Jump to content

Contax S2B or Leica R6.2


lewis_henning

Recommended Posts

<p>(Not sure if I'm in the right category here...?)</p>

<p>I was recently going to by a full frame digital SLR but I decided against due to the cost and the fact that they devalue so fast. I think I will buy one, one day, when I know it's the right on and I have a bit more cash at hand.</p>

<p>I've recently remembered how good it is to shoot film. So I'm using an FM2 at the moment. It's great, you have to take so much more care about the shot.</p>

<p>Anyway, to the point. More as an indulgence, I was thinking of buy something different. I still want a mechanical camera, just a light meter. And I would like a 35mm, fast lens (about f1.4 or f2 ish).</p>

<p>Contax S2B<br>

Contax Carl Zeiss T* Distagon 35mm f1.4</p>

<p>or</p>

<p>Leica R6.2<br>

Leica 35mm f1.4 Summilux-R</p>

<p>or</p>

<p>Any other suggestions…? (A Leica M6 or M7 would be very nice but I don't think I could afford a lens for it.) I think though the M7 is auto isn't it? Maybe an MP?</p>

<p>I don't know a great deal about the S2B or the R6.2. I've read some reviews about the Contax S2B and it seems it's very loud and quite clunky. Still researching the Leica R6.2. But my research so far hasn't found any comparison between the two. Any info on the lenses would be cool too, I've read lots of good things about the Contax Carl Zeiss T* Distagon 35mm f1.4 although it's big and heavy.</p>

<p>Like I said it's a bit of an indulgence. I know it's more about what's in the photo not the camera that took it. But the way I see it, if I buy right, then hopefully I shouldn't lose any money if I want to sell it later on down the line.</p>

<p>I think these later manual cameras like the OM3 and above are quite interesting, the technology was there to create more advanced electronic cameras but manufactures carried on making this manual versions.</p>

<p>Your comments about very much appreciated.</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The R6.2 was my main camera for 11 years and the R6 before that. It is an excellent camera - all manual with an excellent viewfinder. Always wanted to try the 1.4 Summilux but never did - I used the 35 f2 Summicron which was wonderful. There's not much to say about these manual cameras - not a lot of "features" to distract you from the task in hand. It is small and light. I've never seen the Contax S2B, which I think is a similar to the R6.2. I think it is hard to come by. I don't think there are many around. The R6.2 seems to command a premium (last fully manual Leica SLR), so it might be worth checking out an R6 or R7. The R7 is also a good machine.</p>

<p>The 35/1.4 Leica R is a rare beast and will cost you $$$. I suspect the Zeiss 35/1.4 will too. Everything I heard about the Leica 35/1.4 was good, but I have never tried one. Certainly the Summicron was one of the nicest 35s I have ever used. I have to say thought that my Canon 35L is as nice as the Summicron.</p>

Robin Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The R6 or R6.2 look like nice cameras. I was thinking of getting one, but ultimately decided they commanded too much of a premium over other options for me. Don't know much about the Contax.</p>

<p>You already have an FM2. An interesting upgrade might be an FM3A and a new Zeiss ZF 35/1.4. Or just the lens.</p>

<p>An M7 is auto, but has two functioning shutter speeds with no batteries. You get about 70 rolls per set of batteries. The M6 and MP (pretty much the same camera in use) only require batteries for the meter. You are right - they are a good deal more expensive, especially with a 35/1.4. If f/2 is fast enough, there are some very nice options out there though, particularly in the Zeiss ZM lineup. Or the Voigtlander 35/1.4 or 35/1.2. I personally think the M7 is the current 'bargain' of the M line used.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>A nice R6 can find at $450 and R6.2 will set you back + $800 plus the 35 lux for about +/- $2,500 or S2/S2b price range from $500 - $1,000 plus + $1,200 for 35/1.4 Distagon.<br>

Save money for the lens as you can buy used Carl Zeiss ZF 35/2 for around +/- $650 or a used ZF.2 35/1.4 for +/- $1,500 to use with your Nikon body. Good luck with your decision.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Why not try an M6 and Summicron 35/2. You like the combo. Or if you are adventurous and don't mind the weight, try a Nokton 35/1.2. Or, as the man said, get a current Zeiss 35/1.4 for your Nikon.</p>

<p>With Contax and OM3 (rare and expensive) you may have problems with service. There is probably less of a problem with a Leica SLR. </p>

<p>Leica RFs are easy to get fixed, as I know well. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>"An interesting upgrade might be an FM3A and a new Zeiss ZF 35/1.4." <em><strong>Tim G</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm with Tim & Stuart on this one. The Nikon bodies in this category are most excellent <strong>!</strong><br /> (FM2, FE2 and FM3A)</p>

<ol>

<li>Consider a <strong>brand new</strong> MF Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 at around $1,200. (Excellent optic)</li>

<li>The R6.2 is an overpriced Minolta; and besides a used Summilux 35mm f/1.4 R "<strong>beater</strong>" starts at $2,500.</li>

<li>The Contax innards are <em>light duty</em> Yashica with the Contax glass not being exclusive. It can of course be had in the Nikon mount <strong>brand new</strong> just shy of $2,000.</li>

</ol>

<p>Finally, I can safely state that the similarly featured Nikon bodies are <strong>more durable</strong> than the two other models considered.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you all for all your feedback! As usual, everyone on Photo.net is extremely helpful.

 

I think from a lot of the comments, I will stick with my Nikon FM2 and look for a Nikon 35mm (which was always an option

really haha!) or a zeiss lens of some sort.

 

Although... Maybe if I do fancy a change, maybe I should at a Leica range finder. I've always wanted one but been put off

by the price of the lenses. A few of you mention some alternatives to the Leica branded lenses.

 

Do you have any general advice for anyone buying Lecia for the first time? M7, M6, MP? I really need to do some

research into it all but any of you had some pointers or general advice tha would great.

 

I only really want one lens, 35mm would do, ideally f1.4 but f2 if the price was a lot better. Haha Would be nice to own a

Leica lens but I guess it's not really essential although I'm told that's the whole point to a Leica is it? The lens!

 

Anyway, I'd love to hear your thoughts!

 

Many thanks again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'm sure people will disagree, but the M6 and the MP are nominally the same camera. Different rewind knob, and the MP has the 'flare free' finder (the M6 can be upgraded for this). An M6 is going to run you around $1100. MPs seem to be going for $3000-4000. </p>

<p>M7s have auto exposure and are battery dependent for all but 2 of the film speeds. They go for $1800-2000. Many M7s have the flare free finder upgrade (MP finder), but some do not. Many still have the old DX reader; I would recommend replacing this if you have it. That being said, I believe Leica USA will do this replacement for free.</p>

<p>One big advantage of the M7 and MP over the M6 is that you can get them with 0.85 and 0.58 magnification finders. However, for a first time user, I'd say stick with the standard 0.72 finder unless you are only going to shoot 28 mm. There's also the M6 TTL. It's essentially like the regular M6, but newer and with through the lens flash metering (with certain flashes).</p>

<p>Also, you might want to check out the Zeiss Ikon. Nice camera. I personally like the M7, but have an M6 as well; it was my first M camera. While I would love to replace the M6 with an MP, I'd rather spend the money it would cost to upgrade on a vacation.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>There are Leica bodies and lenses available for those on a budget. The Leicaflex bodies are in my opinion, the best in the R range, and they are generally pretty affordable. They're very well made, and very simple. The viewfinder is outstanding, and they can be used with the 1 and 2 cam lenses, which tend to be cheaper. </p>

<p>Likewise, my favourite M bodies are the M3, M4 (first version), and M2, which can be bought for less than an M6 and the more modern cameras. They are better made and great to use. The chrome lenses tend to be cheaper, or look out for less popular versions of lenses such as the 1970s 2/50 and 2/35, which are better than their reputation suggests. </p>

<p>There is no need to buy a mega dollar MP. It's really an M6 with a pretty face. The one I owned had a few issues, which I have never experienced with any of the two M6s or two M3s I have owned. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmm, lots to go and research there! I'll have to go away and read up on all this. I like the sound of the M6! I think they

cost a little more in the UK, about £1200 on eBay for a good one it seems. Just come down the lens. Thanks for the

suggestions. I did have a little look at the Zeiss 2/35. About £800 (that's new too!), and it got some good reviews. Would

you agree that you don't seem lose so much money with buying this old tech? They seem has lost most of their value

already (Although the Leica name and quality keep their value up!).

 

Got to do some saving now! But it's good to know what's out there.

 

 

Thanks again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Do you have any general advice for anyone buying Lecia for the first time? M7, M6, MP? I really need to do some research into it all but any of you had some pointers or general advice tha would great.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Get ready to walk around with a big smile on your face. :-)</p>

<p> Really, if you get a Leica RF that feels good for you you will be a happy photog. Here is an idea. Get an M6 classic and Summicron 35/2. They are cheaper than f1.4s. They are optically better than the pre-asphericals. </p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"I like the sound of the M6! I think they cost a little more in the UK, about £1200 on eBay for a good one it seems."</p>

<p>A standard version (M6 'classic', 0.72 finder) should go for quite a lot less than that (£700-£900 even at a London dealer, depending on condition). Viewfinder variants, the final 'TTL' version, and titanium finish, etc. attract a premium.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>The Contax innards are <em>light duty</em> Yashica with the Contax glass not being exclusive. It can of course be had in the Nikon mount <strong>brand new</strong> just shy of $2,000.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure how "light duty" it was, but the S2 used the 139Q's machined aluminum chassis.<br>

http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Contax_S2_/_S2b<br>

http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Contax_139Q</p>

<p>As for exclusivity, "Contax glass" is an undefined term, with Contax being merely a brand name which never appeared on any lenses nor was it ever a manufacturer. Moreover, the Zeiss ZF 1.4/35 does not have the same optical construction as the C/Y version either.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>There is nothing really wrong with Minoltas. It is simply that the years of where Minolta and Leica met, were as they say "not a stellar moment"! All my friends who use Leica R have had serious service issues plus problems with cams. Leica seemed to specialize in adding cams for different models.<br>

The Nikon way the better way! I wouldn't bother with Zeiss Lenses.If one uses Nikkor lenses keep the look the same! i have shot with a Zeiss Planar which was sharp but the background look really sucked! i never use other makes on any of my cameras..this is important rule esp with DSLR. Tamron and Sigma cause issues! Maybe not immediately but at some point..Those who have never had problems, may it continue!<br>

The OP wants a SLR. i doubt there is thought of a RF. If there is, a M6 with 35mmSummicron.i use a 35mm Summaron f2.8 with goggles. It was a real bargain from a friend! i see no point in fast lenses..but that's me!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Jason, I have had no problems with any of the manual Rs (6 and 6.2). I used them for over 15 years. Can't comment on the electronic Rs where one reads different things depending on the model. </p>

<p>I don't think the Nikon system is significantly different - the various different generations of lenses have similar issues with compatibility. There is no "problem" with cams. You just have to have the right cammed lens for the right body and any can be converted to work, with some exceptions. It is an issue you just have to know about it - just as you do if you want to try and get a modern AF Nikon lens to work on a Nikon F or an older Nikon to lens to work with full functionality on a modern Nikon DSLR. </p>

Robin Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Lewis, <br>

I've used Nikon film cameras (F3, FA), as well as Nikon DSLRs. Then sold it all to get a Leica R system (R8, R4s, Summilux 50mm, Elmarit 2.8 24mm, and a Vario Elmar 80-200mm). I loved the R system - except for the weight. I travel often, so this is a big consideration for me.<br>

Recently I traded in my R8 with Vario Elmar for an M6 TTL 0.85x and CV 35mm 1.4 sc. My back has been loving me, and I can now carry my camera everywhere. Switching from SLR to rangefinder wasn't as hard as I thought it would be, and I'm am loooving the rangefinder experience. Recently acquired a Zeiss Planar 2/50. Took a few test shots, and will be sending my film in for development soon. <br>

I would highly recommend you to get an M6 (mechanical camera with meter), and a 35mm lens for it. The options are vast. The CV Nokton 35mm 1.4 (there are single-coated and multi-coated versions) can be found in pristine condition for about $500, I believe. If you have a bit more cash, go for a Leica or Zeiss (I'm personally interested in the Zeiss 2/35 - anyone selling one?? :)).<br>

The past few years I've been using primarily the 'lux-R 50 (e55 with pull-out hood) and the Elmarit 24mm, and I love both lenses. I'm selling them right now, but still seriously considering keeping them, as I love them. That said, I did miss the 35mm focal length. <br>

If you wear glasses (I do), the 0.85 magnification on a rangefinder will be a bit inconvenient with a 35mm lens. But a 50mm is just about perfect. The 35mm fills the entire viewfinder, so if you wear glasses like me, you'll have to do some extra "looking around" inside the vf to check the framelines. That said, for me, it's not a major issue - and there are 0.85x, 1.2x, 1.4x VF magnifiers available, if you want to change the magnification on your VF.<br>

Bottom line: get an M6 (mechanical with meter), and a CV Nokton 35mm 1.4 (or other 35mm, depending on your budget). I'm guessing you'll be coming back for more M goodness :D... I'm eagerly searching for the Biogon at the moment, and am in love with my M... mmm... <br>

PS: Just a side note. I recently got the Zeiss ZM 2/50 Planar, which uses the same hood as the Zeiss ZM 2/35 Biogon. Come to find out, it has <em>exactly</em> the same hood as the CV Nokton 35mm - except for the label. Makes sense, as they have a common maker. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Hi Dave</p>

<p>Thanks for your advice. Very similar to me.</p>

<p>This weekend I went out looking at M6s. I couldn't bring myself to spend that kind of money on a Leica lens, don't really have that kind of cash for a camera lens. In the end I bought a second hand Zeiss ZF 2/35 for my FM2. Really enjoying the damped focusing. I don't know good the shots will be as I've only taken about 20 and not processed the film yet.</p>

<p>I am thinking I could sell all my Nikon stuff and this new lens and buy an M6 and the lens you mentioned... ZM 2/35. Does anyone know if there is a difference between the ZF and ZM? People tell me that range finders produce better shots because the lens is closer to the film plane.</p>

<p>Dave, also, how are you finding the focusing... What's it like at night? I'm used my FM2 which I find so easy to focus, when I was using an M6 in the shop, I was thinking that I might not get on with it so well.</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Lewis, </p>

<p>I have to tell you, I'm really enjoying the experience. You've probably read and heard this a million times already (and I can't believe I'm saying it), but the simplicity and straightforwardness of the M6 is liberating. I know people will ask "how", "why", etc... but it's a subjective thing, and I'm loving the experience. </p>

<p>Focusing on an SLR (the R8 and R4s) was a bit hard to nail for me. Especially using the 50 lux (which I love, by the way) in the dark with shallow DOF. I think around 70% of the shots were either blurry (camera shake) or misfocused, or both. I'm not blaming neither lens nor camera. Just a personal experience. It was super-sharp and bokeh was beautiful, though.</p>

<p>With the M6, I have yet to see the results - I will be sending the film in monday, and hopefully getting it back by friday. I will post some samples if possible. I just found the Zeiss 2/35 yesterday, and it should be arriving by the end of this week. Yes, I feel like I'm 7 y/o on Christmas morning :).</p>

<p>As for focusing in the dark with the M6, I find it easier, as you overlay one image over the other - that gives you a precise focus/no-focus idea. And the viewfinder is very bright. I've shot in brighter conditions with the R8 before, and it was harder to focus.</p>

<p>You will probably have to practice focusing with a rangefinder a bit. I spent about 2 weeks practicing (about 15min a day, walking around, taking pics or just focusing on different things). Now it's much easier and even faster than focusing on an SLR. </p>

<p>I have often thought about just getting a Nikon film SLR, and maybe getting the ZF lenses for it (the M-world <em>is</em> expensive), but now that I've gotten a taste of it, I don't think that will ever happen. Both are great systems, but I'm in <em>love</em> with the M.<br>

No, there's no <em>magic</em> to it. I just really enjoy the experience (as I have with my Nikon FA - might go and get one, because I just loved that camera as well) - and that's what matters to me, along with having reliable equipment and hopefully, beautiful pictures. </p>

<p>The M6 TTL I have is actually slightly bigger than my R4s, but the lens is definitely smaller. That (smaller lens size) contributes considerably to street photography - as people don't see this huge gun/tube pointed at them. Makes it less intimidating - even unnoticeable.</p>

<p>Using an SLR, I was always very conscious of the framing. With a rangefinder, I know it's <em>almost</em> pointless, which is liberating as well, as I can concentrate on capturing the moment, rather than sacrificing the moment for framing. I've often missed the moment, just because I was deliberating the framing - again, this is a personal thing, but I'm just laying it out there, as this might help someone.</p>

<p>I'm not sure about the RF vs SLR film plane debate. I've shot with SLR's most of my (short) life, and the images have been more than enough (granted, I don't print 6ft wide). I don't like getting into all the technical babble either: 1) I get more confused; 2) I lose all desire to buy lenses, as they all seem to have <em>some</em> sort of imperfection. What matters to me is the images I can get with a lens. Obviously, if a 35mm lens has terrible distortion and/or focus shift, etc. that is a consideration.<br>

Leica is on a quest to remove all "imperfections" from their lenses, I believe, which is why their lenses are so expensive. As for me, I value "character" over "perfection" (having both is good, but most often this is contradictory), which is why I like the Zeiss look. I am eyeing a Summicron 35 ASPH, though... </p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Lewis</p>

<p>If you are used to SLRs the transition to RFs can be painful. The ZF 35/2 is one of their best. I'd stick with it. A problem with the ZFs from my perspective is that they are so large and heavy - in many cases unnecessarily so. Heavier than R lenses usually. </p>

Robin Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If you want to use the Leica 35mm Summilux-R I'd also consider the Leicaflex SL2. It's much more rugged than the R6.2 and has one of the best SLR viewfinders ever made. The 35 'lux won't fit on the earlier Leicaflex or Leicaflex SL models.</p>

<p>The Nikon FM-series and the R4 through R6 (and maybe R7) share a weak point: the tripod socket. Too much stress will break the tripod socket out of the main casting and the most cost-effective repair is to browse the KEH used camera listings. The tripod socket in the Leicaflexes is on a separate sub-frame that will break if over-stressed and is much more economical to replace.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...