Only one.

[gus_gus1]

<p>If you can only afford to buy one Leica M range finder and one lens, which would it be? Only one of each. No digital. Film only. Gus.</p>

[Robert_Lai]

<p>M3 with Zeiss ZM 50mm Sonnar.</p>

<p>M3: Big, beautiful finder that never flares, and has the highest linear rangefinder accuracy.</p>

<p>ZM 50 1.5 Sonnar: Gorgeous rendering from this lens. I have had other 50mm, including the Summicron 50 collapsible, latest version Summicron 50 (with pull out hood), Canon 1.4, Nikkor HC f/2. However, the rendition from the Zeiss Sonnar is just the best for people pictures with great background bokeh. It has good contrast wide open, which is often lacking from some of the older lenses.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Black M5 3-lug with 'lux 35/1.4 ASPH FLE<br /> But then I don't shoot film anymore ;-(</p>

[emraphoto]

<p>i recently did this. M6 classic .85 with zeiss 35mm C</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Simplicity and compactness count for me. The M4-2 with 35mm Summicron type IV and a Gossen Luna Pro digital meter (or sometimes the Minolta spotmeter F). My Summicron ASPH is perhaps a better lens but I liked the rendition of the type IV, especially for B&W. </p>

[steve_hoffman]

<p>M2-R w/ Dual 50 Cron.</p>

<p>Money no object? MP a la carte, black paint, smooth black leather and 50 'Lux ASPH.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>If money were no object, probably a Leica M240 with a Summilux 35mm. However money is an object, so I'll stick with my lightly used M9-P and a Zeiss 35/2.8 Biogon - a great matchup.</p>

<p> </p>

[SCL]

<p>Come on guys - he said NO DIGITAL! I'd choose an M4 with a 35/2.8 Summaron - actually a combo I had for many years. However, if you could step back to the pre-M Barnack Leicas, I'd choose a IIF with a 50/3.5 red scale Elmar.</p>

[rogerwb]

<p>Already have two M3's w/ 50mm Summicron but I'd like a black MP</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>This is a hard one. But I'd go for the M7 and any 50mm lens which has virtually no distortion and no focus shift. Absolute sharpness would not be a priority and I'm not neurotic about aperture. f/2.8 would be fine, so it could be the Summarit or the Elmar.</p>

<p>And if I had to choose one film... gosh, that would be hard. Maybe Fuji 400. Not as advanced as Portra but it looks better, IMHO. And you can push it one or two stops without worrying too much.</p>

[jean_yves_mead]

<p>I've already made that choice:<br>

<a href=" title="M3 by Jean-Yves, on

Flickr"><img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3243/2953942757_db5c3afb31_z.jpg?zz=1" width="640"

height="640" alt="M3"></a></p>

 

<p><small>(But actually limit myself to just one? *shudder*)</small></p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>In a sane moment: "none!"<br>

I have a Retina II that burns the odd frame of film with a fixed 50mm f2 lens sufficiently well for the 4x5" drugstore prints I'd be getting.<br>

Why bother with keeping the DR 'cron on my M4-P, when it will mainly remind me of the other lenses that aren't in my pockets anymore?</p>

 

[Troll]

<p>For using: Leica CL with 40mm Summicron;<br>

for fondling: Leica IIIb with 50mm Elmar.</p>

[charles_stobbs3]

If I could, M2-R with 35mm Summarit.

[Aoresteen]

<p>M3 with the Zeiss 50mm f/2 Planar. It doesn't get any better that than this.</p>

<p>But if I could have only 1 camera and one lens it would be my Hasselblad 500C with the 80mm f/2.8 Planar or my Rolleiflex 2.8 Planar.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>M2 or original M4 with 50mm Summilux, any generation.</p>

[wenhan_xue]

<p>M6 TTL and 35 Summilux</p>

[jim_a]

<p>M2-R, M6 or .58 MP with Zeiss 35/2.8 Biogon-C</p>

[stric]

<p>Given what I know now, I'd go with this combo (M6 + 35mm 'lux). 35mm Summilux is quite fast and versatile lens. M6 bodies are cheaper than MP and M-A and are just about the same except for some minor differences. <br>

<a title="Queen Mother by Srebreni Halid, on Flickr" href=" src="https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2835/11790768014_955f1b8a8c.jpg" alt="Queen Mother" width="500" height="333" /></a></p>

[koray_p]

<p>M2 with 35mm Summicron type IV</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p>M7 + Summicron 35mm.<br>

That's my favourite choice.</p>

[paul_wheatland]

<p>1959 Leica M-3 with 1966 DR Summicron or my Leica IIIc 1946 with Konishiroku Hexanon 50mm f1,9 (ca.1956).</p>

[pensacolaphoto]

M3 with Rigid Summicron. 50mm

M9 with 35mm Summilux

[kivivuori]

<p>M4 + 2/35 Summicron IV or asph. <br /><br />2nd hand M4 was my first M-camera in 1972 and after that I´ve had 6 other models. After all those I still prefer M4.<br /><br />Esa Kivivuori<br />Finland</p>

[john_robison3]

<p>What do you mean by "if"?<br>

What do you mean by "afford"?<br>

I thought I could never afford (read 'justify the price') of a Leica M. The body is not so expensive but the glass, $$$$. Then an neighbor in the same apartment building sold me two CV lenses, a 35mm f2.5 PII and a 21mm f4 in LTM for about .65 of their then current retail, and they were pristine. Well, what was I to do? I had to have a body. So, about four months later I picked up a M4-2 at a camera show. </p>

<p>So to answer the question; Get a body and buy two "lesser" lenses. </p>