you can't make an informed decision for yourself without experience and you can't get first-hand experience without first making a decision 😉.

 

[zuiko85]

Before you commit I have one suggestion.
Google 'the 50mm lens and metaphysical doubt'
Click the first selection, an article by Mike Johnston for the Luminous Landscape site. This is over 12 years old but I think the points he makes are still valid.

 

[Godfrey]

Before you commit I have one suggestion.
Google 'the 50mm lens and metaphysical doubt'
Click the first selection, an article by Mike Johnston for the Luminous Landscape site. This is over 12 years old but I think the points he makes are still valid.

LOL! I remember that article from back when it was first published.

It's pretty much what I've been saying: just about any lens made for M-mount will do a fine job. There are differences, nuances, etc, to take advantage of—the connoisseur's delicate sensibilities can be assuaged—but if you're just starting out, buy whatever looks appealing that you can afford and make photos with it.
🙂

BTW, I disagree with Mike on the Voigtländer Nokton 50mm f/1.5 ASPH (LTM). I love that lens, it's the one that is almost glued to my M9. From my direct experience, it's a close rival to the Summilux 50mm of two or three revs back, which is good enough for me...

G

 

[ferider]

"Go ahead! Jump!" 🙂

If you want Leica lens and body, best value for the money are M2, M3, M4-2 or M4-P, with 40/2 Summicron or the classic 50/2.8 Elmar ...

However, be aware that Leicas and lenses tend to accumulate. 🙂 You know, Pigeons land where Pigeons are ...

Roland.

 

[Ben Z]

I've had pretty much all the M bodies and several screwmounts at one time or another, along with dozens of lenses from the 1940s through the present. So some practical info for the OP who is planning on getting into Leica:

1. Buy your first Leica from a reputable Leica dealer with a 2-week no-restocking-fee return privilege and at least a 60-day warranty. Service on a Leica body by a trained tech will run you several hundred dollars, and a lens at least $100. That's just a CLA without major parts. So keep that in mind if you are looking on fleabay.

2. I advise against an M3 unless you truly detest the 35mm focal length. Because should you decide to get a 35, you would need a separate viewfinder (and switching your eye between it and the rangefinder) or one of the goggled lenses which limits your choices, they are bulky, and they make the viewfinder much less contrasty.

3. Remember, if you get a meterless body and are not adept at estimating exposure, you will need to factor in the cost of a handheld meter if you don't already own one.

4. The best bang-for-the-buck in a 50mm M lens is the 11817 Summicron (1969-1978). Earlier ones had soft coatings and are very hard to find without front-end coating damage, and often haze inside as well. Later versions tend to be a lot more expensive. The 11817 is a sharp, contrasty lens with modern coatings.

 

[matt335]

Buy the body now and the lens will come.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

I don't know how to put this politely but a lot of people recommend lenses that are too far out and far too expensive for most people to experience the joys of using them. Most need a tripod and an enlarger in the darkroom to make massive prints; then the lenses will come into their own. Ditto slides...

But for everyday use there's a lot to be said for the M2 and 50mm f/2.8 Elmar (both about the same vintage). This combination won't let you down and won't cost an arm and a leg. Also it takes the well know 35 and 90mm lenses, making the classic outfit for most people.

One of the problems is that you need to use all the lenses to be confident you've made the right choice. This can be rather expensive and, as I've said, life's too short.

BTW, I've posher lenses, faster lenses and so on but can't fault this basic set-up (M2 + Elmar). FWIW, I think Leia's strength is in the entire frame's coverage, rather than a brilliant centre and falling off at the edges. And, again FWIW, I've had the CV version but didn't like it but have stuck to my Leica lenses for several decades.

Just my 2d worth.

Regards, David

 

[iphoenix]

I suppose that what I am dithering about is a classic case of ambivalence, but here goes anyway.

For as long as I can remember, I've wanted a film Leica M, (don't really have any particular choice of model, at the moment).

Pfreddee(Stephen)

Greetings Stephen,

I suppose I'm going to be considered a heretic on this site, but Like you, I always wanted a Leica. However, after my first real camera (a meterless Zeiss Icarex), I went down the SLR route to eventually finish up having owned various single digit Nikons.

Ever since, I've felt most comfortable (and, I think had the best results) with using a hand-held meter.

Eventually I could afford an M3 with Summicron 50. Later, (as Leicas are inclined to do) that bred a group including M1, M2, M3, M4, M4P and M6; plus R3 and R6. Of course, assorted Leitz lenses came during this build-up.

Whilst I love using my Leicas (and seem to get my best results from them), I FEEL most confident and competent using an SLR.

With SLR's I use my Nikons mostly, because I have the widest variety of lenses for them. The Leica R's though, are far smoother, but just have something missing. (Possibly the delay after shutter release plus the built-in metering view).

I suppose the direct answer to your question depends on what you intend using the camera for:
- Holiday?
- Sports?
- Group?
- General?
- Etcetera?

Personally, I'd agree with David and get a good M2 (or M4) plus an "M" lens of your choice (Elmars and Summicrons 35, 50 and 90 all give you the "Leica Look", no matter what version you decide on).

Rgds,

David T.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

I wish you hadn't mentioned the M4; logic says stick to the M2 but I keep getting urges about M4's and the M7.

As I see it just one (and I have it) from the M1, M2, M3 and M4 group; one from the CL and M5 group (ditto) and one from the M6 and M7 group would cover the entire range but the M4 keeps floating back into the dream.

You have to be on your guard all the time when thinking about Leicas...

Regards, David

 

[iphoenix]

David,
Sorry about adding to your pain, but from the "M" models I've owned, the M4 has the most "Leica Quality" feel next to the M3. It was painful, but I sold the M2 to pay for the M4. I regard the other M's I have as being enjoyable though being, regrettably but potentially, disposable. Not though, the M4. It's a "keeper".
Look forward to finding one you can't resist.
Kind Regards,
David T.

PS: For Stephen, I am not denigrating any Leica model. The M2 is a superb camera and it's finder covering 35, 50 and 90 mm lenses is one of the best in the M series range. Good Luck with your choice. David

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

What can I say? Bu**er seems appropriate...

Regards, David

 

[Godfrey]

I wonder if Pfreddee is still reading...

I've tossed the Color Skopar 50/2.5 on the M4-2 and fitted the MR-4 meter for today's walk. There are a few frames of ACROS 100 to get through and I have a spare roll of XP2 Super in the bag just in case.

Better to have any Leica M than none at all... 🙂

G

 

[35mmdelux]

Life is too short to be ascetic. The right tools can be a game changer.

Just do it!

 

[Pfreddee]

Again, thank you to everyone who took the trouble to reply. I've gotten a number of good ideas.

With best regards.

Pfreddee(Stephen)