I Don't Have a Leica - waaaahhh!

<p>Ok, just kidding of course. But, I have a lot of nice rangefinders, but no Leica. The obvious reason is I can't afford them. But maybe I can now. Not a new one certainly, but maybe a nicely used one. But what one? I have a devil of a time sorting through what seems to be dozens of models, and within them so many sub-models. I thought I would try asking for a hint based on what I do with my current cameras. Makes sense, doesn't it?</p>

<p>I do mostly street, travel and landscape using film - mostly B&W. 95% outdoors - very seldom indoors and the last time I used a flash gun they were still called, uh guns. I have some nice screw mount lenses I use with my Bessa and my Canon 7. But, I suppose I could go with a M-mount - I don't want to limit it. I like wide angle lenses, and I do shoot a lot in available light, and low light. I have a Contax G1 computerized camera already, so I don't need another of that genre, especially a costly one. I wear eyeglasses. I really enjoy big bright finders. I know how to use a light meter and I have one, so it doesn't need to be TTL. I want one of those Leicas that people say are "genuine" - not the ones that were made in some often discussed wilderness period of plastic or budget materials.</p>

<p>And of course I want to know the ideal normal lens! (There's a million of those too!). I just want to have the experience and see if it matches the expectation. Seems like a fun thing to try.</p>

<p>My advice, get a user quality M3 or M2 and the adapters that allow screw mount lenses to fit. Leave the mint Leicas to the collectors who pay high. The screw mount Leicas are great but the view finders are squinty and loading can be an issue for some people.</p>

<p>"I really enjoy big bright finders."<br>

This means an M unless you want to keep switching between expensive accessory finders. If 35mm is one of the wide focal lengths you like, then the M2 is to be preferred over the M3. An M4 of any sub-type will also serve, but it will probably cost more.<br>

But your pictures may be no better than those you get with your Canon 7 and Bessa and G1. You do not <em>need</em> a Leica.</p>

<p>M3 would be the classic, I guess. I do not think there is a right answer for your question. I switched from an M4 to an M6 for the convenience of a light meter - while I know how to use an external on, it can become somewhat of a nuisance sometimes. I think the M6 is a solid piece but obviously has more plastic than the M3/4/2.</p>

<p>Normal Lens? on a budget probably use your screw mounts. If you have the money and can find one (neither true for me), the 50mm Summi ASPH comes to mind. I am quite happy with my 50 Summicron (an older version).</p>

<p>Just my 2 cents....</p>

<p>Ok - we're getting there.<br>

Yeah, I don't <em>need</em> one - of course! I just think it would be fun to have the experience, so I can know first hand what people are talking about. Feel the mystique up close.<br>

Honing in on M2/M3? - lemme go see if I understand the difference.</p>

<p>The M3 has view-finder frames for 50, 90 and 135 while the M2 has them for 35, 50 and 90. There are other differences, but they need not concern you. I have used Leicas for some decades but I don't see any mystique in them.</p>

<p>And really, the experience is a little different depending on the model you get, which is why I think it is less important which one you get. They will become like children to you, in that they each have a slightly different feel and behavior. Their idiosyncrasies make the experience interesting.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I really enjoy big bright finders."<br />This means an M </p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, this means the Zeiss Ikon, even more so if you use flash. <a href="http://elekm.net/zeiss_ikon/pages/one-year.html">http://elekm.net/zeiss_ikon/pages/one-year.html</a></p>

<p>For what you describe, actually the best rangefinder would be the Zeiss Ikon. It has the best viewfinder ever made, particularly friendly to a glass wearer, and the frames cover all the range from 28 to 85mm. It is also lighter than a Leica, which has its advantages on the road. <br>

An alternative "retro" approach would be to get the M2 and use it with a lightmeter, however, it does not have the 28mm frames. BTW, if you wear glasses, you would need to look for an M6/M7 or MP with a 0.58x VF in order to be able to see them anyway.<br>

Finally, given that you are predominantly a B&W shooter and like landscapes, you will want a high resolution low contrast normal lens, which is precisely the description of the Rigid or DR 50mm Summicron - the DR is heavier, and with goggles can focus very close, the rigid is lighter, but has the infinity lock which is a PITA - optically they are identical and absolutely superb. (the DR might also not mount on a Zeiss Ikon)</p>

 

<p>He wants a Leica. His budget is not unlimited. He does not use flash. I have nothing against the Zeiss Ikon, <strong>but it is not a Leica -- and he wants a Leica.</strong></p>

<p>I would recommend a Leica M2 for you Mark. The viewfinder is better suited than a Leica M3 for street photography and journalism, in my opinion. If you doubt it, look through each viewfinder and make up your own mind. Also, I believe the Leica M2 is better made than the M3. (see Rangefinder Article on page 14, Volume 33, #1, with quotes from Don Goldberg).</p>

<p>As has been said, you can use your Leica Thread Mount lenses on whichever Leica M model you choose. I use the inexpensive screw mount adapters available on eBay without ever having an issue. However, if you do have a problem with a lens you are familiar with, suspect the aftermarket mount first.</p>

<p>I will try to email you the article from the Rangefinder Magazine referred to above regarding this subject.</p>

<p>Nope, can't attach a PDF through pnet. Email your email address to me and I will send you the article.</p>

<p>Robert, would you please send the article to me also? I am uthappam at gmail dot com.</p>

<p>Will do Mukul.</p>

<p>Well, well, well, now this IS getting interestinger and interestinger by the moment. Maybe then, what I really asked was "what's the neatest RF for the kind of shooting I do?"</p>

<p>Marek - thanks for the explanation about the glasses and VF. I think I always get confused about that magnification point.<br>

Fred - Neat link on the Zeiss Ikon! I'm diving into that now - thanks!</p>

<p>Take your pick:<br>

M3 - the original real classic - 50-90-135mm framelines only.<br>

M2 - 35-50-90mm framelines - great - slightly less luxuriouis than an M3 perhaps.<br>

M4 the best of both worlds - 35-50-90-135mm framelines - rapid rewind crank.<br>

These are the classic Ms - take you pick. I think on a budget I would go for the M2 (later one with a self timer).</p>

<p>Thank you, Robert.</p>

<p>Mark, this drastic revision means that those who answered your original question, wasted their time. The title of the thread has no meaning any more. Besides, the ZI is too young still to have that mystique thing you spoke of.</p>

<p>Mokul--<br>

No, no, no one wasted their time at all! I was making some jokes there - see? Zeiss Ikon! I spit on Zeiss Ikon!<br>

Don't go all serious on me now...<br>

What kind of photographer would I be without eventually having the Leica? You know?</p>

<p>Robert - -<br>

That was a very convincing article on the M2. Thank you for that. I'm going to see what those cost.</p>

<p>I want to buy a rangefinder:<br>

http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7320285/</p>

<p>Years ago (1960s) I was about to get my first Leica...my shipmate and advisor in this matter was a former Leica salesman, and owned an M3 which he let me use along with an assortment of lenses. He told me that the M3 was absolutely the best of the best. Then a Leica factory rep came aboard with a sparkling new M4 and I was captivated. I struggled (had two days to make a choice) and in the end the M4 won out...and I've never looked back. Around 2002-3 I again got captivated by an M6ttl and supplemented the M4 for a couple of years...but the M6 was a little bigger and I really didn't need the additional features, so sold it to a Leica hungry person. The best advice I can offer, ESPECIALLY since you already own an assortment of RF cameras...is to wrap your hands around an M2, M3 and M4 and look thru each one's viewfinder, operate the film advance, and see which works best for you...there really is no other way to make such an important decision. Have fun making your choice. There of course really is no mystique, just extremely well crafted classic cameras and lenses. Outsiders (non-owners) have helped build the legend and we owners proudly adopted and fostered what others believe.</p>

<p>This is actually a relatively easy answer - either an M3 for the classic nature, or a user M6 to have all the Leica bennies with a meter. Simple enough.</p>

<p>My Leica came from the Ukraine and smells of fresh lacquer. Remarkable preservation there in the old USSR. ;)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The M3 is great. I use my double stroke with a reasonably affordable 50mm 2.8 Elmar (old version) and a 90mm 2.8 Elmarit tele. Both lenses for me have a unique signature espcially when used with an old style film like Foma. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>My Leica came from the Ukraine and smells of fresh lacquer. Remarkable preservation there in the old USSR. ;)</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>At least it doesn't smell like vodka, JDM.</p>

 

<p>Mark, I too have wanted a Leica for a long time and like you didn't feel I could afford them. Then Mr. Kobayashi comes along and and made good lenses that ordinary people can afford. After a lot of research I settled on an M4-2, a mid production sample from late 1978. This saved money for the lenses. The M4-2 does not have the same reputation as an M4 but is several hundred dollars less in like condition. Sure, it's made in Canada but mine is a solid camera and the viewfinder is great. My lens choice was the Voigtlander 21 f4 LTM w/adapter and the Voigtlander 35mm f2.5 M mount. For a short tele the 90mm f4 Elmar's in LTM are so cheap I could't pass them up and they are tiny. My whole kit can fit in a small Tamrac bag along with 3 or 4 extra rolls of film and an ancient Sekonic L-205 Viewmeter. This is just my opinion but I would also consider the M4-2, a real sleeper in Leicaland.</p>