Is a Leica 3f a good option for getting into Leica?

<p>Hello, I've been in terms of buying myself a Leica to shoot with.<br>

It would perhaps surplant a couple of Russian rangefinders (FED3 and Zorki 4) and suppliment my Canon EOS film cameras that I use for fun (I shoot equestrian sport commercially with digital).<br>

I bought the rangefinders for a project I was working on and quite enjoyed using them, I'd thought that a real Leica might be nice to have instead of the copy.<br>

I've seen some Leica 3f bodies on eBay for around ~250 GBP and thought that might be a good place to start. I'd probably use a spare Russian 50/2.8 lens initially. <br>

Do you get a usable product for that money? Some are ~60 years or older, will they keep going for another 20? I don't want to throw money away, and I certainly don't want to spend DSLR money on a rangefinder. <br>

What is your advice?<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>I own a somewhat still working IIf and used two FEDs plus one Zorki for not many rolls. Issues I see: the LTM bodies aren't really a way of "getting into Leica*" since the Soviet RF coupling was made to Contax specs even in their LTM stuff, so the lenses we have are unlikely to shine wide open on the old Leicas, while anything else (i.e. German or Japanese) you'll hunt down will work (adapted to M too).<br>

I'm not overly familiar with the LTM lens market but looking at my dealer's offerings: The old lenses aren't cheap. Leica didn't have hard coatings back then so they are becoming cleaning marked or rare. Occasionally offered more modern lenses in LTM seem rare and cost accordingly. <br>

A decent 50mm would of course be fun to shoot on the old bodies. You'll get your time-traveller feeling and a nice compact camera to carry around all the time. - Unfortunately they seem sought after; i.e. 90mms are way cheaper but also less convenient to use since the auxiliary finder is more distant from the RM etc.<br>

Independent maintenance folks are most likely able to keep or get LTM Leicas going and with occasional CLAs a body should have some future. - Biggest issue worrying me would be the repair techs' retirements. <br>

With lens purchase and a minor repair (maybe needed next winter, when greases get sticky?) I see 550GBP written off. - If you have a Jupiter 9 playing well on your FED or Zorki I'd suggest sticking to that combo to keep your pennies together. <br>

*= Opinions what "Leica" might mean surely vary. - Does a body with Japanese lenses count? The old bodies still have their fans and take pictures. I'd absolutely recommend grabbing a LTM journalist's kit first and maybe adding an M body later etc. - I'm simply stating Soviet lenses and a Leica body might end making a beautiful paper weight. FTR: I am not sure how badly the Jupiter 9s perform on Leicas and guess everything will be fine around f8. - But is that what you are going for? </p>

<p>A iiif is quite a nice user camera and a good introduction to the Barnack Leicas.<br>

When you purchase one, I recommend budgeting for a CLA. Barnack Leicas have often been in storage for quite a while and have gummy, or soon to be gummy, shutters.<br>

You should be just fine with the Russian 50mm/2.8 lens; if it is the Industar, the lens has a reputation as a good performer The Jupiter 3 50mm/1.5 is well known to often have focus problems but the other Russian 50mm are usually OK. I have used quite a number Jupiter 8 50mm/2 lenses on a iiif without problems.<br>

Another lens to consider is the Canon (aka Serenar) 50mm/1.8. This is an inexpensive lens with perfect compatibility with a Leica and rivals the first generation Summicron 50mm/2 in performance.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I am afraid Jochen's long reply will have thoroughly confused the OP, although some parts of it are accurate.<br>

First, the OP's actual question - is a Leica IIIf a good choice? Yes - it has good features such as flash sync and a focusing rangefinder eyepiece and is "only" 65 or so years old. Unlike any other brand, Leicas were made of superior materials and very often used by amateurs on an occasional basis. You will very rarely find, even today, a Leica with worn-out parts. On the other hand, it is CERTAIN repeat CERTAIN to need a CLA, which must be factored into price considerations.<br>

Secondly, let me say this - when I was a student, I had a Leica IIIa, at that time just a cheap old camera. With this I used a 28mm Orion 6, 35mm Jupiter 12 and 135mm Jupiter 11. Never a problem. I think the idea of the Soviets building LTM cameras to the Zeiss Contax standard is a myth - at least in the West, Russian camera were sold to match with Leica components. This is not to deny that some Russian lenses were sloppily assembled - I have two 50mm Jupiter 3s, these went for cleaning and collimation and worked great on Leica bodies ever since.<br>

Thirdly, as an experiment I went to my collection and picked out a Leica M2, a Fed 2, a Leitz separate rangefinder (recently cleaned and calibrated), a Jupiter 3 50mm f1.5, a genuine pre-war Leica Elmar 50mm f3.5, a Canon Serenar 50mm f1.9 and an 50mm Industar 26 50mm f2.8. I spent a little time focusing numerous combinations on a target close to my desk - every combination gave a distance reading of 1.6 m. The only incompatibility was that it turns out that a genuine LTM body has a slightly thinner body and a slightly thicker throat ring (same effective register) - as a result I could not push the infinity lock of the 50mm Elmar in far enough to release it when the lens was on a non-Leica body.<br>

Finding a technician - yes, some have retired. I send my Leicas to Newton Ellis & Co of Liverpool and recommend this company highly - the Leica man is called Ian Pettman. One good CLA followed by light camera use will probably last the rest of anyone's life.<br>

Nitpicking time - Jochen talks about a Jupiter 9 - this is an 85mm, he probably means a Jupiter 8 (50mm). I don't know what "RM" means. The bargain lens option is an Industar 61-LD 55mm f2.8 - not at all bad, there seem to be thousands about so they sell for peanuts!</p>

<p>If you're not going to use flash, why get the added complexity of the sync mechanism?<br /> On the Leica screw mount models, the flash sync mechanism is <strong>heavily reliant</strong> on everything including the lubricant to be in top condition. High speeds in particular are affected by the 'drag' of this mechanism even if flash isn't being used.</p>

<p>This is true for IIIf Black and Red dials, and especially the IIIg. The Leica IIIc on the other hand, has all of the internal improvements not found on the earlier Leica III units (Yes, this includes IIIa, IIIb etc.), but without this added flash complexity. So if your desire is to obtain a genuine Leica screwmount body, I'd recommend the bargain <strong>IIIc</strong>...</p>

<p>Now if it doesn't have to be a "Leica", then hands down the <strong>Canon P</strong> camera body (<a href="/leica-rangefinders-forum/00ZwJJ">for so many reasons</a>), is a far better choice than even a IIIg ! - Here's our own <strong><em>Louis M.</em></strong> on this <a href="/classic-cameras-forum/00ZjJv">great camera body</a> <<< click</p>

<p>Firstly let me say that I have been a Leica user for almost half a century, but I've used lots of other cameras as well. The issue I see in the Barnack bodies (I have several) is that simply they cannot take advantage of the immense improvement and unique characteristics of Leica lenses manufactured since the 1960s. I, personally love using my Barnacks, mostly because of size and focusing characteristics (I have extremely poor vision these days), but they are "squinty" compared to the M models. I think a tuned up M2 would be a great way to capture the "Leica experience" - you could not only use older lenses but also all of the newer ones. Gus (and Louis) make a great case for the Canon P as an inexpensive alternative in the screwmount category. Whatever you get in these older bodies, the camera will probably benefit from a CLA which should last a lifetime for you. Good luck in your choice.</p>

<p>I agree, an M is a much superior camera in every way. The IIIF's squinty, non-parallax corrected viewfinder, separate r/f and v/f, film trimming etc etc. why put yourself through all this? An M3/M2 would be a much better place to start, even if they are more expensive. If you just want to collect a nice Barnack Leica then the IIIF is great, but as a shooter, I would not use one these days. I also agree about the Canon P as a worthy purchase.</p>

<p>The comments above are accurate. I've used Leica IIIc, IIIf and IIIg LTM bodies for many decades, but rarely now as I have a good M3 body which I prefer. Of the Leica film rangefinders, the M3 with a 50 Summicron is a great shooter. Although not a problem with the M3, if you wear glasses you will be pressing them against the LTM rangefinder/viewfinder windows as there is little eye relief, the M3 has a much better and brighter combined finder window. If you prefer 35mm lenses to 50mm, the M2 is the preferred setup as it has a built in 35 viewer frame. All LTM bodies frame the 50m lenses, not 35s. I note that you shoot equestrian sport pictures. Shooting moving subjects is not easy with a standard LTM body. An LTM body with the collapsible Elmar is useful as a casual back up camera and doesn't take up much space. No LTM is metered so you'll have to be ready to meter subjects. There is one advantage the LTM bodies and M2/M3 have over digital, there is no shutter lag. Robin made a good point regarding the Canon P. Good camera, and if it has a Canon f1.4 50, that is a good set up. I use the Canon 1.4 50 with an LTM to M adapter on my M3 and have consistently excellent results.</p>

<p>I believe the OP is not planning to use a Leica for equestrian photography, just for fun. A IIIf has a squinty viewfinder, the design brief was obviously a camera that would fit easily into a pocket, but it does have the advantage over an M2/M3 of a built-in variable diopter correction for the RF. The frame lines of an M2/M3 make for quicker working, but this is not really the point of a fun camera - a supplementary multifocal finder does the job very well. What makes any film Leica up to and including the M3 very slow is the film rewind - some PJs would change films after shooting 24 frames as a precaution against running out of film - but you have to go to an M4 to get the faster rewind crank. Even a Leica Ic/If (I have a If) is a practical proposition - you have to use a supplementary rangefinder and viewfinder, it's a bit slower but if you're not actually covering a fast-breaking news story, who cares?</p>

<p>The LTM cameras are fun to use in their own right. They aren't, of course, the same as M Leicas, which give you a wider choice of modern and classic lenses, more convenient film loading, and much more sophisticated viewfinders. However, they are significantly smaller cameras that will easily fit in a jacket pocket with one of the collapsible 50mm lenses (like the Elmar) that match the built-in viewfinder (the IIIg is a bit bigger, usually more expensive, and also has a 90mm frameline). With a little practice, they are also surprisingly fast cameras to use - you soon get used to the knob film advance and separate rangefinder. Read the instructions (especially on film trimming) before using one of these cameras:<br /><br /><br /> http://www.butkus.org/chinon/leica/leica_iiia/leica_iiia.htm<br /> http://www.butkus.org/chinon/leica/leica_iiic/leica_iiic.htm<br /> http://www.butkus.org/chinon/leica/leica_if_iif_iiif/leica_if_iif_iiif.htm<br /> http://archive.org/details/leicamanualamanu028253mbp<br /> http://archive.org/details/leicamanual000737mbp<br /> <br />As a user, the main thing is to find one in full working order. I wouldn't worry about their longevity, provided you are prepared to pay for any work that needs doing to bring them up to spec - a Leica from the 1930s may well be more serviceable than an electronic camera from the 90s. However, you can make your life easier (and reduce costs down the road) by choosing a body that doesn't have some of the more obvious service issues. Try to find one that has clear, high contrast rangefinder double images, a smooth film advance mechanism you can work with one finger, slow speeds that aren't hesitant or sticky, and undamaged shutter curtains with no pinholes. The last time I went shopping for LTM cameras, probably the majority had one or more issues that needed attention (especially faded rangefinder images). Rather than picking a specific model in advance (anything from the original II to a IIIg can be a great user), you might be better just looking for one you like where everything works as it should. As you're close to London, I'd suggest going in to town one day and doing the round of the dealers, where you can handle the cameras yourself and get an idea of how they vary in condition and features, e.g.:<br /><br /><br /> http://www.richardcaplan.co.uk<br /> http://apertureuk.com<br /> http://www.reddotcameras.co.uk<br /> http://theclassiccamera.com<br /><br /><br />I've shopped at all of these except the third, which has a good reputation. I've seen mixed reports online about the last one, but had good service there myself. Some dealer prices aren't much different to ebay. If you do buy online, make sure you can return the camera if necessary. If it still needs servicing, two very well respected technicians are Peter Grisaffi (CRR) and Malcolm Taylor:</p>

<p>http://www.crrluton.co.uk<br /> http://leica.nemeng.com/005d.shtml<br /><br /></p>

<p>"Getting into Leica" can mean two quite different things: screw Leicas or M Leicas. Presumably you are thinking of a IIIf as you have experience of the FED 3 and the Zorki 4; although only the FED 1 and the Zorki 1 are truly Leica copies, as a single glance will tell you.</p>

<p>Peter Meade's photo portfolio presents a wide range of subjects that are nicely done. Having a professional photographer being willing to try a Leica LTM for the first time is new to me. Hopefully he'll soon find a good LTM and share his Leica experience with us. </p>

<p>My father's IIIf is the first sophisticated camera I learned to use. I now have an M4-P too, but I still like the IIIf for carrying around. Very compact with the 50/3.5 Elmar and 35/3.5 Summaron.</p>

<p>I also recommend the Canon P. This is also a descendant of a copy of a Leica, but with many features added by Canon.</p>

<p>But also, they are more likely to work without a CLA, and seem to be much more affordable in either case. And if you get one with a Canon LTM lens, you can use that lens on the Leica, if you get one later.</p>

<p>Or a Canon P and Leica lens?</p>

<p>Hello all,<br>

Many thanks for your wisdom.<br>

P</p>

<p>I know this is late, but I'd say no. The viewfinder will drive you crazy and you'll still pay a fair bit of money for the camera and the lenses (though by Leica standards they might not be THAT expensive). Also as people say above, they might need service (even Leicas might need service every 60 years or so).</p>

<p>If you want to buy a camera to use, I wouldn't go any earlier than the M2 or M3 (and for that you're using Film of course). Then look for the older model summicrons which are at least reasonable in price. If you are not sure about the whole rangefinder mystique, there are better ways to spend a few throwaway bucks -- I like the old Konica I, it's super cheap and it's quite well made (fixed lens but it feels like a fine rangefinder). Or there are lots of good Canon rangefinders which are reasonably priced and will give you the feel -- the P and the 7 are both good users.</p>

<p>Nothing is going to feel like a real Leica that is well serviced. They're beautiful machines but they're an expensive indulgence. </p>

<p>IIIc without Flash Sync, or a M would be better for your needs. The M opens up the world of later M mount lenses; your LTM lenses will work with an adapter.</p>

<p>Russian LTM lenses were initially produced before WWII, as direct copies of Leitz LTM lenses. Issues of backfocus are due to sloppy manufacturing quality, not use of a different standard. Jupiter 3 and Jupiter 8 lenses are quite good, as is the Industar 55. I have a FED 2 and Zorki 3M. The later is somewhat rare, but handles much better, with a large and bright viewfinder.</p>

<p>Russian adaption of Contax as KIEV did not begin until after WWII, when the Contax factory, equipment and personal were shipped to Russia and then reassembled. Very early Kiev equipment is interchangeable with and virtually identical to the Contax I and II. </p>