Canon 50mm 1.4 or Leica IIIf with summicron 50mm f2.0

<p>I know this is an obscure question. I have a canon 1dsmk2 and am ridding myself of my 28-70mm f2.8 in favour of a fixed 50mm (haven't been happy with the zoom when comparing to my primes. Also the outfit is a bit bulky to have on you just in case). I also have a 16-35mm f2.8. I've considered stretching for a used canon 50mmf1.2, but realistically I'd be in the bracket for the 1.4. I have for a long time been intregued by rangefinder camera's so my logic is asking why not get a second hand old model Leica with a 50mm for a similar price as the canon 50mm f1.4.<br>

My main use for a 50mm would be walk around nature photography and people shots. I work only with natural lighting. I mostly print and sell my work as art, most of what I print is around 8x10, some smaller some larger. I have never used a lense with an f-stop below 2.0, although on a 50mm I do find the idea attractive. I have yet to use a rangefinder.<br>

I have found a Leica IIIf with a summitar f2.0 for $750 (which granted is a little more than the canon lense). How would an old lense like this compare to the modern canon? I've read that the viewfinders on the IIIf are difficult, what about the film advance mechanism? Focusing screen? I will be able to feel the camera before buying, with a considerable drive to get there, so just interested in impressions... what do you see in the decision?<br>

The other option I have come across is a Contax RX with a carl zeiss planar T*50mm f1.4, zeiss distagon T*28mm f2.8 for $470.<br>

I live in South Africa and so my choices ae slightly more limmited.<br>

I'm not so much asking along the lines of digital vs film, as that is an endless debate on it's own. It seems both have their merrits. Of course it is relevant to the decision, but, to me it is less relevant than getting the shot and getting the best out of the shot. If you care to comment go ahead but it is not the main column of my question<br>

What are your thoughts.? Thanks.</p>

<p>Personally, I think the price too steep for a beginner at this Leica business. You should be able to buy a IIIF cheaper, but then you have to factor in a cleaning. If you know a good tech., you can get a deal on cleaning, but if you don't then cleaning from a name tech. can be a considerable portion of the purchase price. It's hard to say about the lens, as time and circumstance happens to them all. So, the lens might have to be cleaned and adjusted as well. 750 is on the high side, and if cleaning and adjustment is called for, well you can see how much you could be into it for. Regarding the comparison between Canon lens and the Leica... I think you can safely say the resulting images images will be different, but the judgment as to which is better is going to involve considerable subjective stuff. Your viewfinder question is challenging to address. There's a huge difference in the experience of looking into a modern Canon EOS and peeping into a tiny hole in the back of an old range finder. All I can say is I suspect that the rangefinder user has, from experience, the final image that they are striving for in their imagination, and with experiece they have an idea about how it's all going to come together. At least that's how I seem to think about using the two forms of technology, SLR vs. Leica IIIf (with the Leica, I use a 50mm view finder on top the camera to help me). With practice, some folks have become very good and very fast with the IIIf, but it is still a marginalized technology today. As you can see, there are no clear cut answers to your questions. Best regards.</p>

<p>There are two finders on the IIIf--one for focusing (the rangefinder) and one for framing the image. You have to first focus with the rangefinder and then frame the image in the other viewfinder. Both finders are tiny and tend to grow dim and yellow with age: make sure both are usable before you buy. Also, if you've never loaded a Leica screwmount camera before, it's a struggle and you should be prepared to waste some film even after you've mastered the technique. Focusing and setting the shutter speed and aperture is a more deliberative process than with a modern SLR--even one that doesn't have automatic features. Make sure not only that the camera is in good working order but also that you'll be comfortable with the camera's somewhat awkward limitations (in comparison to more modern equipment) before you decide to buy it. <br>

Your heading reads "summicron" but the text reads "summitar." My understanding is that the summitar is an older design that is not as sharp as the summicron. Also the summitar is a quirky design that requires special filters and attachments. The hood is a weird-looking folding rectangular box that when open is almost as big as the camera itself.<br>

Hope this helps!</p>

<p>If I was to get a modern 50mm f/1.4 lens for my Canon EOS it would be the new Sigma.</p>

<p>If I wanted to get an older rangefinder with a 50mm it would be a Canon 7 with either a 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8. There were plenty made and you can easily find them in great shape.</p>

<p>The best price/performance option is to get a fixed lens rangefinder from the sixties or seventies. These can be had for less than $100 US. There are many makes and models. So many you will feel like a kid in a candy store.</p>

<p>I don't see why you would need to unload the 28-70 when you acquire a 50mm prime. I use both the Canon 24-70mm and 50mm f1.4. There is no way the 50 could provide the functionality of the 24-70.</p>

<p>FWIW, Canon's 50mm f1.4 is an ok lens, but the build borders on shoddy. Turning the barrel to focus feels very loose/coarse.</p>

<p>Go with the Canon P. Old Leicas are difficult to load. Canon P is easy to load. The Canon 50mm f1.4 is razor sharp. The Canon is cheaper. Framelines on Canon 35, 50, 100. I don't know about the old viewfinder on the Leica but the Canon is bright & easy to see. I think that the old Canon lens is sharper than more modern 1980's version. On the Zeiss lenses the Sonnar f1.5 for black and white is fantastic.</p>

<p>Brent, do you think you would you'll get more <em>satisfaction </em> and a <em>greater photographic experience</em> out of a 50-60 year old film camera, a quality film slr, or a modern high performance lens for a digital camera, etc .... and why, and how?</p>

<p>Do you actually <em>need </em> a fast 50mm for your 1D? If you do, it's not going to result in as great a 'shift' in your photographic experience as using an <em>old </em> film camera would. A fast lens and a modern film slr will allow you to continue doing much the same thing as you do now. Is that what you want, or do you want to do something very, <em>very </em> different photographically?</p>

<p>Do you simply want to try film as a medium, or is it a different approach to <em>camera-craft</em> that you seek? You already know what a slr does; would simply adding the <em>film factor</em> (viz a Contax RX) satisfy your curiosity, or are are you looking for a very different overall experience photographically?</p>

<p>The next question is what would a Leica give you that your 1D doesn't? At an objective, technical, level the answer might be "absolutely nothing". But in terms of fun, challenge, sense of achievement, new approach to photography, wider photographic experience, and many other intangibles, the Leica (or any 'old' film camera) will probably give you a great deal. You may not actually get 'better' <em>photographs</em> , but you might find you do better <em>photography </em> in the wider sense.</p>

<p>I was in exactly the same situation some years ago (a Contax RX was an option too) - but I bought a Leica IIIa, and I have never for a second regretted it. A good Leica IIIf, even though 50 years old already, will quite probably last another 50 years, giving you lots of fun, experience and very decent images in the process. However, $750 sounds a tad high to me, unless it's been serviced recently: I've just paid £350 for a Leica IIIf & Summicron (not needing a service), but I have a "good nose" for a cheap Leica. If you remain unconvinced, buy a Retina IIa or IIIc and try the rangefinder experience cheaply. <em>Warning</em> - rangefinders can be addictive.</p>

<p>Good luck, AC</p>

<p>BTW - two folk have said that loading a (Barnack) Leica is difficult. I have never had a problem: it simply requires care, and attention to the detail. Viewfinders and rangefinders certainly can be dim - but that's easily fixed during a service. I have just had a Leica II serviced by a top guy in the UK: it feels and performs like a 5 year old camera, not one that's 62 years old.</p>

<p>I have a 111F in great condition in the classifieds for $265.00.</p>

<p>Wow, what a question. Go for an antique film camera and lens, or get a 50mm prime for your very good Dslr?<br>

My first thought is that the image quality of the DSLR will be better but surely different that a 35mm film camera of any make.<br>

That said, there is a "special" look to rangefinder lenses that is different from SLR lenses due to the close distance to the film on the rangefinder lens and it's effect on lens design. Unfortunately digital sensors don't work so well when the lens is so close to the sensor and so there are no digital full frame rangefinder cameras:( So if you want the "look" of a rangefinder lens, you gotta shoot film for the most part.<br>

The Leica IIIf is not an easy camera to focus and handle, especially compared to an auto focus dslr! And it's certainly no Leica M either. $750 seems like a lot of money (in us dollars) for this camera and lens and the results you'll get. You'll also need to get a filmscanner as well I would think.<br>

For myself, I've got a 5D and a 50mm f1.4 lens and find it a lightweight and formidable combination for image quality and speed of use. You won't go wrong getting this lens, but on a 1DsII, it won't be such a lightweight combination I would think as it is on the 5D.<br>

I do love the look of the 50mm rangefinder lenses from the 1950's though. And I get this look from a Kodak Retina IIIc camera that I bought for $80 on ebay. This camera folds and fits in your pocket, though the viewfinder is tiny, it's still more user friendly than the Leica IIIf's separate viewfinders for focusing and framing. The lens quality on my Retina rivals the 50mm Leica lenses from the same period and costs a lot less money. Both the Retina and the Leica cameras look way cool and you will look way cool using them as well.<br>

Here's a photograph from my Retina, though I'm not sure it shows off the "look" of the lens, it certainly doesn't look digital!<br>

<img src="http://brucealangreene.com/websitejpgsfullreshorizontal/11-04photoshoriz/seepingman.jpg" alt="" width="900" height="534" /><br>

Best of luck Brent with your decision!</p>

<p>Focusing screen?</p>