Bessa R2 Vs. Bessa R - opinions needed

[stric]

Hello,

I am considering tu buy my first mechanical rangefiner camera. Given

the limitted budget (up to $1000 for body, lens and some additional

accessories) I am thinking of Bessa R and R2. I understand that R2 is

newer model and according to some, better one too since it offers

more versatility (e.g. Leica M mount). Yet, given the price

difference I think that R is also a good choice (if one choses to go

without the benefit of M mount).

Would you please let me know which one would be a better deal or

choice for a completely mechanical RF camera. I would eventually like

to venture into the Leica M waters but not now (I guess this is the

only reason I am interested in R2).

Thank you.

emir

[rover]

I recently bought a Bessa R and am very happy with it. I also considered the R2 but chose the R for two reasons. Reading all of the positive comments about the Voigtlander lenses, their performance and wide selection of focal lenghts and speeds make me feel they will fit my needs. Also, the R and R2 share the same finder, meter, and shutter, so mechanically they are the same camera and will perform that way. Another point is that on a budget, if you choose to use the CV lenses you are adding $50ish to the system for the M ring adaptor. The improvements in the R2 are in the build, more metal making it more solid, not that the R is not. Good luck, you will enjoy either one I am sure.

[al_kaplan1]

If you want to start using late model bayonet Leica lenses right away you need the R2. If you want to start out using Voigtlander lenses and older screw mount Canon, Nikkor and Leitz lenses it would be cheaper to get the R body. There is a lot of good high quality glass out there, good quality even by today's standards, in Leica screw mount.

[chip l.]

You also might ask the Leica Forum this question. Given the $1000 budget you should be able to do a M2, M3, M4-2, and even a Cosina lens in this price range.

 

The advantage to the Leica body is the greater likelihood that you will find repairs available (and worth while) 10-20-30 years from now. Using CV lenses will allow you to move towards what some say are the better Leica lenses in the future.

[douglas_green1]

OTOH, Chip, what about all of the DISADVANTAGES of the Leica bodies you mentioned: No meters, extremely cumbersome film loading, and lots of theft potential. I think anyone who is just beginning to explore the waters of RF land would do FAR better getting a $300 Bessa-R body or a $275 Bessa-T body (M-mount) including a good turret viewfinder, than a 30-50 year old Leica for 2-3X the cost.

 

Personally, I would recommend a Bessa-R to start with - and one of the following lenses (a used Leica 50mm f2 Summitar, or 50mm CV Skopar, or a 35mm CV Ultron or used 35mm Leica Summar). As you gain proficiency and appreciation for the world of Rangefinders, THEN you can consider getting an older Leica, or an R2, or a Hexar RF, or a Bessa-T, or else breaking the bank for a newer one like an M6 or an MP.

 

Another choice worth considering would be to start out with a used fixed-lens 35mm Rangefinder, such as a Konica Auto S2, Canonet QL-17 GIII, Olympus 35RC, SP, or RD - Good examples of these cameras, in good working order can be gotten for under $100. And in the case of the Konica Auto S2, the lens is Leica-qality, while the others I listed are not too far behind.

[Ian Taylor]

I looked at build quality of both and went for the R2. It felt much tougher. I've subjected it to some nasty conditions already and its performed well.

[chip l.]

"...what about all of the DISADVANTAGES of the Leica bodies you mentioned: No meters, extremely cumbersome film loading, and lots of theft potential"

 

Good point Doug, but in some ways they are also the Leica advantage too. Handheld meters can provide in some instances better results than the internal meter. And if you are in BW, you can "train" yourself to know what exposure to use. The Handheld meters help in that training. (To be honest I am still trying to get a hand on that concept, I guess from years of cameras telling me what the exposure should be)

 

About the loading, yes it is slower than the slap and load that many of us have grown accustomed to. But it also causes you think ahead and plan your shots so that you don't have to rush the loading process.

 

Theft is a concern with any camera. The cameras that he would be looking at look like old clunkers to many of an eye. They don't have that red dot that so many say is a beacon to a thief. I haven't seen anything to indicate that Leica's are stolen more often than any other brand. You may here about it more often due to the Leica owner becoming one with his gear, and it is some what like loosing a good friend.

 

The Bessa's are great cameras. I got started with the Bessa T myself. But I still feel that if you are able to find a good user M2/3/4-2 they may be the better choice for the long haul.

 

Your comments about getting a fixed lens RF is also a great idea. RF's are something very different in their use. And not everyone can make the adjustment from SLR to RF. Sort of what I have been recommending to some here about getting into MF. The old folders are a great way to start with spending a lot.

[douglas_green1]

Frankly, I've never bought into the hulabaloo over Leica cameras. They are nothing special. The Leica LENSES, on the other hand, are wonderful. But to me, that's all the more reason that the Non Leica-Brand M-mount cameras are the way to go.

 

BTW, I've owned and gotten rid of a Leica CL and an M4-2. I presently own and use a Hexar RF, a Minolta CLE, and a Bessa-T In my opinion, these are ALL superior CAMERAS, based on features vs. cost, than ANY Leicas. And actually, the Konica and Minolta Lenses (excluding the Minolta 28mm which has a known quality problem with white spots infecting it) are certainly of the same quality as Leica Glass.