Leicaflex Standard

Hello,

 

I have a few questions about the neglected original Leicaflex. I'm a RF shooter,

carrying daily an M4 with 35 or 50 mounted. Once in a while I get that long lens

bug though - maybe has something to do with living among fjords with great

scenics around :)

 

So once in a while I ponder on getting a 180mm and inexpensive but nice SLR

body. Naturally my first look was onto R system. I handled Leicaflex SL in a

shop here, it is nice camera albeit a tad bulky. I've seen it mentioned that

Leicaflex standard was closer in size to M series. Can anyone throw me a photo

of Leicaflex and an M side by side?

 

I know about the odd focusing screen with aerial image in the standard. Might

actually be a plus to an RF user who prefers all of his composition area in

focus, but I wonder if such technique works well with long tele lenses?

 

Also, how close it feels in operation to M? Does it have same kind of ratcheted

film advance? Is advance lever the same shape on all versions of Leicaflex? It

felt just a bit too long for my fingers on the SL.

I feel that you will find the meter system on the Standard not be the best, not to mention the age of the camera. It I could suggest, the closest Leica camera to the M is the R6/R6.2, yes they are expensive but will give you a much better camera and one which will hold the value. I use the R6 (R7 and SL) with my M and find that you can almost switch between the two with no learning curve.

A `flex body is exactly the same size as a the SL.

 

It does not have a ratched film advance.

 

Although it accepts many lenses, some of the later lenses have larger diameter f-stop rings and they interfer with the battery cover on the front of the pentaprism and sometimes the prism itself. This incluses all the modern zooms, 100 APO, 28 PC.

 

Early models do not have a battery off switch so you have to get that installed. The metering cells are old and generally need to be replaced along with making provision for modern battery.

 

The focus screen is not entirely aerial as some focus is possible in the edges, but it really is vague. It is as bright as a clean early M.

 

The mirror dampening is excellent and far better than Nikon or Canon of the period. Within it`s limitations, the camera is a joy to use.

 

If you want a smaller camera, you would be better served with a R6,6.2, or 7. Stay away from R4 varients & R5 models, dim viewfinders, mirror vibration and bad electronics being the major reasons.

 

I did develope a way to use the shift lenses on a `flex, just by shifting the lens and shielding the top of the picture thus providing a view of the bottom. Battery cover must be removed for the 28, but there are no other interferences.

The SL is a mm or two taller than the Standard, otherwise the dimensions are pretty much

the same, and the Standard is heavier than the SL. The R4 through R6 bodies are closer to

M size, but they don't give the tactile feedback of solidity that I expect from the M or

Leicaflexes (later are better in this respect than earlier)

<P>

As far as I know, none of the Leica reflex bodies have a ratcheted film advance (I'm not

sure about R3 and R7), and the Standard's film advance lever and throw are the same as on

the SL.

<P>

Contrary to Ronald's advice, the R4 variants I've used have been reliable with reasonable

care (R4, R4s, 2x R4sP). The viewfinder is not as bright as the Leicaflexes or later R bodies,

but the magnification is higher than the later bodies and much of the viewfinder

brightness may be restored by replacing the R4 viewscreen with an R viewscreen for the

later bodies.

<P>

IMHO the Standard's viewscreen isn't particularly suitable for long lenses because the

aerial image doesn't show you how far anything is out of focus, which is a much bigger

deal than with the 50mm and 35mm lenses on your M4.

<P>

One advantage the Standard has is a mirror lock-up. R6 and later bodies have a mirror

pre-release. The SL and SL2 can be tricked into pre-releasing the mirror but it's a clumsy

work-around.

<P>

My advice: if you want to stick with Leica for your reflex body and low cost is a factor, the

Standard would be a good choice only if the mirror lock-up is important to you, otherwise

a late-production (s/n 1,580,000+) R4 variant with the R viewscreen.

<P>

If you expect that the 180mm will be your only reflex lens then also consider the 180mm

f/2.8 Nikkor ED on a small Nikon body. The focus and aperture rings will turn the "wrong"

way but this lens is an outstanding value and there are quite a few inexpensive Nikon

bodies to choose from. The Nikon FG is very lightweight and inexpensive enough to be

almost disposable, and the FM-series is very highly regarded.

Sounds like the perfect reason to get a VISOFLEX for your M4. (PS, I love the viewscreen of the original Leicaflex, but can't think of anything else good to say about it.)

Bill's idea has merit, with a 200mm f/4 Telyt.

Doug Herr, the Forum's expert on the Leica R system, gave you an accurate and comprehensive answer. I can't recommend the Leicaflex Standard for telephoto use as it is hard to accurately focus lenses longer than 135mm. The Leicaflex Standard meter, even if in good working order, is not really accurate for telephoto use as it does not meter through the lens itself but takes an average reading of the scene covered by a 90mm lens. Works well with 35mm lenses, ok with 50s, marginal with 90s, but I use a hand held spot meter for anything longer than a 90mm. At least with the Leicaflex SL and SL2 you would have through the lens metering and easier to focus viewfinders. What the Leicaflex Standard body has is a rock solid feel of durability, a very bright viewfinder, a 1/2000 top shutter speed, and one of the all time smooth shutter releases. Don't forget that the Leica R lenses are pretty good too and reasonable in cost for their quality. Overall, I like my Standard, but not for telephoto work. I keep it to use with 21 and 35mm lenses.

Thanks for your input folks - it appears the standard isn't something I need. An SL looks more appealing in this light.

 

Sonny, Ron - I understand R6.2 is a better camera, but currently it goes for more than a user R9.. way more that am willing to budget for an SLR too. Really hard to tell how much of it is its own merit and how much is a promo effect by Salgado ;)

 

Douglas, have nothing against Nikon, even own a Nikon strap :) But before coming to M series I was using RF Contax system.. despite many many rolls with Leica my hands still turn the lens sometimes in wrong direction :) I'd better not confuse my brain further.

 

Maybe I should give another try to SL. Visoflex, well, I guess it's an ideal way to have M feel on an SLR :) But the thing oh does look weird, even on the pictures. And I understand there are not so many recent lens options for it? I was looking towards APO Telyt 180/3.4 in R system, how far the viso 200/4 from it relatively?

The SL and 180mm f/3.4 APO is an excellent combination. When shopping for an SL pay

particular attention to the viewfinder clarity. Many will show indistinct or fuzzy brownish

or yellowing spots indicating a de-silvered or fungussed prism.

agree with doug herr..

 

i own 2 leicaflex sl's, both have had problems with fungus developing in the pentaprism. One needed to be cleaned, the other had to be replaced (DAG did both for me).

 

fungus in the pentaprism will be obvious...any brownish or black discolorations...likely fungus. it can be fixed with a CLA, add that into your price of purchase to determine how much your going to spend when you buy a Leicaflex Sl.

you will also need to have the light meter "fixed" to work currently available batteries..(if that hasn't been done already).the original battery (an odd voltage) is no longer available. DAG can also provide this service. A few assorted plastic parts (film takeup spool, and the tab for changing lenses) can fail, and usually are/should be replaced with metal parts.

I would definitely go with Doug's recommendations. I have Nikon F3, F5, Leicaflex SL and

Leica R8. The viewfinder of SL is better than the others by a good margin. If you have the

SL properly serviced, you will really enjoy using it for a very long time. It is the Leica M3

of SLR as many said, mechanically very reliable.

 

APO Telyt 180/3.4 is an excellent performer and will fit with SL real well. Just note the

close focus distance is a bit long at 2.5 meters and close-up performance is not optimal.

But at infinity, the lens is brilliant.