I want a Leica film camera, but...

[edge-t]

I recently saw a print made by a fellow photog using a 75mm summicron. Very nice, but if the photog wasn't competent enough, it's just a shitty portrait made by a very expensive lens.

Truth to be told, I was tempted to buy into the whole leica system. Then, I saw the minnamata images made by W. Eugene smith---made on minolta lenses. I realised that a leica and the humble minolta(which I already have) are too good for me. Also, I can't come to terms with dropping 4 grand on just a body and a 35mm lens.

Buy the best you can afford. I can only afford a minolta.

 

[georg16nik]

What about a Leica lens on a Fed or Zorki?!!!


Steve.

Here You go

Elmar + russian slip on filter on Zorki 1 1952, Summitar on prewar Fed 1939

Russian 5,6/20 + its finder made by KMZ Krasnogorsk on Leica I 1930

ne varietates timeamus

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

That Leica 1 is a beauty!

 

[georg16nik]

Leica 1 probably could be described with a quote by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."

in that connection, let leicaphiles excuse the temporary absence of the original nickel plated Elmar..
I toke it away just for the photo, now its back on and the Leica is happy again

 

[Tim Gray]

Were the desired focal lengths ever mentioned? Reading through the posts, it sounds like either you said 35 or 50 somewhere, or everyone is assuming thats what you want.

The two Zeiss ZM lenses I've used were great. I'd have no qualms if they fit your needs. I used the 35/2 for about a year before I decided the focal length didn't suit me. Now I have a 21/4.5 and it's one of my favorite lenses. I've heard *great* things about the 50/2, 35/2.8, 25/2.8, 21/2.8, and 18/4. I've heard almost as great things about the rest of the line. The 50/1.5 is the only one that I might mention with caution - not that it doesn't appear to be a fantastic lens, but it has some quirks with focusing and might not be as sharp or even across the frame as you want for a general purpose lens. You should just know what you are getting into with it before you buy it.

The two I used compete just fine in most aspects with the couple of Leica lenses I have. For me, the big determining factors are size, maximum aperture, distortion, and price. Also check out the CV line of lenses - they have some real nice stuff too.

Personally, even though I shoot a Leica and have a couple of there lenses, if I probably wouldn't get into the system now if I had to start from scratch. I got into it about 6-7 years ago, right when the ZM line was released and before the digital Ms were out. Used Leica lenses were much more affordable then. Now they are crazy, and the new prices are even crazier.

 

[coigach]

Wow..if I could only get a dollar for every time these discussions come up, I'd be a millionaire. Cameras and lenses are just tools, and the use of these tools is simply a choice one has to make. What's between the ears is what makes a picture. You want a Leica, get a Leica and ignore everyone here. At the end of the day, you are the one who has to live with the choice, and, as long as you understand that it is not what will make you or break you, you are ahead of the game.

Wise advice from a photographer with real chops (look at that APUG gallery and be amazed and inspired )

 

[darkosaric]

I have Leica M, summicron 50 and elmar 90: does it make me happy? - Yes. Does it make me better photographer? No, but I knew that before I bought them .

 

[vpwphoto]

I think what is lost in these silly conversations are:

Some people like to own the best...
Some people are capable of using the best...
Some people think using the best will make them better some how...
Some people make great things happen with whatever they have at hand...
And in the end if you are capable of understanding finer lines of quality the quest of the best is warranted...
... and these post's are overcooked... don't start another... use the search function.

(some people like to debate stuff, and some people are vindicated by debating that lower end stuff can trounce high end stuff and vice-versa, it's sport).

 

[Paul Goutiere]

...while I can afford, say, an M4-P, I can't afford the body AND a Leica lens. Would a Zeiss lens be an acceptable substitute for the Leica glass? Or are there other suggestions?

Thanks to all who reply.

With best regards,

Stephen

So, let me tell you what is going to happen....typically.
-You will get a nice Leica and a great little Zeiss lens.
-Someone will tell you again, or you will read, that Leica glass is sunshine condensed around diamonds and blessed by the spirit of Ernst Leitz himself.
-The itch will get stronger and before you know it, you'll have found a way to buy a Leica lens.
-You'll have to sell the Zeiss lens for less than you paid for it, making the cost of this inevitable transaction even more.

Save yourself time and anxiety; get the Leica camera and Leica lens. If you buy used you may actually be able to sell the camera and lens for what you paid for it.

 

[Steve Mack]

Gee, guys, I didn't mean to stir up such a fuss! I'm reminded of the time I inadvertently stepped in a yellowjackets nest.... True story. Thank you all for your input. I realize that the photographer is the main component in photography. Depending upon what you are trying to do, your equipment may help or hinder you,

But I was wondering out loud, and asking for (and got) other people's opinions. IF I can pull the funds together, I am probably going to get a Zeiss Ikon and the 35mm f/2. That combination is within shouting distance. Also, I have handled both cameras, and I like the Ikon better. But if I had the money, I would buy one of each; the Leica would be used on odd-numbered days of the month, and the Ikon on the even-numbered days. Oh, and I like new nice things, and I can afford a new Ikon and lens better. (I know about the budget statement (~$1100.00) but I would come up with the balance for the camera and lens.)

Anyway, thank you again to everyone who replied, and go out and make some neat photos.

BTW, I ran across this from HC-B: "We seldom take good photographs. You have to milk the cow a lot and gets lots of milk to make a little piece of cheese." Just sayin'.

With best regards, to all.

Stephen

 

[artonpaper]

The comment about newer Zeiss lenses being better than older Leica lenses is true. I've had some older Leica lenses that were not good performers in the way we usually think of those lenses. There are those that say that the introduction of Nikon lenses to the western market made the people at Ernst Leitz sit up and take heed. It was competitive pride that spurred them on.

Then there are those that say part of the ''Leica look'' is created by the fact that the lens is off center to the film gate. If you have a RF Leica, and open the back, or remove the lens if the back doesn't open, you'll see the lens is off center to the frame. Whether this truly makes a noticeable difference is anybody's guess.

But the reason for getting a Leica RF was always the feel of the camera, the great parallax correction, and the mystique of the lenses.

 

[NB23]

The comment about newer Zeiss lenses being better than older Leica lenses is true. I've had some older Leica lenses that were not good performers in the way we usually think of those lenses. There are those that say that the introduction of Nikon lenses to the western market made the people at Ernst Leitz sit up and take heed. It was competitive pride that spurred them on.

Then there are those that say part of the ''Leica look'' is created by the fact that the lens is off center to the film gate. If you have a RF Leica, and open the back, or remove the lens if the back doesn't open, you'll see the lens is off center to the frame. Whether this truly makes a noticeable difference is anybody's guess.

But the reason for getting a Leica RF was always the feel of the camera, the great parallax correction, and the mystique of the lenses.

The Off-Center theory is interesting but this implies that all my lenses will behave differently if I use them on a Bessa, for example...

I've got one S3 and the 3.5cm f2.5 on it is superb. I can't believe how much detail my negatives show. The Nikkors are truly fine lenses.

 

[daleeman]

Making book here, anyone want in on this action? We are at 5 of 7 pages. Even money on making all 7 pages, 2 to 1 on going a full 15 pages, 8 to 1 on 30 pages of discussion.

One must put up an a Leica M Camera Body, (M2 or newer). Think of it you could win 8, count them 8 Leica M bodies if it goes 30 pages of discussion. Why we could give the OP-ster a free body so he could afford a lens.

House wins on Even Money on 7 pages. Place your bets, place your bets on 2 to 1 odds for a full 15 pages, or go for broke on 8 to 1 action. Mail your M bodies in now. PM me for Bennie the Leg Breaker's address.

On a more enlightened note, I do sometimes use my 50mm f3.5 M mount Elmar that Sherry K. tried to clean as a soft portrait lens. It just would not clean up real well. Gives a "New Leica Kinda Look" for an old lens. Very low contrast and you do have to know where the light source is to dodge flair.

I do hope the original poster finds the tools he is looking for to enhance his photography. I'm blessed to have my father's IIIf and friend's father's M2 and my wife's gift to me an M8.2 (yea I know APUG/DPUG and all that) They all have taught me more about my passion, my art and myself. One can get that from a Canon, Nikon or what ever too.

Lee

 

[Tim Gray]

The Ikon and the 35/2 are both fantastic. I think you'll enjoy them quite a bit. Have fun with them.

 

[artonpaper]

The Off-Center theory is interesting but this implies that all my lenses will behave differently if I use them on a Bessa, for example...

Like I say, whether this is truly noticeable is questionable, but, it does imply that the Lieca lenses throw a larger image circle to cover the slightly off center film frame. If this true it may make a difference at the edges of the image, at certain apertures. So, it may make a noticeable difference when using a non Leica lens on a Leica body, rather than the other way around. I admit to pure conjecture here. Like everyone says, where you point it and when you push the button, matter more.

 

[Moopheus]

But the reason for getting a Leica RF was always the feel of the camera, the great parallax correction, and the mystique of the lenses.

For what those lenses cost, I'd want more than mystique.

 

[PKM-25]

For what those lenses cost, I'd want more than mystique.

LOl, I don't think it would fit into APUG posting guidelines to say what I would want...:devil:

Seriously though, use what you want...but take a look around at what the vast majority of the best PJ / documentary work has been done on in the post war era, it is not Leica. For example, the phenomenal Dead Link Removed used Olympus bodies for most of his pre-digital career. He did use a Leicaflex for a piece for Geographic though...

 

[BobD]

...while I can afford, say, an M4-P, I can't afford the body AND a Leica lens. Would a Zeiss lens be an acceptable substitute for the Leica glass? Or are there other suggestions?

Thanks to all who reply.

With best regards,

Stephen

Acceptable to whom? Are we all a bunch of high school girls now?

 

[georg16nik]

..but take a look around at what the vast majority of the best PJ / documentary work has been done on in the post war era, it is not Leica. For example, the phenomenal Dead Link Removed used Olympus bodies for most of his pre-digital career. He did use a Leicaflex for a piece for Geographic though...

After WWII, Leitz focuses on the aerospace and other more attractive for them areas.
While most PJ enjoyed SLRs and whatnot, a lenses based on Leitz 50mm Summicron were used in satellites for orientation of gyroscopes, I am giving just a camera related example, You got the idea.
Simply put, after revolutionizing photography in the 1930s, there was nothing interesting left for them.

 

[JohnMeadows]

Everyone knows nothing beats Leica -- Capa used Contaxes to shoot the D-Day invasion, and look how out of focus those shots are! /sarcasm

 

[Leigh Youdale]

There's an awful lot of people here parading their preferences, prejudices, dogma and misinformation that really is of no help to the OP. Putting aside the fact that simply by having to ask he doesn't really know what he wants or the differences, the nuts and bolts of it are pretty simple.

The Leica, any Leica, has some aura and a higher "fondle factor" than most other cameras. And it's a proven reliable performer. But in the end it's just a box to hold film. The Bessa is also such a box. It has proven to be reliable, it has some useful features that the earlier M model Leicas don't have, but it's not all that high on the fondle scale. But that's the emotional side and nothing to do with the image.
Either body - or the Zeiss - will do the job. After that, ergonomics and pride of ownership are probably bigger factors for some than for others. Earlier Leicas like the IIIf are works of art but have squinty viewfinders and not very good ergonomics. I wouldn't recommend them to the OP. I've had two of them. Now have an M6 and one of the two Bessa I bought. Both good useable cameras. No sentiment there - they do the job.

Lenses? Maybe Leica are the best - maybe not always. Maybe modern is different to vintage glass - maybe not always. But if you want good quality glass that's affordable and which 90% or more people will not be able to tell what brand lens you used, the Voigtlander lenses made by CV are very good quality and good value. You don't need anything better. You might "want" to have a Leica lens but chances are you'll pay a lot more money and maybe not end up with as good a lens because you'll probably be buying second hand and over the years there has been some variation in the lenses Leica produced. Not every one was a stellar performer.

So, if you're inclined to be objective and you're on a budget, get a Bessa body and Voigtlander lenses. If you're swayed by the subjective and have "Leica Lust" and can afford it, buy Leica.
Your images will look the same no matter which way you lean.

 

[John Austin]

I want a newer Leica outfit and I want a new 4WD ute and I want a new shed with two darkrooms, a print finishing room and a studio and I want a holiday in England and I want a new flat screen TV and I wand a holiday in NZ and I want a Sinar Shutter for both of my Sinar kits and I want a new brush cutter and I want lots of Cognac and I want new teeth and I want my dog to have longer legs so she can beat up Ruby when they squabble over a dead rabbit and I want new rain water tanks and I want a second home in Stogumber where I was born and I want to move Augusta and I want an agent to organise my exhibitions and publications and I want a new lap-top computer and I want . . .

I you are not a professional photographer use what you can afford, enjoy it and spend any extra money on film, paper and print presentation - But really your first priority has to be the absolutely best enlarging lens you can get - Whatever camera lenses you use, their quality will be affected by the enlarging lens

 

[vpwphoto]

But really your first priority has to be the absolutely best enlarging lens you can get - Whatever camera lenses you use, their quality will be affected by the enlarging lens

And that brings us to the Focotar!!! Uh oh here we go again.

I made a lot of my early favorite prints with a Focotar on a Focomat.
Right now my 35mm and 120mm enlarging lens is a 80mm Rodenstock.

Now this thread is officially derailed!

 

[Paul Goutiere]

I'm gonna try to bring this boil to a head:

Who likes the M9?

 

[daleeman]

I'm gonna try to bring this boil to a head:

Who likes the M9?

HA,
I can count up to 8.2. in increments of IIIF and M2. Since the IIIF was a gift from my father it gets the most milage. Your milage may differ, so one needs to use New Leica Math.

IIIF = 8.2/M2(35mm3) > VC/Zeiss < Summicron