Getting into an M system backwards

<p>Greetings all. My first attempt to own a serviceable M body failed when I found out that the M2 I purchased had RF problems with no reasonable cost resolution. Having returned the M2 I now find myself looking for a little newer M4-2 body, not as pretty as an M2 but within my budget. The backward part of this whole thing is that I already have purchased 2 Voigtlander lenses, like new with all packaging. A 21mm f4 Color Skopar LTM lens and a 35mm f2.5 pancake II in M mount. I purchased these on faith that with B&W, while not up to Leica standard they would be fine for my applications. It will be 5 more weeks before I'll get a chance to handle several M4-2's and make a purchase. In the meantime I'd be very interested to hear observations from any owners of these two lenses.</p>

<p>You won't be disappointed with the Voigtlanders. I've used the 21/4, and currently have the 28/3.5 and 75/2.5. Very nice results in B&W or color and fully up to "leica standard".</p>

Funny... I too bought the lens first (a rigid 'cron 50mm). The cameras came not too long afterwards but that lens is long gone... Be ready for a life of buying, selling, buying and selling.

<p>For me it all started with a 15mm Voigtlander (plus Bassa R2) because it was cheaper, more compact and generally better, than the Nikon equivalent. It's been 'all downhill' since then, with a plethora of Voigtlander and Leitz/Leica lenses of all sorts and ages.</p>

<p>I use the 21mm Voigtlander: it is a really fine lens and the 35mm f2.5 is no slouch either. There are plenty of posts on these lenses and many sample images (e.g. see a previous post of mine) - they are well worth researching.</p>

<p>In the Pacific NW, we had a Leica rep whose strategy was very effective. Get you to buy the M4-2 winder (about $250 new at the time) and you'd be more inclined to buy the camera and lenses too. That's how I got into it all.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the response.<br>

Alan, I know all about that downhill slide into insanity. Of course, now I'm near retirement with a modest fixed income so future GAS attacks will be restrained by also wanting to pay the rent and eating (I never miss a meal). For the past 20 or so years I've given myself over to the pleasure of handling a Leica M about once a year but never seriously considering dropping the two to three grand for a body and a couple, or perhaps three lenses. What changed was that a fellow in our apartment building has quite a collection of Leica and Voigtlander equipment and offered to let me borrow a body and lens to try out. I had never handled the Voigtlander lenses and was impressed by the build quality and how reasonable the prices were. I have budgeted $800 for an M4-2 body and think that will be enough. Besides the 21 and 35 I already have, I'd like to also get a 90mm f4 Elmar (4 element) as they seen to be the most reasonable in price if not perfect, say $100 to $200. I see also that Stephen Gandy still has 50mm f1.5 Noktons for $450 plus $60 for an M adapter.......Oh! I see, your were right, it's already starting.</p>

<p>John - for me getting the right tools for the job, and value for money are a key trade-off in considering Voigtlander vs Leitz/Leica lenses. In many respects I would rather use my late version Summicron 50/2 than the 50/1.5 Nokton - largely because I don't work at f1.5. Still at 50mm, comparing the 1960's 50/2.8 Elmar with the 50/2.5 Skopar, I would invariably pick the Elmar for its 'classic' performance, particularly in B&W, but the Skopar really does handle much better.</p>

<p>The late V4 Summicron 35mm f2 is a much nicer (sharper, contrasty) lens than the 35/2.5 Skopar, but it's becoming ridiculously expensive. Paradoxically, I much prefer my 'old school' 35/2.8 Summaron for B&W work to either of the the other 35mm lenses: the Skopar is, quite honorably, positioned right in the middle in my opinion. The 90/4 Elmar sounds like a good choice: I quite fancy trying one myself some day. I have the Apo Lanthar 90/2.5, but I don't use it seems to lack character - sharpness ain't everything</p>

<p>Alan, The fellow in our building who sold me the 21 and 35 Voigtlanders shoots color, both negative and slides and said they were too 'harsh'. He said his Leica optics (and I don't know what vintage they are) were better, especially for slides . I shoot mostly B&W and if I want color have an E-410 for that. Perhaps what he said about the Leica lenses are what you have seen too? At any rate, I'll report on my experiences when I finally have a body and can make some prints. I still have a wet darkroom I set up in the bathroom not because I think it's better than ink jet prints but because it's what I'm used to. Old dog, new tricks, that sort of thing.</p>

 

<p>John, the really great thing about Leica is that you have access (though often at a significant cost) to a very diverse range of lenses with some very interesting characteristics. Some old lenses are just as special as the lates aspheric models: put simply, sharpness and high contrast ain't everything. Learning about the character of a particular - often in detail - seems to be an important issue for Leica owners compared to users of most other marques, but there are few definitive answers. So, using Leicas can be quite an adventure . . . Enjoy!</p>

<p>M2's are generally cheaper than M4-2, I see one at KEH for $645. I bought an M2 from KEH and it was in great shape. Not a collectable, but it worked fine. I've had generally good luck with the Voigtlander lenses except for the 50/2.5. My 25/4 and my 15/4.5 are both good lenses. I suggest a Voigtlander VC clip on meter.</p>

<p>You might also consider a 35 or 50mm Summarit-m. They do have that pleasing Leica look (E.Puts claims he only uses a summarit-m now). I have the 35mm and it's nice, cheap by Leica standards, but by no means a cheap lens! I have the CV 21/4 and it's a fine lens too, perhaps I don't use it nearly enough as I should.</p>