slungu
Established
Hello everybody,
I a searching for a way into 35mm rangefinder world and noticed that for almost the same money I could buy a used Leica M5/6/7 or a new Zeiss Ikon. I plan on using a 2.5 lens kit, basically a 35mm and a 90mm with occasional UWA 15mm. Now for this lens lineup, would I be better off with the Ikon or a used Leica, or even a Voigtlander Bessa R2x ?
regards, Stefan
I a searching for a way into 35mm rangefinder world and noticed that for almost the same money I could buy a used Leica M5/6/7 or a new Zeiss Ikon. I plan on using a 2.5 lens kit, basically a 35mm and a 90mm with occasional UWA 15mm. Now for this lens lineup, would I be better off with the Ikon or a used Leica, or even a Voigtlander Bessa R2x ?
regards, Stefan
MinorTones
Well-known
Just get the M, you'll want one sooner or later.
ZeissFan
Veteran
I would suggest that you handle all three cameras, if possible. Don't buy on price alone. Hold them and figure out which camera is best for you.
Also, just curious, how do you plan to buy 2 1/2 lenses?
Also, just curious, how do you plan to buy 2 1/2 lenses?
Never Satisfied
Well-known
I'm lucky to have both and as good as the Zeiss is, as per above, you'll end up with a Leica. Andrew.
functus
Failed Poet
If your upper price limit is $1500 or so and you absolutely must have aperture priority, then go for a Zeiss Ikon -- I think M7s are, even used, well above the price point that the ZI occupies. If you prefer all manual, M6.
There are probably more places overall to have the M6 serviced; get a well-maintained specimen and it will last forever. The Ikon has only been around a few years, so it's too early to say whether or not the camera will be going strong in 30 years ...
There are probably more places overall to have the M6 serviced; get a well-maintained specimen and it will last forever. The Ikon has only been around a few years, so it's too early to say whether or not the camera will be going strong in 30 years ...
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
It would have to be the Ikon for me ... it has the longest rangefinder base length which means it will be the most acurate with the 90mm. Whatever camera you put the 15mm on you would be advised to use an accessory viewfinder so camera choice for this lens is not important really.
The Ikon also has the advantage of the extra shutter speed over the Leica M's (1/2000) and it's viewfinder is the brightest and largest by a long shot! The M Leicas are reputed to have a more solid build quality ... but the Ikon is way more sophisticated than the other cameras you've mentioned including the M7 IMO which is the only camera in the bunch it really compares to technically!
The Ikon also has the advantage of the extra shutter speed over the Leica M's (1/2000) and it's viewfinder is the brightest and largest by a long shot! The M Leicas are reputed to have a more solid build quality ... but the Ikon is way more sophisticated than the other cameras you've mentioned including the M7 IMO which is the only camera in the bunch it really compares to technically!
slungu
Established
I only had time to hold a Ikon with a ZM 35/2.0 in the store and was kind of thrilled by that little thing, only problem being the price the store gave me on that combo. I heard that many times in threads like this : sooner or later you will want a Leica. So, I can either get a Leica now, get a Bessa now and sooner a Leica or get a Ikon now and later a Leica - now that makes sense 
.
.
Regards, Stefan
. Ahm, not that literaly : I plan to be running around with two lenses and an occasional use of a 15/18mm with external viewfinder, so for the camera the requirements are for 35mm and 90mm, even if I know that not everything is working out as planned ( I also wanted a 3-lens kit for my DSLR and now have 8 primes and one zoom for if )
.Regards, Stefan
spiderfrank
just a dreamer
I have none of them, my "dream camera" was a Zeiss Ikon, one day I went to a shop with an M6 and a ZI and asked to see them (used cameras): I must say the Ikon was more "right" for me, and I preferred it against the M6, but looking in the viewfinder I had difficult to see, at the same time, the rangefinder patch and the exposure indications (I use eyeglasses), so I leave the camera on the desk. The M6 was a beautiful camera, but too much expensive for me, and not "so beautiful" like the Ikon... Ok, it's just to say "don't buy anything without an hand-on contact" (sorry for my bad English)
Franco
Franco
I had an M3 and an M6 TTL. Now I have two Zeiss Ikons
The best thing to do is handle all the cameras, and see what feels/works best for you. You can' t really go wrong with any of the cameras you mentioned.
The best thing to do is handle all the cameras, and see what feels/works best for you. You can' t really go wrong with any of the cameras you mentioned.
BillBingham2
Registered User
Stefan,
You will not be ill served by any of the cameras you’ve listed. For some folks there is something about the feel of a Leica. I’m one of them, love the feel of my old M4-P but it didn’t stop me from selling it and switching to a Nikon S3. Change, learning and growing is a part of life, the right camera today many not be what you end up with long term. Heck I have many shirts longer than some folks here have RF camera systems.
When I first came back to the RF world after years in SLR land I got a new Leica. At the time I saw some used Nikon SPs on the other side of the counter and now I kick myself for not having looked at them. If I had gone that way I would not have learned as much about lenses, cameras, photography or me. Getting a new M6 when it first came out helped me learn I did not need to have a built in meter, though I liked it.
I used to carry around WAY too big a SLR bag, multiple bodies, lenses, flash, just in case. While my S3 kit has grown the four lenses, most of my Leica and Bessa kits were three or four. I use to do three but found I preferred four and a LOT of space on the ends (15, 25, 40, 105). You can buy every focal length lens out there for most of the rangefinders but on the positive side most are much smaller, though can be a lot pricier.
Look at it as another step in your journey of learning and enjoying photography. Take a look at the CV glass in addition to ZI and Leica old and new. There is some world class glass that comes from other places (e.g. Nikon) that you might want to check into.
An additional approach for the 15 if you go ZI is pick up a ZISW as a rear lens cap and just leave it on. I did that with a Bessa L for my 25 for both my Bessa and Leica kits and it was very flexible. The key is light weight and small. The L was perfect for me, the SW might be for you.
B2 (;->
You will not be ill served by any of the cameras you’ve listed. For some folks there is something about the feel of a Leica. I’m one of them, love the feel of my old M4-P but it didn’t stop me from selling it and switching to a Nikon S3. Change, learning and growing is a part of life, the right camera today many not be what you end up with long term. Heck I have many shirts longer than some folks here have RF camera systems.
When I first came back to the RF world after years in SLR land I got a new Leica. At the time I saw some used Nikon SPs on the other side of the counter and now I kick myself for not having looked at them. If I had gone that way I would not have learned as much about lenses, cameras, photography or me. Getting a new M6 when it first came out helped me learn I did not need to have a built in meter, though I liked it.
I used to carry around WAY too big a SLR bag, multiple bodies, lenses, flash, just in case. While my S3 kit has grown the four lenses, most of my Leica and Bessa kits were three or four. I use to do three but found I preferred four and a LOT of space on the ends (15, 25, 40, 105). You can buy every focal length lens out there for most of the rangefinders but on the positive side most are much smaller, though can be a lot pricier.
Look at it as another step in your journey of learning and enjoying photography. Take a look at the CV glass in addition to ZI and Leica old and new. There is some world class glass that comes from other places (e.g. Nikon) that you might want to check into.
An additional approach for the 15 if you go ZI is pick up a ZISW as a rear lens cap and just leave it on. I did that with a Bessa L for my 25 for both my Bessa and Leica kits and it was very flexible. The key is light weight and small. The L was perfect for me, the SW might be for you.
B2 (;->
ZeissFan
Veteran
OK, that makes sense now.
The only thing that I would caution against is spending money to buy something temporarily. You almost always lose money when that happens, and you'll spend a lot more than if you had just bought what you wanted in the first place.
My suggestion would be to save money until you can afford what you want. But it once and be done with it.
The only thing that I would caution against is spending money to buy something temporarily. You almost always lose money when that happens, and you'll spend a lot more than if you had just bought what you wanted in the first place.
My suggestion would be to save money until you can afford what you want. But it once and be done with it.
ZeissFan
Veteran
By the way, I've found that I can make do with a small number of lenses. My favorite is my Contax IIa with a 35, 50 and 135. Occasionally, I'll drop the 35 and bring the 21. Or swap the 135 for the 85. But I rarely carry more than three lenses.
sahe69
Well-known
Scond that. I was in the exactly same situation (used M7 vs. ZI) a few yrs. ago and ended up going for the ZI after having fondled both cameras. For me the deciding factor for ZI was the VF, "trigger feeling" and film loading.
Having said the above - I still find myself someting lusting for an MP.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
They're all good - go with the one that feels best to you.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
The trouble with the 'siren call' of the Leica M is just that ... it has an alure that tends to have more to do with ownership than taking photographs. On paper the Zeiss is unbeatable but in your hands the M7 is a pure connection with the roots of 35mm photography ... it sells accordingly because of this and fair enough because it does feel special!
I made the choice to sell my M7 and get an Ikon and I don't really regret that decision ... most of the time!
I made the choice to sell my M7 and get an Ikon and I don't really regret that decision ... most of the time!
bwcolor
Veteran
I wear glasses and wanted the viewfinder of the Ikon. I didn't need the slightly quieter shutter and I used the difference in price to buy lenses.. four in the last few months. The Ikon is a wonderful camera. I will wait six to twelve months to see how the M9 shakes out and hope that Zeiss is already developing a digital. With unlimited funds I might buy an M7 and use it for 50-90mm, but right now my next rangefinder (have a Contax G2) will be digital.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
Assuming you are buying new [there is no accounting for lucking-out in eBaying], what you don't spend on a Leica M7 will buy a ZM and 2 or 3 CV lenses...all at once.
Despite the myth of Leica glass, Zeiss and CV are no slouch either. Read TomA between the lines and you will see. In any case, modern lenses are better than most of us could photograph.
The Leica body IS heavy...brass and all that. Walk around with a couple for a day and you will understand. The ZM body feels right and well balanced.
It is true that no battery means no camera in the ZM, but the LR-44 needed are available anywhere in the civilized world...even on Sundays. Carrying a spare blister pack cannot be such a hardship.
The ZM viewfinder is the best, period. The Leica is decidedly dimmer...by at least an f-stop or more...when compared side by side. The ZM eye-relief is also the best; so good that many got lazy and not centering the eyeball and then complained that the patch could disappear.
The rangefinder is also the best. Infinity is not just a few block away but across the harbour...some say at the moon. Perhaps that was why some thought the rangefinder is out of adjustment.
You don't use a camera as a hammer, why must it be heavy like a brick.
Despite the myth of Leica glass, Zeiss and CV are no slouch either. Read TomA between the lines and you will see. In any case, modern lenses are better than most of us could photograph.
The Leica body IS heavy...brass and all that. Walk around with a couple for a day and you will understand. The ZM body feels right and well balanced.
It is true that no battery means no camera in the ZM, but the LR-44 needed are available anywhere in the civilized world...even on Sundays. Carrying a spare blister pack cannot be such a hardship.
The ZM viewfinder is the best, period. The Leica is decidedly dimmer...by at least an f-stop or more...when compared side by side. The ZM eye-relief is also the best; so good that many got lazy and not centering the eyeball and then complained that the patch could disappear.
The rangefinder is also the best. Infinity is not just a few block away but across the harbour...some say at the moon. Perhaps that was why some thought the rangefinder is out of adjustment.
You don't use a camera as a hammer, why must it be heavy like a brick.
Last edited:
R
Roberto
Guest
Just buy the Bessa R4M you're going wider sooner or later
MCTuomey
Veteran
i'd say that anyone who uses a canon 1Ds w/zeiss and leica lenses cares more about pictures than nameplates. buying the equally functional ZI versus an M7 will permit you to spend more on lenses (whatever make), which seems consistent with your priority on image quality. you could get the ZI, a biogon 35/2, a hexanon 90/2.8, all for just about the price of the M7, i think.
however, you can buy an M6 for just over the price of the ZI, so if you can do without aperture priority maybe that's an option too. with the M6 you can get a very nice M-body without constraining your lens budget, no?
however, you can buy an M6 for just over the price of the ZI, so if you can do without aperture priority maybe that's an option too. with the M6 you can get a very nice M-body without constraining your lens budget, no?