M7 and LTM lens ... need advice.

<p>Hello all.</p>

<p>I have the enviable problem of all of a sudden, because of a cash gift, being able to afford a Leica M7. Finally, I can stop bothering the camera salespeople with visiting their stores simply to fondle their Leicas. </p>

<p>My father had given me his Canon IID1 rangefinder (which he had purchased new in Korea in 1953) and I had it CLA'd by Gerry Smith at Kindermann just a few months ago. Works beautifully and I was just out shooting it yesterday.</p>

<p>From the Canon RF, I have the following lenses (Canon or Serenar branded, in LTM, obviously):</p>

<p>- 35mm/F2.8 (circa 1951)<br>

- 50mm/F1.8 (circa 1951)<br>

- 85mm/F2 (circa 1948, Serenar)<br>

- 135mm/F3.5 (circa 1952)</p>

<p>I can buy the appropriate adapter rings from CameraQuest to mount the LTM lenses on the M7 but my question goes beyond the technical ...</p>

<p>I simply cannot afford modern Leica lenses. I can afford the CV lenses and they seem to have earned a respect amongst many Leica enthusiasts. My question is about "next steps" in preparation for building out a good kit for the M7.</p>

<p>Do I stick with the older Canon/Serenar lens, with appropriate adapters to match the finder framelines in the M7? Or do I make a modest investment over time in some nice, fast, MODERN CV lenses? Is it worth it in terms of image or shooting experience? (I also love the fact that CV makes new LTM lens which I could mount on the Canon RF -- like the 28/F1.9 ASP Ultron.)</p>

<p>I shoot mostly street photography. Typically 50mm focal length. Secondarily, I like to capture beautiful scenic vistas using 35mm or wider lens. I'll use my Canon FD gear for telephoto work and will occasionally use RF for traditional "portrait"-type photos (mostly street photography with a little magnification). 85mm is nice for that.</p>

<p>The mystique of Leica is in the lenses. I want to, as much as my wallet can bear it, respect and maintain that where possible. I have also read in the archives of this forum and the rangefinder forum on APUG that many 1950s-vintage Canon lenses were worthy competitors to their contemporary Leica counterparts. In your experience, do they have "the Leica fingerprint"?</p>

<br />

<p>Upshot: Obviously I'm asking for opinions, not fact, but if it was YOUR money -- and you didn't have an unlimited supply of it -- what would you do? And especially: why would you do it?</p>

<p>Thank you in advance (this is a nice problem to have!)</p>

<p>carl,<br>

it might be worth your while in investing in one very fast shorter prime that would cover your interest in street and landscapes. the cv 35mm 1.2 lens might well be something to aspire to? perhaps, it might still be in the leitz glass price range being something of a novelty.<br>

the other option might be to choose the 40mm nokton. the 1.4 version is a very good lens indeed and perhaps not as expensive as the more sought after wides.<br>

i hate to point this out but you might have think long and hand about what the so called leica fingerprint is all about. i fear that this is highly subjective. milky smooth bokeh and flare in the older lenses had sometimes been defined as the leica glow. as someone new to photography, with only three years of experience, albeit, in a very tight budget, i have had to read up a lot here and elsewhere and then make up my mind. so you might want to test out a few lenses if possible and then decide where you want to spend your money.</p>

<p>If the lenses you have are giving you the results you want, I see no reason to "upgrade." On that same note, you'll be spending money on the adapters, which is money you could put toward a new lens - just something to keep in mind.</p>

<p><br /> Though you could always get a different, less expensive M body and some Leica glass to go with it.</p>

<p>Those Canon lenses are very fine lenses. The 85/2.0 is probably the "weakest" optically. The 50/1.8 is very fine indeed, better than a 1950's Summicron.<br>

A 35/2.0 (or faster) would be the most likely next step. The Canon 35/1.8 and 35/2.0 are both fine lenses. The CV 35/1.2 is huge, not really the right "form factor" for a Leica in my view. The CV 35/1.4 is compact and sharp. Someday you can get a 35mm Summicron or Summilux.</p>

 

<p>Dave,</p>

<p>You brought up an interesting topic which, in the interest of being as brief as I could (difficult for me), I didn't want to broach in my original post. I've considered buying a CV Bessa R3A and spending the money on true Leica glass. That makes a lot of sense since the true investment is in the glass, not the light-tight box but ... I want the M7. It's emotional, it's visceral, its irrational -- but I just plain want the camera. A R3A or ZI would always feel like a compromise (now, as a backup camera, absolutely). Of course, my whole post is about compromise, isn't it?</p>

<p>Sigh.</p>

<p>Truely, thank you for your opinion though. Makes a lot of sense.</p>

<p>Forget the M7. Get an M6. Or, keep in mind that Lee Friedlander is now using Bessa's and CV lenses.<br>

But, I wold buy an M8.</p>

 

<p>Mike,</p>

<p>I want the option of AE and manual exposures; else, I'd get an M6 "classic".</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>When you are on a limited budget, it is always about compromise. :)</p>

<p>Personally, I went with a Bessa R3M and a Nokton 50/1.5. I have been very, very happy with the purchase. But I definitely understand where you are coming from with the emotional, visceral, irrational aspect.</p>

<p>Recently, I saved a bit of money and just bought a Bessa R and will probably buy a Jupiter-8 to go with it. I would prefer a CV 35/2.5 but just dont have the funds now. At any rate, this will be my go-to kit for carrying around Washington DC where I just dont want to carry around my expensive (to me anyway) gear. I'm selling my Rollei 35 which is what I have been using - it is too small for me and I seem to forget to scale focus fairly often. I look through the viewfinder and think "oo we are in focus, click. ... ooops."</p>

<p>I hope my rambling helps a bit. I guess what I am saying is, ....<br>

(1) You can go with the M7 and keep the lenses you have by purchasing adapters; or<br>

(2) You can purchase a different Leica M body (CLE maybe?) and get some CV or Leica glass, or keep your current lenses; or<br>

(3) You can purchase one of the R*A Bessa bodies and get some CV or leica glass, or keep your current lenses. </p>

<p>Personally, I would probably get one of the Bessa bodies, get some adapters and keep using my current lenses plus maybe add one wider angle CV lens, buy a bunch of film, and go on a short vacation. : )</p>

<p>Carl, don't toss away the Canons. I do second the opinion on a fast 35mm lens. I enthusiastically recommend the Nokton 35/1.4. It is standard on my M8, while the great love of my life, the Summicron 35/2 Asph. is standard on my M7. Do get adapters for those Cannon lenses. </p>

<p>I would suggest getting the camera and shooting with the lenses for a while. After a couple months, you'll find out which ones you like and which ones you'd like to improve upon. At that point, look at used Leica, used/new Zeiss, and used/new CV lenses. It sounds like 28-50 is your range of main usage, so I think it makes sense to get a modern lens there. Maybe a Zeiss 50 or 35, or the tiny CV 35/1.4 would be good lenses for you. If you really want a Leica lens, you should be able to find the most recent 50 Summicron for around 5-600, which isn't that much more than some of the CV lenses.</p>

<p>I echo John Shriver's comment: the Canon lenses are fine lens. I sold my Leica 50 Summilux after extensively testing it against the Canon 50mm 1.8. There was no significant difference and the Canon was smaller. The Canon 50 1.8 is a keeper. Unless you are going to buy the Leica 50 1.4 ASPH, you don't need another 50mm lens. I owned the Canon 35 2.8 for 2 years and shot it on a Leica 111F. It is also very good. High resolution, moderated contrast lens. I sold mine because I previously owned and still own a 35mm Summicron (version IV) which is the lens that I shoot 80% of the time. I would shoot the lens you have with adapters untill you find a reason you need something else. If I were you I would purchase one more lens, a wide angle CV 28 or 24 or CV 21(ltm mount with finder). Of these 3 I would go with the CV21 (ltm w/ finder). You can put that 21mm lens on your screw mount camera and never take it off. If you are going to go for a faster 35mm lens, I would look for a user leica summicron 2nd version or 3rd version which can be found at a "good " price. Have fun shooting your M7.</p>

<p>Ok, you asked for it, so here's a few thoughts:<br>

You don't say whether you've actually bought the M7 yet, and some people are suggesting that you should buy a different camera. I'd say if you can afford the M7, go with it. The Voigtlander cameras are useful tools, (I have one) but they're really not as pleasant to use. You'll still be using the M7 in 20 years if you want to.<br>

Those Canon lenses produced some classic images in the 50's and 60's. I would be more concerned about whether my vision was good enough to do them justice than whether they were good enough for me. So I'd just keep them for a while, maybe 6 months, shoot a lot and see what they can do.<br>

You said you mostly do street photography, so I'm not exactly sure why so many people suggested that you need faster lenses. If you're shooting Tri-X or similar, or even mid-speed films, then f2.8 is just fine. Street photography wants small, light, well balanced equipment, not a honking great hunk of glass unbalancing the camera and drawing attention.<br>

You didn't mention whether the Canon 35 and 50 are the chrome ones, or the silver and black. The chrome 50mm IS a little heavy. The silver and black one is lighter, optically superb, and one of the great bargains in the Leica world.<br>

If you like the 50mm length, then you're more or less obligated to try a Summicron sooner or later. Buy a used one. If you need a faster 50, the CV 50mm f1.5 is quite good, although it's a little large.<br>

Another great bargain is the CV 35mm f2.5. It's so good, and so cheap, and so small, that I have two, one silver and one black. A stupid vanity, I know, but they look so nice on the matching cameras. This is a significantly "better" lens than the Canon 35mm f2.8, for not very much money.<br>

Finally, I would look seriously at the new(ish) Zeiss lenses. They're built a little better than the CVs, they're more expensive, but nowhere near the stratispheric prices of new Leica lenses. I have a Zeiss 35; I did a long comparison between the Zeiss and a borrowed pre-ASPH Summicron 35. In 11x14 black and white prints of real subjects, I just don't see a significant difference. There are differences, but they're not consistant and I think, not important for real work. (As opposed to shooting test charts.)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>A R3A or ZI would always feel like a compromise</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Only if you consider a larger finder eyepiece, faster x-sync, faster and easier loading, no bottom plate to lose or break and lower price tags to be compromises. Personally I'd be more than happy to trade my M6TTL for a Zeiss Ikon.<br /> <br /></p>

<p>Fred,</p>

<p>I can't argue the rational approach you suggest; but, as I mentioned earlier, it's an emotional thing. You own a Leica. I never have. I've read about them my whole life and always wondered what it would be like to take a trip with a Leica around my neck. </p>

<p>I collected British cars for 15 years. Always wanted a Rolls Royce. Bought one and drove it for 8 years. Threw $30K into it, sold it for $10K. Loved every minute of my ownership experience ... really. If I was short on money, the car sat. It sat a lot (I was single then and had a lot more money then I do now so a $2K used Leica is a real treat to consider). In every rational way, owning that Roller was completely idiotic. But a Rolls is a lot like a Leica or a Rolex. Once you think you need one, you better get it and -- perhaps -- get OVER it. But we only live once.</p>

<p>And I want a Leica.</p>

<p>All the best - Carl</p>

<p>Right now I mostly use vintage Leitz lenses on my MP such as the 35/3.5 Elmar, 50/3.5 and 73/1.9 Hektor which were all made in the 30's. These are great lenses and have a look of their own. I like the results and that's what matters. I have used the Canon 35/2.8 and 50/1.8 and they are excellent lenses.</p>

<p>Carl<br>

I had a Bristol for a while, sold it and with the money I've not spent on the car I have a set of Leicas and lenses. Go for the M7, you won't regret it. Use the Canon lenses then save for Leica glass as time progresses. I often use mine with the vintage lenses that I bought first and they make a lovely combination - particularly the Elmar 50/3.5.</p>

<p>Why do you want to buy a Rolls Royce and put Lada wheels on it?</p>

- 35mm/F2.8 (circa 1951)

- 50mm/F1.8 (circa 1951)

- 85mm/F2 (circa 1948, Serenar)

- 135mm/F3.5 (circa 1952)

 

I have those lenses. They are quite good.

 

Agreed the 85/2 is the "softest" of the bunch, but it is also the oldest and first replaced by Canon, with the 85/1.9. Stopped down a bit, its "good enough". It is about the size and weight of the first generation Summicron 9cm F2. I'll have to shoot a comparison between those two and a Nikkor 8.5cm f2. The 90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit is sharper, higher-contrast, and MUCH lighter.

 

The 35/2.8 is a little slow, lower contrast, very good. I keep it on a Black Leica III.

 

The 50/1.8 is sharp and higher contrast then the Summicrons of the 50s. This lens is sharper than the Canon 50/1.4, but lives in its shadows.

 

The 135/3.5 is quite sharp, mine is better than my Nikkor 13.5cm F3.5. You don't use a 135 on an RF too much, just stick with it.

 

I just picked up a Canon 35/2 and found it very impressive. Used it on the M2 this weekend. And for the Leica CL- a Canon 50/1.5 fits in its pouch case.

 

Nothing wrong with Canon lenses. They compare quite well to my 30 or so Leitz lenses.

<p>Carl --<br>

Whatever else you do, keep the Canon lenses you have, not just because they are good lenses but also because you got them from your father. You might consider getting a good used M2 rather than an M7; that would leave you more money for lenses. If you have your heart set on an M7 and the question is what lenses you could buy on a budget that might offer you a worthwhile improvement, though, I would suggest considering a Canon 35mm f/2 LTM, Canon 50mm f/1.4 LTM and a Nikkor 85mm f/2 LTM. Those are some of the best of the older lenses, but available for relatively reasonable prices. There are also some older Leica M lenses available at reasonable prices -- Sherry Krauter's web site currently lists a 90mm f/4 Elmar in M mount for $150, for example.</p>