Which of these Leica cameras is the best?

[john_m25]

<h1 id="yui_3_9_1_15_1425136318791_417" >I could be given a </h1>

 

 

<strong>Leica R8 </strong><br />+objective leitz 90 <br />+objective 1:10.4/800 <br /><br /><strong>Leica Minilux</strong> <br /><br /><strong>Leica Minilux Zoom </strong><br /><br /><strong>Leica R8 with 28-70 Zoom</strong> <br />+Leitz Extender-R 2x <br />+Leitz E67 35 zoom <br />+Leitz 75-200 objective

[SCL]

<p>Best for what specific use? Also, your description of the 2nd R8 offer has errors in its description, such as the 35 zoom and the first one is incomplete in its description. Without more detailed information, including the condition of the camera bodies and lenses, as well as detailed lens descriptions, it is impossible to give you good advice.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>It hard to imagine more different 35mm cameras than a Minilux and an R8. I think you need to be more specific. Not many of us need an 800mm Telyt for example.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>You are comparing apples and oranges and without any frame of reference. How do you define best? Best for what? Your descriptions are also imprecise, even if we had your definition of what you want of them.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>Hello, John. Are you saying that someone is going to give you, for free, some Leica equipment? If so, take the kit with the 28-70 and 75-200! :-)</p>

<p>BTW, as far as Leica equipment is concerned, there is debate as to which is the best lens, camera body or accessory. But as far as secret agents go, there is only one who can be called the best: Danger Mouse.</p>

[Alex_Es]

I am with Karim.

[dhbebb]

<p>Dear John,<br /> As I am sure you can tell by looking, the Minilux cameras are compacts, designed firstly for small size and light weight, with photographic quality second. These cameras are good by comparison with other compacts but not as good, durable or versatile as a single-lens reflex (SLR). The Leica R8, of which I own an example, is a well-built, rather bulky, heavy and not particularly well-featured SLR - Leica SLRs generally are not popular today or worth much money.<br /> The case is different with the lenses, since these can be adapted to use with digital cameras. I am not clear about the 800 lens - your figures suggest an f10 lens, as far as I am aware the maximum aperture was f6.3. An 800 lens is enormous, although the Leitz Telyt is lighter than some, and almost impossible to handhold. Only a very few photographers would want an 800, and these would be doing sports or wild life, in which case the lens would be brilliant. <br /> The 90 lens is going to be an f2.8 Elmarit or f2 Summicron - the Summicron is slightly better and heavier than the Elmarit. The 35 zoom I presume is a 35-70 zoom, most Leica users are quality freaks and like prime (single focal length) lenses better, an R8 with either (preferably) the 28-70 or the 35-70 zoom would be a good walk-around outfit (the E67 refers to the 67 mm filter size required).<br /> If you can stand the extra weight, then add the 75-200 lens and last of all the extender - a 2x extender absorbs 2 stops of light, the 75-200 with the extender fitted will seldom be handholdable. Few people would buy an R8, because it is heavy and bulky with no special compensating features, but if you are offered this gear as a gift, take it like a shot!</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>John, if Karim, Alex and David have guessed right that these are potential gifts, and if you are more interested in their value than in actually using them (as you have not described your particular interests), the Telyt f6.3 800mm lens is the more valuable item. Leitz made a number of lenses in the 400 to 800mm category about 30 or 40 years ago and most were simple (although highly perfected) two lens optics of modest aperture (or "speed"). The famous photojournalist Duncan used a 400 or 560 mm Telyt to great advantage in reporting delegates at a Democratic convention in Chicagio in I believe 1968.</p>

<p>Only some 100 or so Telyt 800s were made for the Leica R camera. Last written value I saw for the Telyt-R 800mm in 2014 was close to $6000 in excellent to mint condition. If you don't use it yourself, you may want to have a reputable Leica reseller do that for you. Either 90mm lens, as David says, is an excellent optic, while the f2.8 is quite compact and high performing.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>f2.8 is quite compact and high performing.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Depends which one. The ver 1 is as big if not bigger than the 90 Summicron R, Ver 2 is small and compact. Both are good lenses but ver 2 is excellent (like the latest 90/2.8 M). If "35mm zoom" is a 35-70 then it is not the latest 35-70/4, which is E60, but perhaps the earlier f3.5 which is not nearly as good. Or is it the 35 Summilux-R which has an E67 size? If so, that is a valuable and comparatively rare beast. So, the OP's question truly raises more questions than answers.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Robin, thanks for the precision. I meant the version 2 which is contemporary with the R8, which I also have (same lens formula) in the later M version.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>If "35mm zoom" is a 35-70 then it is not the latest 35-70/4, which is E60, but perhaps the earlier f3.5 which is not nearly as good.</em><br>

I felt the most likely candidate was the Vario-Elmar 35-70 f3.5 in the second version, made 1988 - 1996. This has a 67 mm filter mount, the first and third versions have E60 (the third version is also f4).</p>

[User_5050610]

<p>Looks like John M may have lost interest...</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Yes, when some join the Photo.Net very briefly, the efforts to help often go into a void. But some are appreciative, and who knows, become longer term members.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>Looks like John M may have lost interest...</em><br>

Particularly as the first five responses were condescending and in at least one case facetious! </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>David, you were very generous to go into a lot of detail for the poster without knowing what on earth he meant by "best". Some of us tried simply to get him to be more specific for his own good, which he chose not to do. If he had done so, I for one would have been very glad to go to additional lengths to be of additional help.</p>

<p>I assume the other responders had something similar in mind.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>go into a lot of detail</em><br>

Force of habit, Arthur. Whoever I'm dealing with, I'd rather try and understand their problem and sell them a solution ("give" of course in the case of PN) than send them away empty-handed - particularly as PN is in a sense the keeper of the flame for analog photography!</p>

[koray_p]

Don't you love it when a lurker drops the bomb

and goes away, not to be seen again? Then it is

all assumptions and long futile discussions...

:-)

[dhbebb]

<p>Koray, a discussion may not be futile if<br>

1) the OP does return to the thread at some point or<br>

2) the matter discussed is of interest to other people or<br>

3) certain PNers learn from this thread that there is a right and a wrong way to deal with newbies to PN and analog photography.<br>

After 60 years in photography as a pro, an amateur and an occasional teacher, I welcome an opportunity to win new members for the analogue photography/classic camera community. This is why I do not use words like "dropping bombs" for people asking reasonable questions or call these people "lurkers" if they prefer initially to dip into and read PN before actively participating, since terms like this sound, and indeed are, perjorative and highly effective in driving people away forever!</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Got to say I don't think it is in the least condescending to say that there is no correct answer to the question, and that only with further input from the OP can anything useful be established. But each to their own. If you like the idea of a small camera with a zoom lens then the Minilux zoom is probably the "best" and so on...This question is akin to asking what is the best Ford vehicle? Best for what?</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>Robin, did you hear about the car salesman who used to say to customers: "What exactly do you want? YOU DON'T KNOW? Then go away and stop bothering me!" No? Neither did I.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>We are not selling him anything though are we, nor are car salesman on most people's list of top impartial advisors.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>I'm not decrying yours or my contributions, which are always useful at least in regard to information sharing between ourselves, but we are a rather altruistic (overly magnanimous) lot, having responded to someone who has yet to spend a second in writing back.</p>

[astral]

<p>In my recent experience, car salesmen are usually keener to sell their own 'solutions' to presumed needs than to spend any time assessing a customer's actual requirements. That same attitude is still occasionally seen in some camera stores. </p>

<p>Also, I do not consider it to be 'condescending' to request more information from an enquirer in order to help them define or refine their requirements, etc. Getting the facts right at the outset is much better than trying to unscramble matters later. Similarly, I feel that it is much more 'condescending' to offer an enquirer diverse hypothetical solutions and recommendations that are based on an imperfect understanding of that enquirer's needs or misconceptions. Put another way: a relevant question can be worth much more than any number of irrelevant suggestions . . . both need to be balanced.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>I personally take the attitude that I am selling something on PN, hopefully an enthusiasm for photography and a feeling that fellow photographers are interesting and worthwhile people to associate with. I also feel that it is part of any professional's job to be open to questions from newbies and to help these whenever possible. Most newbies in any field have no precise idea of what they are trying to achieve and certainly no idea what equipment or technical means they need to achieve this. Knowing this is important in the process of giving advice, the only real question is how to elicit this information effectively and without appearing condescending. Clearly in this case PN has failed dismally.</p>