Leicaflex SL or SL 2

Having owned both, I favor the SL2, it being the last of the series and built like a tank. I used to be a left eye shooter but changed over years ago to right just so I didn't get poked in the eye by the film advance levers. As far as the cam guidelines, here is a simple explanation: Leica R Mount SLR Lenses - Photoethnography.com's Classic Camera DB Scroll down for the chart. Additionally, one can have lenses modified for different cam configurations.

Thanks for the link to the chart, very helpful, as is your experience changing eyes. I know a clay shooter who had a stroke, lost the use of his right arm and learnt to shoot off his left shoulder, using one arm, so I am embarrassed that I even considered it as a problem!

I loved my SL, and it had the best viewfinder I have ever seen. Keep in mind that these are big cameras, and pretty heavy for a 35mm SLR. A 90 2.8 Elmarit is a great lens, but then all of the R lenses are very, very good. Watch out for haze and fungus, as some lens models seem especially prone to this. You'll need to buy 2 or 3 cam lenses. Also, make sure the meter works properly, and ask about the viewfinder, as some of these have prism issues that will give you a darkened view through the viewfinder. My favorite model is the original Leicaflex though.

A CLA/d Leicaflex can cost you a pretty penny, but I have found good shooters on eBay for $120 to $150. Again, ask about the viewfinder and meter before making a purchase. You mentioned a fondness for simplicity....well, a Leicaflex SLR is anything BUT a simple camera. They are notoriously difficult to repair, and the shutters were so complicated and costly to manufacture that I understand Leica lost money on every one before finally abandoning them for the later R3 cameras. Which is why I shoot my R Summicron 90 2 lens on a Nikkormat FT and a Nikon n8008s by way of a $20 adapter :]

it might be interesting to see if the hype is justified

Exactly the reason why I got a Leica SLR a couple of years ago. With the right lenses (most of them), the hype is justified.

While the SL/SL2 always attracted me, I started with a R6. I wouldn't rate it an exceptional body, but it's quite small, silent and light, and roughly in the same price range. And it won't poke your eye, as the rewind lever can stay flush. I also have a R3 and R7, but I like those less than I do the R6 for various reasons. Anyway, possibly if you want a mechanical body, the R6 is also worth considering.

For lenses at a budget, my first recommendation would be the Summicron 50mm; easy to find and decent priced. Alternative would be the 60mm macro, which I also have - it's an excellent lens on all accounts, but for me it misses something compared to the 50mm. But hard to go wrong with either. All other lenses unfortunately tend to cost quite a bit more, except the Elmar-R 180mm (which I have - nice lens, but not as a first lens).

Leicaflex is not something I'd recommend for someone on a limited budget, unless you are willing to lose that entire budget if you make a purchasing mistake. The problem with vintage mechanical Leicaflex is the same problem afflicting the Zeiss Contarex (and Hasselblad, to a degree): bizarre construction that only a tiny handful of rapidly-aging gurus know how to repair properly (at fees that would make your ears bleed).

Everyone raves how beautifully "overbuilt" these cameras are, but "overbuilt" doesn't necessarily mean "intelligently built with a rational eye toward the servicing every camera will eventually require". The Leicaflex shutter mechanism is an Achilles Heel that may or may not bite you: lucky owners never experience a problem, but even a perfect example could break down at whim, and suddenly that bargain $200 Leicaflex becomes a terrifying money pit. The prisms are another weak point: de-silvering runs rampant in these 40 y/o bodies, and is the number one "gotcha" sellers conveniently don't mention in their $150-$200 Leicaflex listings.

Thats just the bodies. Next we encounter the insanely expensive lenses: if you truly are on any sort of restricted budget, that should be your dealbreaker right there. There was period of some years not too long ago when most of the common R lenses dropped to quite reasonable prices: that period is over. It died when Canon dilettantes in film schools realized they could use R glass to make "distinctive" movies on their DSLRs, then Sony nailed the coffin shut when it introduced the A7R mirrorless. Today, everybody and his mother with money to burn is chasing after R glass to adapt to digital, which drives prices higher on an almost monthly basis. Many clean 50mm Summicron Rs have drifted out of reach to bargain hunters, and every other focal length is way too pricey now.

Mind you, I'm not saying you shouldn't audition a Leicaflex if you feel drawn to one. The SL2 especially was one of the most exquisitely crafted photographic instruments of all time, handles like a dream, and was the only SLR ever made (other than the Nikon F2) that could meter down to -2 EV without an accessory booster. The super-bright focusing screen combined with that sensitive meter made the SL2 a killer available-light rig. Just understand, there really aren't any bargains: any example you see listed for as cheap as a used Nikon F is bound to have expensive problems, one way or another. This won't matter if all you want to do is play with a Leicaflex to scratch an itch, then quickly resell. But if you really think you'll fall in love with it and keep it, expect to pay a minimum $400 for a decent guaranteed Leicaflex SL with 50 Summicron (more for the SL2). Additional lenses will each easily cost the same.

You have to think of it like some of us who got into Hasselblad "on the cheap" when prices dropped significantly. Neither Hasselblad nor Leica were ever intended to come into the possession of mere mortals without thick wallets: they were designed for professionals and the wealthy, who could easily afford the upkeep (and the glass). Every time one of my Hassy lenses fails, and I know I'm facing down another $350 shutter overhaul, I curse a blue streak. Then I remember: the Zeiss Distagon I paid $400 for three years ago was still selling new for $4000 as recently as 2004. The intended buyer for a new $4000 lens didn't blink at a $350 overhaul every couple years: it was nothing to them. As with vintage luxury cars, the purchase price may tank enough for us to afford them, but the service costs don't budge an inch: a $10K Mercedes is all fun and games, until the brakes go out. Thats the Leicaflex.

Leicaflex is not something I'd recommend for someone on a limited budget, unless you are willing to lose that entire budget if you make a purchasing mistake. The problem with vintage mechanical Leicaflex is the same problem afflicting the Zeiss Contarex (and Hasselblad, to a degree): bizarre construction that only a tiny handful of rapidly-aging gurus know how to repair properly (at fees that would make your ears bleed).

 

Everyone raves how beautifully "overbuilt" these cameras are, but "overbuilt" doesn't necessarily mean "intelligently built with a rational eye toward the servicing every camera will eventually require". The Leicaflex shutter mechanism is an Achilles Heel that may or may not bite you: lucky owners never experience a problem, but even a perfect example could break down at whim, and suddenly that bargain $200 Leicaflex becomes a terrifying money pit. The prisms are another weak point: de-silvering runs rampant in these 40 y/o bodies, and is the number one "gotcha" sellers conveniently don't mention in their $150-$200 Leicaflex listings.

 

Thats just the bodies. Next we encounter the insanely expensive lenses: if you truly are on any sort of restricted budget, that should be your dealbreaker right there. There was period of some years not too long ago when most of the common R lenses dropped to quite reasonable prices: that period is over. It died when Canon dilettantes in film schools realized they could use R glass to make "distinctive" movies on their DSLRs, then Sony nailed the coffin shut when it introduced the A7R mirrorless. Today, everybody and his mother with money to burn is chasing after R glass to adapt to digital, which drives prices higher on an almost monthly basis. Many clean 50mm Summicron Rs have drifted out of reach to bargain hunters, and every other focal length is way too pricey now.

 

Mind you, I'm not saying you shouldn't audition a Leicaflex if you feel drawn to one. The SL2 especially was one of the most exquisitely crafted photographic instruments of all time, handles like a dream, and was the only SLR ever made (other than the Nikon F2) that could meter down to -2 EV without an accessory booster. The super-bright focusing screen combined with that sensitive meter made the SL2 a killer available-light rig. Just understand, there really aren't any bargains: any example you see listed for as cheap as a used Nikon F is bound to have expensive problems, one way or another. This won't matter if all you want to do is play with a Leicaflex to scratch an itch, then quickly resell. But if you really think you'll fall in love with it and keep it, expect to pay a minimum $400 for a decent guaranteed Leicaflex SL with 50 Summicron (more for the SL2). Additional lenses will each easily cost the same.

 

You have to think of it like some of us who got into Hasselblad "on the cheap" when prices dropped significantly. Neither Hasselblad nor Leica were ever intended to come into the possession of mere mortals without thick wallets: they were designed for professionals and the wealthy, who could easily afford the upkeep (and the glass). Every time one of my Hassy lenses fails, and I know I'm facing down another $350 shutter overhaul, I curse a blue streak. Then I remember: the Zeiss Distagon I paid $400 for three years ago was still selling new for $4000 as recently as 2004. The intended buyer for a new $4000 lens didn't blink at a $350 overhaul every couple years: it was nothing to them. As with vintage luxury cars, the purchase price may tank enough for us to afford them, but the service costs don't budge an inch: a $10K Mercedes is all fun and games, until the brakes go out. Thats the Leicaflex.

Thanks for the detailed response. I’ll take all that on board. Mostly, this is an itch that I want to scratch. I’m currently looking at an SL with 3 cam ‘late’ version 1 from a reputable dealer with 6 month guarantee at £299, including case. It’s in good shape cosmetically at least, and this seems like a pretty good price. I may get burned, but I might take that chance.

One day, I’ll have a Hassleblad too!

Thanks for the detailed response. I’ll take all that on board. Mostly, this is an itch that I want to scratch. I’m currently looking at an SL with 3 cam ‘late’ version 1 from a reputable dealer with 6 month guarantee at £299, including case. It’s in good shape cosmetically at least, and this seems like a pretty good price.

That sounds like a good prospect, coming from a known dealer with warranty. The price is within reason, esp if this SL has the upgraded metal lens release button instead of notoriously fragile red plastic (if its the plastic, just be careful not to bang it with anything). Three cam lenses are desirable because they don't need to be modified for use on later electronic R bodies (should you ever decide to expand your R kit). One thing you'll note with Leica: there's no end to the nitpicking and ranking of various lens versions. Some feel the earlier "snub nose" single cam lenses were the best (and vice versa), but in real world use it would be very very hard to tell the difference, and the later 3-cam is more versatile body-wise.

I've never used an SL2 but I bought an SL a few years ago for the same reason, and found it to be very satisfying.

I would look for one with a metal lens release tab, and a clear viewfinder. Supposedly, with the SL at least, the newer style metering cell with the panels (as opposed to an X) is more desirable but I don't know why exactly (its visible with the back open and the mirror in the up position).

I would also get a CLA asap - when mine locked up during routine shooting three years after I purchased it I quickly discovered that even in major cities no one will touch one with a ten foot pole. Those few who work on them are very expensive - which of course led me to kick myself for buying such a complex and potentially expensive camera. And then there is the headache of expensive lenses, though I really love the way they render images.

Its still my favorite camera but the expense of lenses and repairs means its not my most used one.

I've never used an SL2 but I bought an SL a few years ago for the same reason, and found it to be very satisfying.

 

I would look for one with a metal lens release tab, and a clear viewfinder. Supposedly, with the SL at least, the newer style metering cell with the panels (as opposed to an X) is more desirable but I don't know why exactly (its visible with the back open and the mirror in the up position).

 

I would also get a CLA asap - when mine locked up during routine shooting three years after I purchased it I quickly discovered that even in major cities no one will touch one with a ten foot pole. Those few who work on them are very expensive - which of course led me to kick myself for buying such a complex and potentially expensive camera. And then there is the headache of expensive lenses, though I really love the way they render images.

 

Its still my favorite camera but the expense of lenses and repairs means its not my most used one.

Thanks fo the advice. I’m still thinking of going for it, given the price. I’ve managed to determine it’s a ‘72 body with a ‘71 lens, and that the lens release is still plastic. Body is in very good condition with few signs of use so maybe it is an original coupling of lens and body that has never seen a CLA. Anyhow, at that price I reckon it is worth a punt, assuming the lens is OK which I am informed it is.

Toying over, it is now in my possession! There are a few very light brown specs down one side of the viewfinder, but otherwise in ver6 good condition and smooth as new. I’m very pleased.

It has a PX625 alkaline cell in it, 1.5v, but comparing meter readings with a Nikon D7000 at various ISO settings and in good light, average light and poor light reveals it is pretty close, perhaps half a stop on the generous side. I didn’t ask whether it had been converted. Does anyone know whether half a stop is about right for the error due to the incorrect voltage, it seems like not a lot to me . Given film latitude, not something I would ordinarily worry about, but curious to know if anyone has any experience of what error might be ‘ normal’

Thanks

Congratulations! Enjoy your new acquisition!

There isn't really a hard and fast rule about how far off various camera meters get when using modern alkaline replacements for their mercury cells. None of the cameras I've ever owned have followed the conventional brand/model wisdom on this point: each was off by a different amount, some were dead-on accurate despite "experts" saying they did not have the required bridge circuit. If your Leicaflex is consistently off by half a stop, then that is the error for your particular Leicaflex. Today's color negative films can handle that without breaking a sweat, but if you prefer to be precise just alter the ISO setting a half stop to compensate for the battery-induced error. Make a mental note to catch any sudden changes in meter accuracy: alkalines die off slowly, and as they lose power your meter accuracy will get increasingly inconsistent.

Or, toss the alkaline and do what almost all of us do instead: buy an 8-pak of zinc-air PX675 hearing aid batteries at the drugstore for.about $7. These run at the exact same 1.35 voltage as the old mercury cells and have a similar power dropoff curve (they only last a couple months, but maintain voltage to the bitter end and they're very cheap). They're smaller than the mercury/alkaline PX625, so you need to pad the battery chamber with a bit of something. You can also slip a #9 rubber O-ring around 675, this makes it fit perfect (O-rings are available at any hardware store for pennies). If you decide the Leicaflex is a keeper, you might consider investing in a reusable, durable metal adapter: pop in the smaller PX675 battery, and it looks exactly like a PX625. These sell for 10 to 15 dollars on eBay or Amazon.

Congratulations! Enjoy your new acquisition!

 

There isn't really a hard and fast rule about how far off various camera meters get when using modern alkaline replacements for their mercury cells. None of the cameras I've ever owned have followed the conventional brand/model wisdom on this point: each was off by a different amount, some were dead-on accurate despite "experts" saying they did not have the required bridge circuit. If your Leicaflex is consistently off by half a stop, then that is the error for your particular Leicaflex. Today's color negative films can handle that without breaking a sweat, but if you prefer to be precise just alter the ISO setting a half stop to compensate for the battery-induced error. Make a mental note to catch any sudden changes in meter accuracy: alkalines die off slowly, and as they lose power your meter accuracy will get increasingly inconsistent.

 

Or, toss the alkaline and do what almost all of us do instead: buy an 8-pak of zinc-air PX675 hearing aid batteries at the drugstore for.about $7. These run at the exact same 1.35 voltage as the old mercury cells and have a similar power dropoff curve (they only last a couple months, but maintain voltage to the bitter end and they're very cheap). They're smaller than the mercury/alkaline PX625, so you need to pad the battery chamber with a bit of something. You can also slip a #9 rubber O-ring around 675, this makes it fit perfect (O-rings are available at any hardware store for pennies). If you decide the Leicaflex is a keeper, you might consider investing in a reusable, durable metal adapter: pop in the smaller PX675 battery, and it looks exactly like a PX625. These sell for 10 to 15 dollars on eBay or Amazon.

Thanks for that comprehensive reply. I ordered a Wien cell, 1.35v, and it is further out (2 stops) than the 1.5 which makes me think it has been converted to 1.5v in the past. Either way, as you say, I can compensate by half a stop with the ISO setting.

The Wein cell itself is actually nothing more than a PX675 glued into an adapter shell. When the Wein cell dies, you should be able to pry the dead 675 from the middle of it and insert another new 675 (much cheaper than buying another complete Wein cell). There should be a couple youTube tutorials on how to re-use a dead Wein cell as an adapter for cheaper PX675s going forward. I buy 8-paks of 675s for $5 with free shipping from eBay.

Of course, since your Leicaflex seems to have been previously modded in favor of 1.5v, you could just use the common silver-oxide S76 battery in the adapter instead. The S76 took over from PX625 as the standard camera battery from the early '70s thru the AF revolution in the '80s. S76 is about the same size as PX675, but runs at 1.5V and lasts MUCH longer (a year or more in a needle meter like the Leicaflex). Silver PX625s were available briefly, but were killed off by the Wein cell, leaving just the alkaline PX625A nowadays. As I noted earlier, alkaline degrades slowly which causes meter errors after a few months. If your meter can tolerate 1.5v, the silver S76 in an adapter shell is the best compromise of cost vs durability vs power consistency. The pricey short-lived Wein cell or other adapted PX675 zinc-air options are only worth putting up with if your meter insists on precisely 1.35v.

Thank

The Wein cell itself is actually nothing more than a PX675 glued into an adapter shell. When the Wein cell dies, you should be able to pry the dead 675 from the middle of it and insert another new 675 (much cheaper than buying another complete Wein cell). There should be a couple youTube tutorials on how to re-use a dead Wein cell as an adapter for cheaper PX675s going forward. I buy 8-paks of 675s for $5 with free shipping from eBay.

 

Of course, since your Leicaflex seems to have been previously modded in favor of 1.5v, you could just use the common silver-oxide S76 battery in the adapter instead. The S76 took over from PX625 as the standard camera battery from the early '70s thru the AF revolution in the '80s. S76 is about the same size as PX675, but runs at 1.5V and lasts MUCH longer (a year or more in a needle meter like the Leicaflex). Silver PX625s were available briefly, but were killed off by the Wein cell, leaving just the alkaline PX625A nowadays. As I noted earlier, alkaline degrades slowly which causes meter errors after a few months. If your meter can tolerate 1.5v, the silver S76 in an adapter shell is the best compromise of cost vs durability vs power consistency. The pricey short-lived Wein cell or other adapted PX675 zinc-air options are only worth putting up with if your meter insists on precisely 1.35v.

thanks for that. I’ll look out some S76’s and get myself an adapter.