A good screw thread Leica lens?

Oh, on the Olympus XA, I LOVED mine while the light seals were good, but once they went bad I could NEVER fix the light leak. Tried four or five times, leaks every time. I've re-sealed half a dozen older cameras before without issue, but the XA really, really stumped me. If Olympus went to a removable back like the Minox then there never would have been a problem. Also, the XA dedicated flash isn't as useful as a hot shoe. A camera that merged the Olympus rangefinder, shutter, and exposure system with the Minox removable back and genuine hot shoe would be PERFECT.

Aristotle80 said:

Just know what you're getting into. (This was the talk I should have heard from a certain foreign car dealer ten years ago! *cough MINI)

Click to expand...

You can't blame us guys for that any more. They're German too! (we refer to the MINI as the BMW Series 1)

blockend said:

You can't blame us guys for that any more. They're German too! (we refer to the MINI as the BMW Series 1)

Click to expand...

You mean series 0?

http://www.bmw.com/com/en/newvehicles/1series/overview.html

I've got an Elmar...the aperture ring definitely counts as fiddly. I'd look to another collapsible lens if I was starting over. I shoot mainly Canon RF in 35mm and the Elmar doesn't seem to be made to any higher spec/build quality than the Canon gear from the era.

The VF on the IVSB I had for a while was barely usable, but at least it didn't scratch glasses like the FED 3b I started my RF journey with. I've now got a Canon 7 and VT, and the 7 is worlds better in the VF department than the VT, which was much better than the IVSB. Neither of them are nearly as pocketable, of course.

Yeah, I do love how the Mini drives, but gosh darned it's electrical system is possessed. My father had a 1969 Norton Commando motorcycle, a 1976 Jaguar, then a 1984 Jag, but he endorsed the buy anyway. He thought BMW might have exorcized the demons since the redesign. Still, it's like a femme fatale. You just know it's trouble, but you still want to take a ride.

I'm a bit surprised no one mentioned the Canonet QL series. They're quite small and I was more than satisfied with the images I got from mine. I only have experience with ones I bought off of junk tables (for around $5) but they seemed quite rugged and solid.

The early Leicas were INVENTED for exactly the purpose you describe OP. There of course have been many other examples for same purpose since then, but rangefinder land is a good place to stay for compact, especially since you can expand into the Ltm Voigtlander and Canon lenses when you're not trying to be super compact. If you're shopping on KEH find a focal length you want and buy it of its in BGN or better, it will perform just fine. Dont forget to check under the non-mfg for voigtlander and canon lenses too. First off I recommend Tamarkin.com. He has a great collection of cheap Leica scremount bodies and lenses that will perform just fine, give him a call and hell do anything to help you find what you're looking for, he's a great guy. Maybe also give Ken Hansen an email, he may have some screwmount. I'd say go with a IIIc (that you know to be working, I had a model missing a light shield inside of it for some reason) or a IIIf, those are good cheap models usually, 250-350 in great condition. I think you'll really have fun with a leica, and it's really ridiculously affordable.

Nikanon said:

I think you'll really have fun with a leica, and it's really ridiculously affordable.

Click to expand...

I had to read this a few times...I think affordability is quite subjective.

msbarnes said:

I had to read this a few times...I think affordability is quite subjective.

Click to expand...

The standards of what is a high and low price today has been decimated by the cheap assembly line equipment made cheaper with plastics and terrible construction aimed at reducing cost and not increasing longevity. Since these cameras over the decades have overwhelmed the consumer market, it defines an unrealistic standard of "affordable". Yes, it is subjective, but being able to spend a year or less saving up and working towards camera equipment sounds affordable to me. If you can't fit it in your budget in 2-3 years or less, it's likely not that important to you since you didn't allocate an amount of income necessary to make it happen sooner. That being said, I understand some people have very low Income jobs and this is very difficult. That perspective I understand very well as I work at bare change above minimum wage in the united states for a living and have worked out the equipment I need. Photography is very important to me though, and having the equipment I want was of top priority so I could focus on making the pictures instead of getting a relatively cheaper camera quickly and working my way up to the one i really wanted. Im not trying to pull a ken rockwell and passive aggressively attack anyone who dosent have one of his rotating points of view as their top priority. Simply, if you photograph a lot, make it happen, like anything in life, just do what you can. If its just for fun, maybe waiting longer will be fine, or settling for less will function just fine. Unless the camera you wanted is on the cheaper end of the market anyway, in which case you are in luck. Of course a whole discussion could exist on the topic of affordable so to just cut down on that we can speak relatively. The Leica Noctilux 50mm f0.95 is not affordable at 11,000$. A Leica M lens around 2,000$ is even difficult to make work. But even compared to the cheap assembly products of the modern digital age, a screwmount Leica body at around 300-350$ and a lens for another $300-$500 is pretty reasonable. Although I'm sure someone will disagree with this. I guess that depends on how important photography is in your life and how much what you really want compares to your net income minus expenses.

Exactly, well put.

I found the Summitar to be a very nice lens. Sharp with good contrast.

I also had a Cosina Voigtlander 35mm Color-Skopar. An excellent lens. Very compact.

Yes, the aperture control on a 50mm 3.5 Elmar is "fiddly", but its placement also means you are never going to use a filter. I know many people do not use any kind of protective filters on their lenses, and many photographers think you should not use protective filters because of impacts on image quality. But there are lots of Leitz LTM lenses with scratched front elements that make me want filter use as an option, not just for creativity, but also for protecting the investment. I use a Summitar and an LTM Nikon 50mm 2, btw.

Not collapsible, but a Voightlander 35mm f2.5 Color Skopar is pretty tiny. I picked one up a few years ago for $225.....less than 300 seems pretty do-able. Great lens.