oliver_filippi

<p>Assuming both are in good shape and the lens is good, the major discriminator is the removable hood on the F to take a prism. Hence I would give the nod to the F.<br>

Personally, I like my 2.8C with the Xenotar, which I think is a sharper lens (subjective opinion), than the Planar - even though the Zeiss name has more status.<br>

Zeiss made some (relatively unsuccessful) 2.8 lenses for Rolleis prior to the Planar. Schneider gave them a lesson with the Xenotar, which took the old standby 3.5 Zeiss Tessar to the cleaners. I haven't confirmed this, but I think the Planar is essentially a copy of the Xenotar.</p>

<p>My dad had a Leica IIIC with the collapsible f/2.0 Summitar lens. He subsequently traded in the body for a IIIF in order to get synchronized flash capability.<br>

I used this camera in high school to take photos for the school yearbook. If you look at the photos in the yearbook (even though the photo resolution isn't great, you can pick out my Leica shots - sharper and crisper# The IIIF was a very nice camera. The f/2 Summitar lens was subsequently superceded by the f/2 Summicron.<br>

The die hards of that era tended to favor the f/3.5 Elmar lens, which was essentially a Tessar design. The Summitar was a step in the Summicron direction #Gauss design, with air spaced elements#. Note that Leica designed the Summitar within a year or so of the development of coated lens elements #which reduced dispersion on the separated elements.# Previous lens designs typically minimized, or eliminated separate air spaced elements #typically cementing multiple elements together, if necessary#.<br>

Thus Leica took, essentially, immediate advantage of the new coated lens technology.<br>

The only significant drawback of the camera was the small "peek through" viewfinder, though the adjacent rangefinder was easy to use.<br>

If you are considering one of these cameras look at the IIIG, which had a "brilliant finder" more like the M3. I don't know how much a IIIG is going for, compared to a IIIF. The IIIG may be pricey, since the M3 came out a few years later, so only a limited number of the G models were produced.<br>

Of course, the M3 was a major advance - and essentially got everthing right #Brilliant viewfinder, integrated range finder and multiple, automatic viewfinder frames for different focal length lenses, bayonet lens mount#. Which is why, over 60 years later, it is still the standard of 35mm rangefinder systems.</p>

<p>Oliver Filippi</p>

<p> </p>

<p>My dad had a Leica IIIC with the collapsible f/2.0 Summitar lens. He subsequently traded in the body for a IIIF in order to get synchronized flash capability.<br>

I used this camera in high school to take photos for the school yearbook. If you look at the photos in the yearbook (even though the photo resolution isn't great, you can pick out my Leica shots - sharper and crisper) The IIIF was a very nice camera. The f/2 Summitar lens was subsequently superceded by the f/2 Summicron.<br>

The die hards of that era tended to favor the f/3.5 Elmar lens, which was essentially a Tessar design. The Summitar was a step in the Summicron direction (Gauss design, with air spaced elements). Note that Leica designed the Summitar within a year or so of the development of coated lens elements (which reduced dispersion on the separated elements.) Previous lens designs typically minimized, or eliminated separate air spaced elements (typically cementing multiple elements together, if necessary).<br>

Thus Leica took, essentially, immediate advantage of the new coated lens technology.<br>

The only significant drawback of the camera was the small "peek through" viewfinder, though the adjacent rangefinder was easy to use.<br>

If you are considering one of these cameras look at the IIIG, which had a "brilliant finder" more like the M3. I don't know how much a IIIG is going for, compared to a IIIF. The IIIG may be pricey, since the M3 came out a few years later, so only a limited number of the G models were produced.<br>

Of course, the M3 was a major advance - and essentially got everthing right (Brilliant viewfinder, integrated range finder and multiple, automatic viewfinder frames for different focal length lenses, bayonet lens mount). Which is why, over 60 years later, it is still the standard of 35mm rangefinder systems.</p>

<p>Oliver Filippi</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The Combi 500 was designed to use the now unavailable mercury cells.<br>

I have had good success with the Wein zinc oxide cell which is carried by many large (profesional) cmera stores (it also works the light meters in older Nikons, etc).</p>

<p>Also, you can Google it and buy them on line.</p>

<p>Oliver Filippi - Encinitas, CA</p>