steve_york1

www.rangefinderforum.com is where I saw the review of the Zeiss lenses.

If you opt for one of the Zeiss lenses, consider doing business with Tony Rose at www.popflash.com. He has very appealing prices.

 

Although I appreciate what the more seasoned photographers above have advised, I would definately opt for the best lens you can afford. That's one of the strong appeals of rangefinder photography -- the great optics, most Leica, but also Zeiss. And before I'm flamed, no, my photography does not deserve it, but I would rather have 1 or 2 lenses which are the absolute best I can afford, and that I use alot, then several more less expensive lenses. Afterall, if you opt for second best now, you'll regret it later, and probably eventually purchase the lens you reall wanted in the first place.

 

But definately go with the focal length you use the most.

 

Here's another point to consider: The resale value of a 35mm focal length will be stronger then the 50mm focal length, because it is more popular, and will be a more useable lens for digital, given the crop factor.

 

I have read some user reviews of the Zeiss 35mm lens and they have all been favorable. It appears to outclass the Leica Summicron 35mm M (4th version), which is the immediate predecessor of Leica's current model and a very good lens in it's own right.

All chromes are discontinued except 50mm elmar and the 35mm and 50mm summicrons. There was a thread about this on the Leica homepage forum.

I echo the question about whether you wear eyeglasses. If you do and the 35mm lens is your main focal length which you use most of the time, then, yes, I would strongly consider a 0.58 viewfinder.

The word is that Kodak has decided to stop making B&W paper -- all

B&W paper. They are apparently closing the plant that makes it.

Film and chemicals, so far, stay in production.

Andrew -- I believe you may be mistaken. It has been my impression that Leicas do, in fact, hold their value better then most other camera systems. At least, so far. I suspect that as the number of film users dwindle so will the value of used Leica products. But the investment value of a camera is a lousy reason to buy it. As an amateur, I buy into a camera system based on its fun factor, and Leicas have it, as it appears R-D1 do too. Now, if in the years to come Leicas or R-D1s loose their value, who cares? If you have used the product, then you will have gotten your money out of it.

And Leica rangefinders, especially the more mechanical ones, are good value when measured against their useful life, assuming the continued avialability if film and decent processing. Not only will the digital technology of the R-D1 be rapidly outpaced in several years, but I question the longevity of its electronics. Having said that however, it I were to enter digital photography today, then it would be through the R-D1. They look like fun cameras, and past a certain point advances in digital technology will not be seen in my types of photographs. I also parenthetically note that the R-D1 is somewhat larger than the Leica M.

Let me just add that Tony Rose has a better price -- by quite a bit --the new old stock, 50mm summilux (the old version).

 

I've been doing a little price comparing this month to see if I can afford to replace any of my 15-20 year old lenses. These two have been the least expensive which I have found.

I called at the end of last week to see what he had in stock. By that time, all of the M7s had been sold. Also, by that time, his remaining Leica stock was, and is, on the internet auction site we all know and love. He advised me he was selling items at cost. At least last week he had listed a black MP (0.72); 90mm elmarit; a couple 50mm lenses; and a 21mm elmarit, and maybe some other items, all at very good prices w/ full warranties. I picked up on a 35mm Summicron ASPH at a niffty price.

You just can't wait to do some shooting with that new M7!

Have you tried searching for older Leica R lenses on some place like Ebay? I asked, because one of the main reasons people get into a Leica system is there great optics. My understanding is that even the old Leica lenses are very, very, very good. Sorry, I don't know anything about your Tamron lenses.

Boris -- When I initially got into rangefinder photography I initially purchased a Contax G2. It's viewfinder was very difficult to use for someone, like myself, who wears glasses. It didn't help that the one I received from the mail order retailer didn't work.

The liberal viewfinder alone couples an affordable price will guarantee that the Zeiss Ikon sells somewhat well.

The folks on the rangefinderforum.com may have an answer for you. I asked a question regarding the viewfinder on this camera, and several people who had handled it at a show kindly replied.

Yes, that would help: http://auction.igavel.com

 

You may have to do some searching on the closed auctions.

Did anyone else follow the auctions of the Leica stuff from the

estate of Mr. Collins? This was actually the second set of auctions;

I had purchased a lens in the first set last November and received

notification of this one. I was surprised that the final bids on

many items -- some really rare stuff and most of which in unused

condition -- were somewhat low. I thought collectors, and even

delears, would be all over that auction, especially in light of the

impending price increase. The bids were low enough for even users to

jump into the fray.

Frank -- I respectect your expereince and opinions re: these cameras. But let me tell you my Zeiss Contax G2 story. When I first got into rangefinder photography in '97 or '98, this was the camera I initially mail ordered from a reputable dealer. When Irecdeived it the camera was dead; nothing worked. I put new batteries in and it was still dead. Maybe an isolated case, but the viewfinder for an eyeglass wearer was awful also. I then followed my brother's advice and got an M6. But it is this lingering memory which has kept me from getting an M7. I'm glad you had a better expereince.

I hate posting equipment questions, because that usually means, for

me, that I'm not shooting enough film. But this is an issue that has

been on my mind on and off for years now, and with the dwindling

supply of 0.58 models (w/o going through the custom program) I'm

thinking that it's time to resolve this issue once and for all. I

know there was alot of discussion of this issue several years ago,

but I can't find those threads in the archive.

 

As a practical matter and compared to the 0.72 viewfinder, do

eyeglass wearers actually find the 0.58 viewfinder very helpful or is

it, as we say here, "six of one, one half dozen of another" -- in

other words, it doesn't really matter.

 

Historically, I find that of the three focal lenghts I own (35mm,

50mm and 90mm) my best pictures, by a wide margin,come with a 50mm

lens, although I recognize that the 35mm focal length is much more

flexible. With this wider angle lens, I've generally never been much

impressed with the pictures I've taken. Even w/ careful framing,

they always seem to have too much or extraneous stuff in them.

 

It may be that I just need more practice with this lens, but I tend

not to use it, because I can't see the framelines (I wear

eyeglasses). I have a difficult enough time seeing the framelines on

the 50mm lens. Maybe I should just ignore the framelines when

shotting with the 35mm lens? I can always crop the photograph, right?

 

Did anyone find that switching to the 0.58 viewfinder resulted in

some better pictures with the wider lenses? Does the reduced size of

the image in the viewfinder encourage the shooter to get closer to

the subject? I've always been concerned about focusing accuracy with

a 0.58 viewfinder, especially in low light situations.

 

I'm not a gear head today, so I'm not looking for an excuse to buy

equipment. But if something would help, or add to the enjoyment, I'm

all in favor of that. Just as ana side, last fall I fiddled with an

R9, and I was very impressed with the eye relief. Unfortunately, I

can't drop by a local store to sample a 0.58. Maybe I should just

wait for this new Zeiss Ikon?

 

Sorry for all the questions.

M7 w/o question. At that price, you could probably sell it used in a couple months and recapture all or most of your investment.

Absolutely amazing. And do the dealers in the UK or Germany sell many Leica Ms at $3400-3600 US? These are street prices?

 

If sales are acceptable in these markets, then I can understand Leica raising prices elsewhere w/o concern of sales dropping too much, because they would have a good idea from these "test markets" what and how many consumers would pay for their products.

 

What's stopping someone in your country from buying a grey market item at substantial savings from HK?

It looks like these Zeiss products here in the states will be about 50% of the price of their Leica counterparts. That's going to grab the attention of potential consumers.

I'll ask again: How much is the street cost in US dollars of a new Leica M in the UK or Germany? I've heard so many whine about how it is so much more expensive there, but no one has cared to quantify that for me. I'm curious.

 

You have misconstrued the nature of these comments. No one is saying that Leica prices should be lowered in the states, and nowhere else. Complaints about Leica pricing here in the states is, ipso facto, condemnation of higher Leica pricing elsewhere.

 

If the costs of production for a single M camera, plus reasonable profit for the manufacturer, distributor and retailer, was $3300 US, then there should be no complaints, but I, for one, would have a hard time believing that, although it may be true.

 

If you are taking the position that people where I live do not complain about Leica pricing, which is higher then where you live, and therefore, you should not. That's simply illogical and does not comment on the validity or lack thereof of the pricing structure. It only comments on the purchasers where you live.

 

If the US is a big market for Leica, which I believe that it is or was, then behooves Leica to price their goods accordingly. That's just an economic reality.

I understand from those who have actually handled prototypes of the camera at th shows that the eyerelief is something special. Eyeglass wearers should be interested for this characteristic alone.

I don't think people are whining about Leica prices in the sense of "poor me, I can't afford to buy a new Leica product." Most of us are somewhat loyal Leica users, and many, including myself, have purchased and sold more new Leica equipment then they care to admit. Many here would like to see the company continue to exist, and are simply bemoaning pricing structures which appear antigonistic to that end.

 

Speaking of whining....look in the mirror.

I suspect that we'll see a digital Leica M within the next year or so. It seems to me that these price increases point in that direction (i.e., Leica is not too concerned about their continual sale of film bodies). And if a digital M is priced at $6,000 US or less, it will probably sell very well. This is because many Leica M users will buy it out of loyalty; to continue to use their collection of M lenses; and/or because it incorporates many of the endearing traits of the M line. It it is a well made and solidly built product, then I don't believe potential customers will be hesitant to purchase due to the prospect of increasing technology -- how many more mega pixels, sensor gizmos do you need? Look at the DMR sales: My understanding was that, at least the pre-ordering, was fairly sucessful, given the number offolks w/ R systems.