Question for Leica II users

[john dorfman]

I have a nice Leica II that has been CLA'd and takes excellent photos (well, it does its

part; the rest depends on me!) One thing bugs me about it, though, and I wonder if

anybody who uses a model II has any input. The secondary (moving) image in the

rangefinder is brighter than the primary image (the one that stays put). In all other

Leica screw-mounts that I've sampled, it's the other way around. The round

secondary-image field is quite bright and clear, but strangely it often seems to blot

out the primary image, so it's hard to focus at those times. It kind of depends on

variable factors of background, contrast, etc.

 

The Leica II's rangefinder is different from all the later models, I know, in that it's life-

size rather than 1.5x and lacks a diopter adjustor. I take a -2 diopter or thereabouts,

ideally, so the RF works best if I wear my glasses. But it's OK without. Also, the glass

pieces in the two RF windows are slightly different colors: bluish in the right-hand

one (looking at the camera with the lens pointed toward you) and yellowish in the

left-hand one. It was like that when I got it; I wonder if it was came that way from the

factory or if it's a legacy of a CLA decades ago?

 

Thanks for any insights!

[huw_finney]

My newly (though sadly) aquired II has near as damn 50/50 moving vs. fixed patches and no colour cast in either. May I suggest that the RF beam split mirror has been replaced with a gold/blue one. My IIIb and IIIg have had the RF mirror replaced by me with a bit of dichroic mirror, it is what I had lying about, to increase the RF contrast as the original mirrors where shot. These have a quite vivid green/magenta split in the RF now.

 

Re reading your post reinforces my assumption of a gold/blue splitter as this would transmit blue (right window) and reflect gold (left window). These gold/blue mirrors have an evaporated gold coating on them, much more durable than the aluminium of older ones, new neutral coloured splitters use rodium.

 

Replacing the mirror is not a big task, getting one is unless you can find a bit of 50/50 splitter.

[Troll]

My II Rangefinder also seems brighter on the mirror side. I just bought a RF filter (at ebay), and using it over the primary window helps a lot. Incidentally, the RF images seem brighter in the II than in my IIIf.

[john dorfman]

Huw and Bill, thank you very much. Bill, do you mind saying how much that filter

cost? I'd like to try one. Is yours black or chrome?

[huw_finney]

Bill, it would, no magnification.

[huw_finney]

John, try a piece of sweet wrapper or simmilar first. A good source of fun filters is the sample swatch from Lee filters (Google), they do two sets, one in colour order for real people and one in number order for buyers! p.s. they are free for the asking.

[john dorfman]

Huw, thanks again! You are a seemingly bottomless well of knowledge and

experience. Maybe I can get instant gratification by just holding an ordinary orange

screw-in filter for a lens over the window so it doesn't cover the other window.

 

I must say, there's something I really like about that Leica II. I had used only postwar

screwmounts before that, and I feel as if the II is quieter and smoother and its little

windows less prone to haze. Also the smaller size is perceptible and satisfying.

Actually, mine started life as a model I way back in '28. It's a beautiful camera, and it

sort of pains me to put anything but a matching nickel-finish lens on it, but

unfortunately, nickel lenses that aren't scratched up are too rare for me to find or

afford. Currently I'm hunting for a coated Elmar 50/3.5 to put on it. Of course it will

be chrome.

[Troll]

John, I bid $35 for the prewar RF filter, but the final price was $28.33 (plus $5 shipping). Incidentally, I agree with you about the original Barnack cameras. I prefer everything about it over the IIIf except 1) the viewfinder eyepiece next to the RF eyepiece, and 2) the lack of eyes for carrying strap. I have no problem with the 1/20 sec maximum shutter speed, and lack of slow speeds. Damnit, it just FEELS RIGHT! (The M's lost that perfect feel -- I've never liked them as well.)

[huw_finney]

John,

 

Good chrome plate (as I assume Leica use) is done over nickel, so remove the chrome with hydrochloric acid (brick cleaner).

[john dorfman]

Thanks, Bill. That's a pretty reasonable price. Huw, I think I'll leave the splashing

around of acid to you! I know I would come to grief.

[dan flanders]

The window spacing on the older Barnacks never bothered me and in fact I think I prefer the big switch to having to make up my mind which one I am looking through! Lack of slow speeds is to me, and asset since there is no escapment to get out of order and screw up the main shutter. It seems to me that if the curtains themselves don't wear out their timing will last longer without a CLA than There is something to be said for the nickel finish to match that on the camera fittings, but there is enough improvement in the RS Elmar to justify its use (I must admit that I also have an old nickel Elmar, but it really needs the cobwebs removed.

[john_shriver]

The slow-speed escapement in the screw-mount Leica III's is connected to the high-speed shutter mechanism in a way that poses a very low risk of trouble.

[Troll]

Maybe so, John, but there have always been stories of the camera being mucked up by shooting at higher speeds and accidentally having the slow speed dial not at 1/20. In fact, it was said that was why the later cameras have a lock on the ss dial, to prevent this. I had a Nicca (copy of the G) on which it was guaranteed to cause lockup.

[scott_seago]

John,

 

You never know when you'll run into a Nickel Elmar at a good price. I got a 1932 Leica II on ebay at a BIN price too good to pass up. The same seller had listed this camera's (presumably) original Nickel Elmar lens at a $75 buy-it-now price, but I was 15 minutes too late -- still, someone got an excellent deal on it.

 

You could always go for a nickel Hektor, the other appropriate lens for a black Leica II :-) -- There's currently one listed for $500 -- I won't be bidding on that one.

 

Scott

[dan flanders]

"The slow-speed escapement in the screw-mount Leica III's is connected to the high-speed shutter mechanism in a way that poses a very low risk of trouble." <p> I had a IIIc that went back to the techies several times but the shutter just wouldn't work consistently at higher speeds. I had the slow speeds removed and never had any more trouble. I have a IIc whose shutter has never failed me while several other Barnacks kept the techies in business. Perhaps the theory is correct but it doesn't always reflect actual experience.