02Pete

Thanks for posting the link to that article. I'm not, and never will be, a professional photographer, never mind one as good as Sean Flynn. I have, however, owned a Leica M2, in good working order, for a number of years now. It's a great camera, about as direct and straightforward as they come. With a modern Leica lens, it produces images of high technical quality.

 

I grew up during the Vietnam War. It took a number of highly talented people from us, and I am sure it did from the South Vietnamese and North Vietnamese as well. It affected relations between Americans, their military and their government for decades to come, and it affected America's reputation in other countries for decades to come. I am still here to reflect on those things. Sean Flynn and 58,000 other Americans are no longer here to do so.

As some have remarked, the camera component making the single greatest contribution to the image quality is the nut found just behind the viewfinder. In talented and knowledgeable hands, good photos can be made with inexpensive equipment; in the hands of clods, poor photos can be made with the highest quality and most expensive equipment. In the hands of a talented and capable photographer, however, high quality equipment can make a difference.

 

At least some Leica lenses from the 1920s through the 1950s were reputed to produce images with a glow not often seen with other lenses. At a guess, it might have been the result of older, simpler lens designs with some spherical aberrations, uncoated lenses producing some reflection between lens elements, and shooting toward sunlight or strong artificial light sources. Whatever it was, older Leica lenses had that reputation among photographers for years. Some people consider that to be just a romantic myth, but if so, it certainly was a persistent one, shared by a number of experienced and capable photographers.

 

Newer Leica lenses do not have that reputation. They do, however, have a reputation for having high resolution and contrast, few visible aberrations, and good color balance, and for producing images with more of a three-dimensional quality than photos of the same subjects taken under the same conditions with other equipment. The only modern Leica lens I have is a 75mm f/2 Summicron. While I am not an expert on optics, it certainly produces images with very high technical quality, and I like it very much.

 

I have taken some rather nice photos with an old Nikkor 85mm f/2 LTM; 35mm f/2 Canon LTM, and Canon 50mm f/1.4 LTM; with a variety of manual-focus Nikon Ai and AIS lenses on a digital Nikon body; and with some autofocus Nikon AF-S lenses on that same body. Under the right circumstances, they are all capable of producing good images. The 75mm f/2 Summicron delivers the highest technical quality of any lens I have ever used, though, and the results it produces do not feel clinical, at least in my view.

If the anomaly turns up in your negatives as well as your prints, then you might possibly have an incipient shutter curtain problem. A qualified Leica service technician such as Sherry Krauter should be able to diagnose and repair the problem.

Never mind the building and the foliage -- I want to see what a Leica M1/6 FrankenLeica looks like! More of a kludge than a specialized piece of equipment, perhaps, but it ought to be interesting looking.

Most black-paint Leicas are older models. Because black paint can gradually wear off with heavy use, Leica shifted from black paint to black chrome years ago. Black paint only shows up occasionally now on special editions meant to look like the older models.

 

Black paint developed a mystique for a couple of reasons. Because it is less reflective and visible than a sliver chrome finish when shooting in dim available-light conditions, it is less visible under those conditions if one wishes to be as unobtrusive as possible, or not be spotted at all. Years back, some photojournalists (and possibly some military or law-enforcement photographers) preferred the black cameras to the silver cameras for this reason. As the black paint would wear with heavy use, and the brass metal underneath would begin to show through ("brassing"), worn black cameras with brassing came to be associated with hard-working photojournalists, This, in turn, gave black-paint cameras a higher "CGF" ("cool guy factor) in the eyes of those who liked to imagine themselves as combat photographers, even if the closest they ever got to combat was reading newspaper articles about it.

 

Because fewer black-paint cameras than silver cameras were manufactured, and because of the "CGF" associated with brassing, used black paint models are viewed more as collectibles than as working cameras these days, and thus are usually a lot more expensive. If you want a black camera to be unobtrusive, but don't want to pay through the nose for a collectible, black chrome is a more affordable way to go.

A few suggestions:

 

The 40mm f/2 Summicron was designed specifically to be used with the Leica CL, as there weren't (and still aren't) any other Leicas with viewfinder frame lines for 40mm lenses. Whatever else one uses on a CL, the 40mm f/2 Summicron would appear to be the first choice.

 

It's probably a better choice on the CL than a 35mm f/2 Summicron, even though that is a deservedly legendary lens, for a couple of reasons. First off, good examples of the 35mm f/2 Summicron are usually a lot more expensive than the 40mm Summicron. In addition, the CL viewfinder has framelines for a 40mm lens, not a 35mm lens. while the 35mm will work fine, you'll be getting a bit more image on your negatives than what shows inside the 40mm frameline. With the 40mm being more affordable but matching the framelines exactly, there isn't much point in spending more money to use a 35mm with the CL.

 

Another good choice would be the 90mm f/4 Elmar-C designed specifically for the CL -- a compact, lightweight and sharp lens that works very well with this camera. (See discussion below about why this would be a better choice for the CL than a 90 or 85mm lens with a larger f/2.8 or f/2 maximum aperture.)

 

Use only fixed-mount lenses on a CL, and don't use collapsible lenses with the CL. The CL has a light meter sensor on a lever in front of the shutter curtain, which swings out of the way when the shutter button is pressed and the picture is taken. Collapsing one of the collapsible Leica lenses into a CL body usually damages the light meter lever irreparably.

 

While the CL has an M-series bayonet mount, it will also accept Leica thread mount (LTM) "screwmount" lenses with a screwmount to bayonet adapter, so there is a broad range of possible lenses that can be used with this camera.

 

If you're buying a CL, try to determine before you buy whether the light meter is still working properly. From what I understand, it can be difficult or impossible to obtain replacement parts to repair a CL light meter if it isn't working, so try to get one with a working meter if you can.

 

The CL has a somewhat shorter rangefinder baseline (the distance between the viewfinder and the smaller window for the rangefinder patch, visible just above the lens mount) than other Leica M models. This means that its rangefinder is slightly less accurate than the rangefinders of other M models. It is accurate enough to work just fine with 40mm and wider lenses, and probably with 50mm lenses as well, focusing them accurately and reliably at all apertures including maximum aperture. It will also work with longer lenses, including 90mm lenses and their 85mm counterparts, but its focusing accuracy is reliable only down to about f/4. Below that, at apertures such as f/2.8 or f/2 for which the depth of field is shallower, it is more difficult to focus accurately, so focus at those apertures may turn out to be hit or miss, sometimes accurate but not reliably so.

 

This is why the 90mm f/4 is the best telephoto choice for the CL. Larger aperture 90mm or 85mm f/2.8 or f/2 lenses will fit and work on a CL, but will work best when you shoot them at f/4 or above. Something like a 90mm f/2.8 Tele-Elmarit would work fine with a CL, shot at f/4 and above. Because the CL body is relatively small and light weight, a relatively large and heavy lens such as a 90mm f/2 Summicron, while usable on a CL, would probably not balance well in terms of handling, and there wouldn't be a lot of justification for paying more money for the lens and carting all that extra weight around because the CL wouldn't reliably focus it accurately at maximum aperture, and a smaller and lighter lens would be just as effective at f/4 and smaller apertures.

 

If available-light photography is what you want to do, a CL will do that fine -- just use the 40mm f/2 or a close equivalent, and leave the 90mm for brighter light.

 

This doesn't mean that the CL is a lesser camera than other M-series Leicas. What it means is that the CL was designed with a somewhat different objective in mind. Most M-series Leicas were designed as heavy-duty professional cameras, capable of focusing even big, heavy large-aperture 90mm lenses reliably and accurately while shooting at maximum aperture in available light conditions. The CL wasn't designed for that. It was, instead, designed to be a more compact, lighter and somewhat more affordable camera, using compact and lightweight lenses, that would be particularly suitable for travel photography because it would be more convenient to carry on a trip. It was the sports car of M-Leicas, small, light and nimble. It's highly effective when used in that way, and perhaps the best choice for someone who wants to travel light with just one or two lenses.

There is an interesting opinion column in today's (Dec. 8, 2017) NY Times, "The Man Who Shot Vietnam," about Horst Fass, the chief photographer for the Associated Press in Vietnam during the war.

 

What is most interesting about Mr. Fass is what he did as a photojournalist, what he went through to capture the images he did, and how his and his colleagues' efforts changed the war photojournalists covered wars and the way readers understood them. The column does not include any verbal mention of the equipment he used.

 

Take a good look at the first of the photos accompanying the column, though. If you're someone who reads posts on this forum, you will probably recognize the cameras strapped to his chest.

 

Here's the link: The Man Who Shot Vietnam

 

No, owning a Leica doesn't make you a photojournalist, never mind one as effective and influential as Horst Fass. But it's still interesting to look at that photo and reflect on how some photographers who used them changed the way the rest of the world sees things.

Has anybody in this forum used the Leica M-D? If so, what do you think of it?

At full aperture, a 75mm f/1.2 would have very shallow depth of field and require considerable care in focusing.

Yes, a 35mm Noctilux might be more useful -- but considering the prices of the 35mm f/1.4 Asph and the 50mm f/0.95, it would certainly be expensive.

Soren --

 

Before you sell or buy anything, you should consider carefully what you will be using your camera(s) for, as they each have different strengths and weaknesses.

 

I have, and use, a variety of gear: Leica M2, Canon P, Nikon Df, Nikon FM, Nikon F, Canon FTb, and a variety of lenses. Some personal (and possibly idiosyncratic) comments, for what they are worth:

• Leica -- Best used with lenses between 28mm and 90mm, IMHO. Nothing wrong with the optical quality of wider or longer lenses, but you would need to use accessory viewfinders. At closest focusing range of lenses, parallax error can be a problem in composing photo -- what you see in the VF is not what you get. (This is true of all RF cameras, not just Leicas.) Some very large aperture lenses available in the 35mm - 90mm range, and bodies have quiet shutters, so excellent for unobtrusive available-light shooting and environmental portraits, as long as you are aware that the longer lenses have shallow depth of field at maximum aperture and can be a challenge to focus accurately in dim light. Superb mechanical quality. New bodies & lenses are expensive. Used ones can be entirely satisfactory, but do typically require at least a CLA, and might possibly need additional work. Most of the new lenses offer exceptional image quality. Even 50 year old used M lenses can deliver very high quality if CLA'd. Can also use old Leica, Canon and other LTM lenses with a LTM/bayonet adapter. (The old Canon 50mm f/1.4 LTM, Canon 35mm f/2 LTM, and Nikon 85mm f/2 LTM are particularly good.)
   
  
• Canon P -- Best with lenses between 35mm and 85mm. Uses old Canon and Leica LTM lenses. Well-built, though not as well-built as Leicas. No built-in meter; use a hand-held. Will almost certainly require a CLA. Used to be available cheap, but have become collectors' items so no longer bargains. Not bad, and capable of taking high-quality photos, but I like my M2 better.
  
• Nikon Df -- Can use a very wide range of lenses, from very wide to very long, and from old Nikkor Ai-converted, Ai and AiS manual focus lenses through D autofocus lenses to latest AF-S autofocus lenses. Can deliver telephoto sports and nature shots which a Leica M just can't do (not without a Visoflex, anyway). Expensive, but more accessible and comfortable than other DSLRs for photographers accustomed to older film SLRs. Smaller and lighter than many other DSLRs, but a reassuringly well-built and durable feel in the hand. Noticeably better image quality than the D5200 I used to have -- nothing wrong with the D5200, which was very good, Df is just better. I really like this camera.
  
• Nikon FM -- Excellent manual SLR for use with non-Ai, Ai and AiS manual lenses. Smaller, lighter and quieter than other old Nikon SLRs. Has built-in metering, but check whether the meter still works before you buy. Can use a wide range of lenses, but no autofocus.
  
• Nikon F -- Can use a wide range of non-Ai, Ai and AiS lenses, many of which are of very high optical quality. Manual focus and aperture only. Legendarily rugged, built like a tank, feels reassuringly solid in the hand, but rather heavy to lug around. I have one with a plain prism, which I use with a hand-held meter -- the metered prisms are larger, heavier, and in many cases the meters are no longer working. Price will vary depending on condition -- many were used professionally, some with motor drives, and may be rather worn out. If you buy one, factor in a CLA along with the purchase price. A great camera, even now, though I prefer the Df.
  
• Canon FTb -- Very good older SLR. Can use FL (stop-down metering) as well as FD lenses, most of which are of quite good optical quality. Manual focus and exposure only. FL lenses used to be dirt cheap, but have apparently become collectors' items. You may be able to buy used FD lenses for less than comparable Nikon manual lenses, but it may not be as easy to find a wide range of focal lengths. For years, I had a similar but slightly less expensive TLb body, which I literally wore out; bought a used FTb to replace it. A good camera, certainly capable of taking fine pictures. Having used all of them, I personally prefer the Nikon Df, FM and F, but I have nothing bad to say about the FTb.
  

One can cover rather a wide range of photographic subjects with a Leica M2, a hand-held meter, and 35mm, 50mm, and 75mm or 90mm lenses,. Having said that, the Nikon Df can tackle a wider range of photographic subjects, particularly longer telephoto work, that a Leica can't handle. Personally, I enjoy using the M2 quite a bit -- I grew up using manual focus, manual exposure RF cameras, and am comfortable working with them -- but the Df delivers high-quality images more consistently, for me at least.

 

As the old carnival barkers used to say, "Ya pays yer money an' ya takes yer choice." Whatever you decide on, I wish you good luck and enjoyment with your photography.

<p>Hmmm... This thread has gone on for five pages already, so I'm not sure how much I can add, but I'll try.<br>

I've had a Nikon Df for a bit less than a year. I've used it on three trips, during which I have taken hundreds of photos. I've used it with a mix of AI, AIS, D and AF-S G lenses. It works fine with all of them, can do "fire and forget" shooting with the D and AF-S lenses, and can do auto-exposure shooting with the AI and AIS lenses in aperture-priority mode. For obvious reasons, it's a bit more work and a bit slower to switch to the right menu listing and focus manually with the AI and AIS lenses. It produces noticeably better image quality than the D5200 I had before it, and produces good results more consistently than my Nikon FM and F film bodies.<br>

From my personal perspective, shooting with a Df in anything but full auto mode with an AF-S lens is somewhat slower and more work than shooting an F or FM with a hand=held light meter, because with those the controls are very direct and intuitive, don't require multiple steps to use, and can be used to set the shutter speed and aperture in advance, so one doesn't have to do anything but focus, compose and shoot. Using the DF requires accessing multiple levels of menus, keeping track of which shooting mode you're in, remembering what sequence of which buttons to use in adjusting the ISO, shutter speed or aperture, blah blah blah -- it's got buttons, dials, screens and menus out the wazoo, but while you're fiddling with all of those controls, the subject is moving away and the light is changing.<br>

The Df is worth it, though, for several reasons -- especially the ability to use AI and AIS lenses on a digital body, and the high image quality produced by the Df's sensor and software. Otherwise, one would be stuck lugging around at least two bodies, a digital body for D and AF-S lenses and a film body for AI and AIS lenses, and having to wait for the film to get developed before doing anything with the images taken using the AI and AIS lenses. Although the Df is less intuitive, harder and slower to use than an F or FM, it's manageable, and it's less of a nuisance in that regard than most of Nikon's digital bodies, which can be a real pain in the neck to use. It gets the job done, and I like the results.<br>

Those who consider me a Luddite because I am still using AI and AIS lenses with a Df should note that I also have some older non-AI lenses to use with the F, not to mention an all-mechanical Leica M2 with no electronics in it whatever, and lenses whose only interface with the body is a focusing ramp. Sometimes, simpler is easier, more direct, and more intuitive to use. It's a matter of personal taste, I suppose.<br>

Could the Df be redesigned to add more or different features? It's conceivable. I've certainly gone through that "if only they would make one that would do X, Y and Z" exercise myself in the past. The market for the Df is small enough, though, that it's already pretty expensive, because Nikon has to recover fixed costs over a relatively small number of units sold. The market for cameras, period, is smaller than it used to be, for that matter -- my adult children take photos only with their iPhones, and refuse to consider getting a separate camera. Before it contemplates any redesign of the Df, Nikon is going to have to calculate rather carefully whether the projected sales of the new model would be sufficient to recover Nikon's design, development and tooling costs, never mind turn a profit.<br>

So I'm glad that Nikon bothered to produce the Df at all, and I just hope they keep it in production for a while. I don't consider it an exercise in nostalgia -- it's a more flexible, more usable and more productive tool, for me anyway, than most of Nikon's current line of digital cameras. I'm still able to use all those AI and AIS lenses I accumulated over the years (well, not quite all - the Df's menu only allows nine entries for non-digital lenses, and I've got more AI and AIS lenses than that). While a bit of a hybrid, with all the compromises and "if only it had an X" that entails, it is still an eminently usable camera which does what I need. It may not be perfect, but I like it more or less the way it is. "Your mileage may vary," but that's my perspective, for what it's worth.</p>

<p>If you choose to buy a Nikon D7100, and you're interested in taking portraits, a couple of things to consider:</p>

<ul>

<li>The Nikon D7100 camera is a DX format camera, with a 1.5x crop factor.</li>

<li>While effective portraits of various types can be taken with lenses of almost any focal length, the two focal lengths most often considered to be "portrait" lenses are 85mm and 105mm in FX digital or 35mm film format.</li>

<li>In DX format, the closest prime lens equivalent to 85mm in FX format is Nikon's AF-S Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G lens. With the 1.5x crop factor, that works out to 87mm in FX format, functionally the same as 85mm. That is a very good lens, but is rather expensive. The next closest equivalent is 50mm, which given the 1.5x crop factor works out to 75mm in FX format -- a little shorter, but reasonably close. Nikon currently offers both an AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G, with a street price of roughly $400; and an AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G, with a street price of around $220. Aside from having a slightly smaller maximum aperture, the 50mm f/1.8G has a reputation for excellent image quality, and may your best bet given its significantly lower price.</li>

<li>There is currently no Nikon prime lens in DX format that is closely equivalent to 105mm in FX format. (The DX focal length would be 70mm, and there currently isn't any DX prime lens of that focal length.)</li>

<li>Given the 1.5x crop factor, the 85mm lens in FX format works out to 127.5mm in DX format. That is a bit long for typical portrait work in indoor spaces, but would work fine outdoors if you back up a bit. Nikon currently offers two 85mm prime lenses: the AF-S 85mm f/1.4G, an excellent but expensive lens; and the AF-S 85mm f/1.8G, which produces truly exceptional image quality and costs a more reasonable $475.</li>

<li>Given the 1.5x crop factor, a 35mm lens in FX format works out to 52.5mm in FX format -- functionally the same as the traditional 50mm "standard" lens in FX format. While Nikon currently offers several lenses in the 35mm focal length, the one you want for a DX camera is the AF-S 35mm f/1.8G DX. Not only is that made specifically for DX cameras, but its street price is around $200 -- substantially less than either the AF-S 35mm f/1.8G FX or the AF-S 35mm f/1.4G. It's quite a sharp lens, delivers excellent image quality on a DX camera, is light and compact, and represents a great bargain considering its price and image quality. While I am now using an FX format camera, I used to have a DX camera and that lens -- trust me, if you have a Nikon DX camera, you want that lens.</li>

<li>Re Nikon's 18-140mm zoom lens for DX cameras, I used to own and use one. It is a decent lens, and delivers image quality as good or slightly better than most zooms that are comparable in terms of focal lengths and price range. Nikon's AF-S 85mm f/1.8G prime lens, however, while less flexible in terms of focal lengths, offers a larger maximum aperture, and delivers image quality that is far better, especially if an image is enlarged or cropped -- so much so that I sold my 18-140 zoom. The added convenience and flexibility of using a zoom just weren't enough to justify the tradeoffs in image quality and maximum aperture for me. As with many other things, that's a personal choice, and "your mileage may vary." If you're willing to accept decent rather than great image quality in return for the convenience of a zoom, and don't do much available-light shooting, the 18-140 zoom might be a good choice for your DX camera.</li>

</ul>

<p>I used to have the same problem, but found a solution.</p>

<p>I can't speak to current versions of Lightroom, but earlier versions of Lightroom are not equipped to handle the latest version of RAW (.nef) image files put out by the most recent current-production Nikon cameras. Fortunately, Adobe offers a utility, Adobe Digital Negative (DNG) Converter, which can be downloaded for free from Adobe's website, that will convert the latest RAW (.nef) files into DNG files which earlier versions of Lightroom can use. Here's the link to the page from which you can download it if needed:</p>

<p> https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/adobe-dng-converter.html</p>

<p>Gus, I am sure that you know more about this than I do; and I hope I didn't mislead Richard Williams.</p>

<p>For any who don't already know, Gus Lazzari is a highly skilled camera technician who runs his own camera repair business, located in the State of North Carolina in the US. As it happens, I've never had any of my cameras serviced by him, so I can't speak from personal experience, but he has an excellent reputation for the quality of his work. If anybody is interested, you can find more here: http://tlccamerarepair.homestead.com/</p>

<p>I have a couple of Nikon Fs with plain prism (non-metered) finders, which I use with a hand-held light meter, and a range of pre-AI Nikkor lenses. Those were professional workhorses during the 1960s and 1970s, are still capable of taking excellent photos, and are enjoyable to use. I now use one of its descendants, the digital Nikon Df, and newer AI, AIS, D and AF-S lenses, more often; but I still shoot some film with those old Nikon Fs and their pre-AI lenses.</p>

<p>While there were a few earlier SLRs, the Nikon F was the camera that triggered the broad shift from rangefinder (RF) cameras to SLRs. Depending upon context, however, it might not be the camera "that started it all." Admittedly, that might be quibbling over semantics; but bear with me for an explanation.</p>

<p>If you are talking about 35mm film photography, the first prototype 35mm still cameras were built by Oscar Barnack of E. Leitz (later Leica) in 1913. Leicas with fixed lenses went into production in 1924, Leica introduced interchangeable lenses in 1930 and built-in rangefinders in 1932, Leica introduced the greatly improved M3 in 1954, and Leica remained the dominant 35mm camera manufacturer until the late 1950s. Leica is still in business, making 35mm film and digital cameras and lenses, today.</p>

<p>If you are talking about Nikon cameras, Nikon introduced the Nikon 1, a 35mm camera with interchangeable lenses and a built-in rangefinder, in 1948, and the slightly revised Nikon M in 1949. These were rather similar, in configuration and general appearance, to cameras made in the 1930s by one of Leica's German competitors, Contax. Nikon really hit its stride and started selling cameras in large numbers, though, with the Nikon S, introduced in 1951. An American photojournalist covering the Korean War for Life magazine, David Douglas Duncan, was one of the first to discover the high optical quality of the Nikkor lenses which Nikon made for its Nikon S rangefinder cameras. In addition to 50mm lenses, those included 85mm f/2 and 105mm f/2.5 rangefinder lenses which helped to make Nikon's reputation. </p>

<p>Nikon subsequently introduced a line of 35mm interchangeable lens RF cameras of increasing quality -- the S2 in 1954, the professional-grade SP in 1957, the S3 in 1958 and the S4 in 1959. The Nikon SP, which competed with the Leica M2 and M3, was used fairly widely by professional photographers during the late 1950s and early 1960s. (If you look at the front cover of Bob Dylan's 1965 record album Highway 61 Revisited, the photographer standing behind him is holding a Nikon SP on a strap.) Nikon brought the S4 out in 1959, the same year as the Nikon F, and had a further new S-series rangefinder camera on the drawing boards when the Nikon F was released, but the success of the Nikon F was such that Nikon scrapped its plans to put any newer rangefinder cameras into production after the S4.</p>

<p>Aside from the SLR features (moving mirror, prism, etc.), Nikon based the design of the Nikon F closely on the Nikon SP rangefinder camera, designed only a couple of years before the Nikon F. The size and shape of the body, the shutter, the shutter-speed dial, the shutter button, the film winding lever, and the rewind lever of the Nikon F were pretty much direct carry-overs from the Nikon SP. If you think this is an overstatement, take a look at this photo of the top of a Nikon SP: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/htmls/models/htmls/RF_images/NikonSPtopview.jpg .</p>

<p>Whether the Nikon F "started it all" or not, it was a revolutionary camera in many respects, ushered in a new era of 35mm cameras dominated by SLRs, was so precise and durable that it was the first choice of most professional news photographers during the 1960s, was the workhorse camera of American photojournalists during the Vietnam War and into the 1970s, and became an icon symbolizing not only Nikon but 35mm photography in general. It was such a good camera that some of us are still using it, and it still produces good results, today -- 57 years after it was first introduced in 1959.</p>

<p>Your choices depend on how strongly interested you are in trying a rangefinder camera, and how much money you can afford and are prepared to pay for one. The more firmly determined you are to get a camera with certain specific features, the more money you are probably going to have to spend. Recommendations are usually based on personal experience and brand loyalty, so you will get a wide range of suggestions. </p>

<p>If you are looking for a relatively inexpensive fixed-lens rangefinder to try without spending too much money, several major camera manufacturers (notably Olympus, Canon, Konica and Yashica) offered multiple models of such cameras during the late 1960s and early 1970s. Based on personal experience, my recommendation would be for an Olympus 35SP, if you can find one in good working condition -- 42mm f/1.7 lens with 7 elements, fast and sharp; clear and precise rangefinder/viewfinder; and a sensitive CdS exposure meter. The exposure meter required PX625 or MRB625 batteries, so you may have to hunt around a bit for the current equivalent, but you should be able to find something that will work. Photo and more details here: https://web2.ph.utexas.edu/~yue/misc/35SP.html . A closely comparable camera was the Canon Canonet G-III 17, with a 40mm f/1.7 lens -- photo and details at https://www.cameraquest.com/canql17.htm . Those companies both offered similar but less expensive models with slightly slower lenses, such as the Olympus 35RC and the Canonet 28, both with f/2.8 lenses.</p>

<p>If you want a decent quality interchangeable-lens camera and are willing to spend somewhat more money, a Canon P and a Canon 35mm f/1.8 or 35mm f/2 LTM (Leica thread mount) lens would be a good place to start -- well made, very good optical quality, and the ability to handle a number of Canon, Nikon, Leitz and other LTM lenses in other focal lengths. A more modern and readily available alternative might be a Voigtlander Bessa, but I have no personal experience with those. The Leica CL and Minolta CLE are also in this category, but have been out of production long enough that obtaining spare parts for repairs can be difficult.</p>

<p>If you have more disposable cash, and want to try a high-quality rangefinder, you might consider something like a Leica M2 with a Leitz 35mm f/2.8 Summaron M-mount lens. (Leitz was was the original name of the company now known as Leica -- Leica was an acronym for <strong>LEI_</strong>tz <strong>CA_</strong>mera. For many years, the cameras were called Leicas and the lenses called Leitz, until Leica finally chose to go with a single brand name for clarity. The Leitz lenses were all made by Leica, and all of Leica quality.) The cost would vary depending on condition, and you would also have to factor in purchasing a hand-held light meter, but you could probably get this combination for under $2,000 and would be getting very high quality equipment which would retain its resale value. The M2 has built-in viewfinder frames for 35mm, 50mm and 90mm lenses. Like other Leica M cameras, it can take older LTM lenses if equipped with an LTM to bayonet adapter, so you might save some money by getting a Leitz, Canon or Nikon lens in LTM mount -- collectibles now, so not as cheap as they used to be, but still more affordable than Leica M mount lenses. You might also consider a Leitz or Leica 35mm f/2 Summicron in M mount, all versions of which have been of exceptionally high optical quality, but those will be more expensive if in good condition (especially the original 8-element version, now a collectible, and the current production aspheric version). While the M2 has been out of production for some time, it shares many parts with later Leica models, so obtaining service and spare parts is not really a problem. Of similar vintage, the M3 was also of high quality, and had a higher-magnification viewfinder which offered different tradeoffs -- greater accuracy in focusing high-speed lenses, but designed for 50mm lenses and thus requiring 35mm lenses with "goggles."</p>

<p>There are, of course, a number of more recent and more expensive Leica M-mount film bodies (the meterless M4 and the metered M5, M6, M7, MP), modern digital bodies (M8, M9, M240, Monochrom), and a wide range of M-mount lenses from 21mm to 135mm. These are almost uniformly of exceptionally high quality. If in good or better condition, however, most of these are quite expensive -- enough so that only a wealthy person would choose them as something to begin with.</p>

<p>This is in response to Richard Williams's question about whether anyone knows of "a technician who can polish, coat and re-calibrate a Summar."</p>

<p>There is a firm named Focal Point, Inc. which offers such services -- http://www.focalpointlens.com/ . Per the website, the services this firm offers include lens polishing and re-coating; lens cement separation repair; and fungus and haze removal. The firm is located in the U.S. State of Colorado; the e-mail address is john@focalpointlens.com , the U.S. telephone number is (303) 665-6640, and the firm's mailing address is 300 Center Drive, Suite G-177, Superior, CO 80027, USA.</p>

<p>Please note that I have no connection with the firm, have never been a customer of the firm, and thus have no basis for commenting on the quality of its work. I am simply responding to Mr. Williams's inquiry.<br /> </p>

<p>Thanks for all the comments!</p>

<p>@ C.R. Ultra -- Thanks for posting the links to the shots you took in London and Paris with your M6. I looked at both sets. Of the London shots, there were four that I particularly liked -- 6/31, the one showing the Tower Bridge with a twin-hulled boat in the foreground; 17/31, the Queen's Guard; 22/31, Bikes; and 31/31, Bottled Ship 2. Of the Paris shots, I especially liked 6/11, Downstairs.</p>

<p>Other readers: If you haven't already seen C.R.'s photos, take a look -- he's got some nice ones.</p>

<p>@ Bill Bowes --I'm glad you like the photo of the Bowlus. If you're interested in seeing more of my sailplane photos, you can find them here:<br>

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=526024<br>

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=518565 </p>

<p>Some background re the Bowlus photo, for what it's worth. I've got an FAA license as a glider pilot (though I'm not current), so I know a bit about this. The sailplane in the photo is a Bowlus BA-100 Baby Albatross, the prototype of which first flew in 1937. This example was owned and flown by Jeff Byard. For any pilots reading this, it had a wingspan of 44.5 feet (13.5 meters), an empty weight of 300 pounds (136 kilograms), a maximum payload (i.e. pilot plus parachute) of 205 pounds (93 kilograms), a maximum L/D (lift to drag ratio) of 20:1, and minimum sink of 2.25 feet per second (0.69 meters per second). The wings and tail were built of wood and fabric, and the open-cockpit pod and boom fuselage had a molded plywood pod and an aluminum tailboom. The designer, Hawley Bowlus, was an American who designed several other notable sailplanes during the 1930s and 1940s. While the Baby Albatross was a small ship with relatively low performance, it was flown by pilots such as Dick Johnson, Dick Schreder and Joe Lincoln (famous to US soaring pilots, unknown to anybody else), and in some cases made cross-country flights of more than 250 miles (402 kilometers) -- not bad for an aircraft that was out of gas before it took off. This photo was taken at the National Soaring Museum (NSM) on Harris Hill in Horseheads, NY, near Elmira. The event was an International Vintage Soaring Meet held in 2005. Pilots from all over the US, and from some foreign countries, bring older sailplanes to these meets for display and non-competitive recreational flying. In case anybody is interested, one of these IVSM events is scheduled to be held at the NSM from July 9 to July 16 this year (2016).</p>

<p>From your currency reference, I assume that you are in the UK. Don't know enough about dealers in the UK to offer any recommendations -- if you were in the US I'd recommend KEH.com.</p>

<p>If you don't want to spend a lot of money or wait a long time, a good used Nikon D5200 with an AFS 35mm f/1.8 G lens would be an affordable but effective shooting combination.</p>

<p>For a film shooter who learned photography on manual cameras and still owns some older manual focus lenses such as Nikon AI or AIS lenses, but wants to do some DSLR shooting and hopes to be able to use the older lenses, a Nikon Df might be an ideal solution -- it can do manual metering with AI and AIS lenses, it's a full-frame FX format camera with no crop factor, and it has manual rotary-knob shutter speed, ISO and exposure compensation dials as well as menu-driven digital controls -- but it would cost more than you plan on spending.</p>

<p>See if you can get hold of an Olympus 35SP in good working condition. I had one of these for several years in the early to mid 1970s, and got one again a few years ago. Slightly larger and heavier than an WA, a neck-strap camera rather than a pocket camera -- but a fast and sharp 42mm f/1.7 lens, shutter speeds to 1/500, a large and bright viewfinder/rangefinder, and auto exposure from EV 5.5 to EV 17 or manual exposure from EV 1.5 to 17 at ISO 100 if you can find modern substitutes for PX-625 batteries -- a really nice camera overall, maybe not a Leica M but still a very effective photographic tool. Here's a link to more info: <br>

<br /> https://web2.ph.utexas.edu/~yue/misc/35SP.html </p>

<p>Photographing using just one lens is a good exercise. It helps you to concentrate on figuring out where to position yourself and your camera in relation to the subject, what you want to include in (and leave out of) the image, whether to move closer to or father away from the subject to accomplish that, how to frame the shot, what to slecect as your primary point of focus, and so on. It also helps you to figure out what the strengths and weaknesses of a particular focal length are -- what it does best, whether it has any particular characteristics which can be used intentionally for visual effect, what situations it is most useful in, and what subjects or situations it is less useful for.</p>

<p>Which lens you choose for your "one lens" project depends primarily on what type of subjects and what style of photography your prefer for a majority of your work.</p>

<p>If you like street photography, environmental portraits (i.e. those showing people in the context of their lives), landscape photography or travel photography, for example, you might choose a wide-angle lens. On a Leica, 35mm lenses offer a good combination of compact size, large maximum aperture, good depth of field, a moderately wide field of view, and a relatively natural-looking perspective -- among the reasons why a Leica with a 35 is a classic combination. If you want a somewhat wider field of view and a bit more depth of field, you might choose a 28mm. If you want to explore an exaggerated sense of perspective and depth, with close-up objects looking olarger and far-away objects looking smaller than normal, you might consider a 21mm.</p>

<p>If you like doing available-light photography early in the morning, at dusk, or at night, you might want to try a 50mm f/1.4 for its large maximum aperture, to give you as much margin for error as possible in terms of shutter speed.</p>

<p>If you mostly shoot portraits, or like to focus in on details in landscape or travel photos rather than going for the big picture, you might want to try a 90mm. With Leica 90s, at least the more or less affordable used ones, you have a choice between small and light but not really fast enough for available light; and fast enough for available light, and shallow depth of field at maximum aperture to isolate subject from background, but large and heavy. (Not as large and heavy as the 300mm f/2.8 monsters that sports photographers use on monopod-supported DSLRs to shoot football games, mind you, but rather large and heavy as Leica lenses go. The 1950s-vintage 90mm f/2 Summicron, which I rather like, used to have a tongue-in-cheek reputation as "a burden too great for one man to bear alone.")</p>

<p>Choose which style of shooting you like best, pick one lens to suit, and stick with it for a while. The specifics of what you learn will depend on your choices and personality, but it's very likely that you'll learn something worthwhile.</p>

<p>Digital has taken over, but there are some of us mastodons still shooting film (as well as digital) -- even black and white. I have nothing against digital photography, and do some digital shooting, but I considered it worth pointing out that the combination of Leicas and B/W film can still produce reasonable results.</p>

<p>I've just posted a series of photos I took using a Leica and B/W film, here: <br>

<strong>http://www.photo.net/photodb/slideshow?folder_id=1090495</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

I took these last year. I don't usually do architectural photography, but thought I would try some. The subjects were various buildings in or near the Empire State Plaza, a complex of state government buildings in Albany, New York. I make no claim to any particular artistic talent -- the photos speak for themselves, for good or ill. View in full screen mode for best results.</p>

<p>For what it's worth, I used a Leica M2, Kodak 100TMX film, 35mm, 50mm, 75mm and 90mm lenses, and medium yellow filters. The film was developed normally and scanned at medium-high resolution, and I did some light editing of exposure and contrast using Adobe Lightroom 4.4. </p>

 

<p>If you're concerned about traveling light, you might consider leaving both the 70-200 and the tripod at home -- both useful pieces of equipment, but rather large and heavy to lug around on an international trip.</p>

<p>You might consider taking just two lenses, a 35mm prime and an 85mm prime -- the AF-S Nikkor35mm f/1.8G and the AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G, for example. Nothing exotic, but practical. Relatively small and light, higher image quality than most zooms, fast enough for available-light shooting without a tripod at higher ISOs, and affordable enough to be replaced without too much grief if stolen, damaged or lost. </p>

<p>On a recent trip, while I had a couple of other lenses along, I took almost all my photos with just two lenses: the AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G, and an old Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 AiS. The goal was more straight-up photography than the kind of images requiring very long or wide focal lengths, but for me the 85 and 35 were a good, functional pair of lenses. You can assess the results for yourself (along with a smattering of images taken with other lenses or cameras) here:</p>

<p> http://www.photo.net/photodb/slideshow?folder_id=1089362</p>

<p>The question posed here involves a bit of an apple vs. orange comparison. These lenses were designed with different goals in mind, so it is not surprising that they differ somewhat in use. Note that the following discussion deals with the manual-focus, manual-exposure 35mm f/1.4 and 28mm f/2.8 lenses produced during the 1970s and 1980s, and not to current-production autofocus lenses.</p>

<p>When the 35mm f/1.4 AiS was built, Nikon offered at least four different 35mm lenses: a 35mm f/2.8, a 35mm f/2, the 35mm f/1.4, and a 35mm f/2.8 TS. The f/2.8 was designed to be small, light and affordable; the f/2 was an all-around lens; and the f/2.8 TS was a tilt and shift model designed primarily for architectural photography. The f/1.4 was designed for maximum possible lens speed, to be used by photojournalists for available light photography in difficult conditions. Designing a fast lens poses major challenges for an optical designer, as the difficulty of producing high image quality increases substantially as the maximum aperture of the lens increases. An ultra-fast lens, like a high performance sports car, sacrifices other characteristics in the interest of achieving maximum possible speed.</p>

<p>Back then, the faster the lens one used, the more image quality one could retain. Standard film such as Tri-X was rated at ISO 400. One could push process it to ISO 800 or even ISO 1600, but that usually involved significant loss of image quality, with blocked highlights and little shadow detail. Kodak 2475 surveillance film was a bit faster, and Kodak and Ilford eventually marketed ultra-speed ISO 3200 films, but even at rated speed those were very grainy films, they worked beteer at 1600 than at 3200, and when push-processed to speeds above 3200 they lost image quality rapidly.</p>

<p>As Bjorn Rorslett has pointed out, the 35mm f/1.4 AiS has a distinct personality. At its maximum aperture of f/1.4, it delivers high speed in the center of the image but has a lot of light falloff in the corners due to vignetting, is not very sharp, delivers low contrast due to spherical aberration, and suffers from optical coma in the corners. The effect has sometimes been described as "dreamy" (something which can be used for deliberate effect in some types of photography). Due to relatively shallow depth of field, it helps to have a Nikon F, F2 or FM with a split-image screen to focus this lens accurately at maximum aperture; at this setting, it's not as easy to use with a modern DSLR designed for autofocus lenses which lacks a split-screen viewfinder. Its performance improves somewhat at f/2. When shot at f/2.8, f/4 or f/5.6, however, it delivers excellent sharpness, contrast, great resistance to flare and ghosting, and little or no coma. For its time, it was one of the very best available, and it is still impressively good at those apertures. At f/8 and above, the image quality falls off due to diffraction, and one would do just as well using a smaller, lighter, more affordable 35mm lens.</p>

<p>Nikon first offered a 35mm f/1.4 lens in 1970, which was 46 years ago now. (The AiS version came out in 1981, which was 35 years ago.) When comparing a lens initially designed almost half a century ago, or a version produced more than a third of a century ago, with lenses designed and marketed within the past few years, one must realize that there have been considerable advances in optical science during the past 46 years. Keep in mind that when Nikon first designed the 35mm f/1.4, there were no autofocus lenses, digital cameras, personal computers, image-editing software, Internet, cellphones, CDs, DVDs, microwave ovens, or flat-screen TVs in existence.</p>

<p>What is impressive about the 35mm f/1.4 AiS is not its absolute performance in current terms, but rather just how well it continues to stand up against comparison with much more modern lenses. If used with skill, it can still deliver very high quality images today -- just recognize that if you absolutely have to use it at f/1.4 to grab a shot in dim light there will be some optical tradeoffs involved, and that if you do most of your shooting at f/8 or above, you might be happier with a smaller, lighter, cheaper lens.</p>

<p>The 28nn f/2.8 was designed with rather different goals in mind. Nikon had offered a 28mm f/3.5 lens for the Nikon F as far back as 1960. That lens was small, light, tough, and delivered good results even with light sources in the image frame. It became one of the standard tools of photojournalists during the Vietnam War. It was a bit slow, though, so Nikon came out with a faster 28mm f/2 lens in 1970 (the same years as the 35mm f/1.4). That was an excellent lens by all accounts, but larger, heavier and significantly more expensive, of greater interest to professional photographers than to amateurs. Nikon needed to come up with a more up to date, but affordable, 28mm lens. Nikon first put the 28mm f/2.8 on the market in 1974, and the AiS version went on the market in 1981 (although the 28mm f/3.5 was so trusted by photojournalists that Nikon left it on the market until 1983).</p>

<p>The 28mm f/2.8 lens was not designed with maximum speed as the primary goal. It was, instead, designed as a moderately fast, reasonably affordable, general-purpose lens at that focal length -- an economical family car, if you will. It was and is a perfectly good lens, and delivers good results, even today. </p>

<p>Comparing the moderate, family car 28mm f/2.8 with a big, heavy, expensive, no holds barred high speed hot rod, as the 35mm f/1.4 was when it first came out, doesn't really do justice to either lens. They were designed for different purposes, they achieved their rather different design goals, and they occupied very different market niches. Their continued usefulness today, decades after they were first designed, stands as testimony to just how good Nikon's optical engineers were back then.</p>

<p>I love my Leica and Canon rangefinder cameras, and they can take some superb images, but macro photography is not one of their strengths. As others have mentioned, parallax makes it difficult to use a Leica (or any other rangefinder camera) for close-up photography.</p>

<p>Some Leica lenses will allow you to focus fairly close to your subject, but due to parallax, i.e. the difference in viewpoint between the viewfinder and the lens, if you get less than a yard or meter from your subject, the viewfinder won't provide you with accurate framing of the image your lens is seeing. You will have to wait until you get your film back from developing to know what your photo actually captured, and in most cases it will be somewhat different than you thought, even if you made a conscious effort to correct for parallax in composing the photo before shooting. It's a hit or miss proposition -- sometimes you manage to get a great image, but much of the time the framing of the actual shot is not what you intended or wanted, and omits something you considered essential to the image you hoped to capture.</p>

<p>The real test, of course, is the image actually produced. I've got nothing but respect for photographers who manage to take high-quality macro images with a Leica, and I'm not going to argue with any who have found ways to do so. For the average photographer, though, if you're interested in macro photography, a DSLR, digital compact, or SLR film camera might be an easier and more reliable way to capture the macro images you want. Leicas are wonderful cameras and have some great strengths, but macro photography just isn't one of them.</p>