Any Leica II (d) owners out there?

[mrbutterworth]

Hello:

 

I am curious what owners of Leica II's think of their cameras. Anyone

shoot theirs often? How accurate is the focus? Could I shoot a

Summarit with reasonable accuracy? If not, what do you think is the

limit for lens speed? Are they really that hard to load? Anything to

look for when buying? Anything that would keep it from being a decent

shooter?

 

Thanks for any responses!

[Troll]

Love it. Rangefinder is straight through (1:1) so the focus accuracy is about 2/3 of the III. Putting a Summarit on it is like dropping a 409 into a Miata - it can be done, but why would you want to do it? The proper lens for a II is a Summar or an Elmar. Loading is even trickier than a IIIc. If everything seems to work and there are no holes in the shutter, figure $200 for a good CLA and you'll have a wonderful shooter. Ergonomically, it fits one's hand even better than the later IIIc,f,g.

[jerry_lehrer]

Nick

 

You must be joking. It is tough enough to find any real IIId owners

out there. Most IIId's are counterfeit (sp?)

 

As far as I know, there never was a IId.

 

Jerry

[al_kaplan1]

The rangefinder of the II was essentially the same as on all the later screw mount Leicas. The pre-war 50mm f/1.5 Schneider Xenon was available for it. The Summarit was based on the Xenon design. You should have no trouble focussing your lens. Just cut a 4 inch long leader on your film and it's easy to load. Check the rangefinder to make sure it lines up at infinity. If not it's an easy fix, you can do it yourself.

[Troll]

The model II is also known as the model D in USA (A is original, B is Compur, C is interchangable lenses, D has rangefinder). The Xenon didn't come along until 1936, a year after introduction of the model IIIa (G). From the model III onwards, the rangefinder had a 1.5X magnifier, which increased the accuracy of focusing long and/or fast lenses, and required a built-in diopter adjustment.

[Rob F.]

Gerald: He said II (d) not IIId. The II, also known as the D, preceded the IIIa, not to mention the IIId, which was essentially a IIIc with self-timer. The D resembled the later thread-mounts, but had no slow speed dial, and lacked a few other refinements that were added later: frills like strap lugs, 1/1000 speed, etc.

 

I used to have one. My dad had one, too. Sometimes I wish I had mine back. It's a good camera, but there is perhaps little reason to lust after one compared to the more refined IIIc or IIIf, if photography is the objective.

 

'Bye for now . . .

[todd frederick]

I just sold a Black Leica II with nickel Elmar to the friend of the gentleman who bought a IIIC from me. the person who uses the older cameras restores them and also restores Nikon F cameras. If you want to make contact with him, send me an e-mail and I can provide his friend's e-mail address. Somehow I'm sure you can make contact.

[rgh]

Just to clarify for Gerald and others that may not have the information. When

Nick wrote Leica II (d) he was properly identifying this camera by it 2 different

model names. In different markets it was called a Leica II or Leica D, and by

collectors now by both names to clear up confusion � although its seemed to

cause some here. The Leica model I was the first Leica production camera

with many small changes during the first few years. Model B basically the

same with a compur shutter, and the Model C with standardized lens mount.

These were all as I said basically the same camera a �Model I�. With the

Model II the important development, an addition of the rangefinder, made for a

need in a different distinct Model identification, and so the Leica II, but in

chronological order a �Model D� too. The model E or �Standard� was basically

a Model I �economy Model� again with a few other features. The next camera,

a Model III or Model F had the improvements of strap lugs, diopter adjustment,

1.5x magnification rangefinder, and slow shutter speeds.

 

You can find all the information you need in any Leica collectors book.

 

As for the original question, Nick I would go for a Leica III myself, and I have a

couple times. These have all the handling advantages of a small original style

Leica like the Leica II, but with the addition of the rangefinder dioptre and a

1.5x magnification make it a real possibility with a fast lens and easier to

focus. Strap lugs and slow shutter speeds, it has all the advantages of a

�modern� camera. Film loading is still a pain, but its just part of the package

and you deal with it. The trade off is a small very well built classic camera. I

feel the black paint with nickel parts Leica III to be the most elegant of all

Leica cameras. Its a true beauty and its amazing that after 65 or so years they

can still function so well as a working camera. The 50mm Elmar was the

�standard� lens for this camera, with the Summar being the �advanced� lens at

that time and cost over 3 times as much. In today�s dollars, the Leica III would

have cost more than a Leica M7, it was a �serious� camera. I generally use my

50mm Summar for that 1930s and soft contrast look (still sharp at medium

apertures, and equipped with proper lens hood), and sometimes a more

recent (1952) Summicron, but I find the heavier Summicron to throw the

handling balance off. The finder is one weak spot, and a nice 50mm 1:1

external finder will help. All in all the Leica III (or Model F) is a really nice

�pocket� camera, the original Leica idea of photography � highest quality in a

small package.

 

Good Luck,

[nick roberts]

I've a IIf, on which I use a C/V Nokton (50mm f1.5) with no focus problems - however, it blocks nearly half the viewfinder!

It's a lovely little camera, great fun in many ways but hopelessly impractical compared to my M6 or CL, or even my FEDs. But I still love it.

[carey_russ]

A friend of mine has one, and just bought another today. I ran a roll of film through the first a couple of days ago, with my funky (cleaning marks = Van Gogh bokeh wide open, entertaining) Summarit, the nickel 3.5 Elmar that came with it, and a Summaron. It has had work on it (hey, it's 70 years old, I should be in such great shape at that age), and a diopter adjustment was added at some time in the distant past. Rangefinder image is a little smaller than a IIIc or f, or M3, but very useable. How often do you use the slow speeds, anyway? Plus the quality of the finish makes even black paint M4s look kind of cheesy, and the aren't.

 

Bottom line: wonderful piece of history and a completely useable camera, and there's nothing like black paint Leicas. Here is a test picture with the Summarit, from 1 meter wide open. Not for artistic value, I just found deep shade and something obvious to focus on - the vertical blade of grass. If the rangefinder is adjusted properly, no problem, just like any other rf camera.

[carey_russ]

As an addition, the classic 50mm f3.5 collapsable Elmar is the perfect lens for any LTM camera. Works on an M, too, with an adapter, and it's not all that softer than the new 2.8 Elmar M (I have both). The Summarit is heavy, as are the Summicron and Summitar on an LTM body. Loading is not all that bad, easier if you cut the leader but it can be done without cutting the leader. Does make you really appreciate the M4 on instant load system, though. But using a screw mount Leica is like driving an old car, there are more things to deal with and that is part of the fun.

 

Here's one from the II with the original 1932 Elmar. The lens that made Leica famous, and deservedly so.<div></div>

[jerry_lehrer]

Gentlemen

 

Thanks for the attempts at edification on the Leica geneology. Rest

assured that I am intimatly familiar with Leicas, having used them

since 1943.

 

If Nick had said II(D), I might not have responded at all. His

use of the lower case (d) threw me into a fit of nostalgia. Made

me think of the time in 1946 when Kurt Olden of Olden Camera in

NYC offered me a real IIId. I opted to buy two Kardons from him instead.

One military version, one civilian, both in new condition.

 

My knee joint is not in good enough condition to kick myself. If I

could, I would.

 

Jerry

[mrbutterworth]

WOW, thanks for all the responses!

 

You have convinced me that the proper lens is a collapsible Elmar. I can see how the other lenses would make the camera unbalanced.

 

I am sure that an newer body would be more user friendly, but I love the simplicity of the II (D). Now I just have to find one in good shape.

 

Thanks much,