Leica IIIF anyone?

[KidA]

I recently held for the first time a Leica IIIf and fell in love... I would like to actually use one on a trip I will take next spring to the Rockies (I need small and light!). I'm currently using and OM system which is quite compact and light already, but not like these old gems. I was curious to know if any of you know how well the lenses perform. Looking for a wide, normal, and tele lens set up. How do these lenses stack up to the newer Leica glass? Is the difference immense? Should I just start saving and get an M system? In particular, do any of you know if there is a huge difference between the f3.5, f2.8, and f2 lenses? The ultra compactness of the 3.5 is just incredible and I would love to have that always mounted and in my pocket... I'm not so interested in brightness of lenses, I rarely shoot any wider than f5.6-8.

 

[ToddB]

I have a M3 I used for my trip to Greece this past summer. I have a Summicron 50mm and a goggled 35mm. Both lens gave me tack sharp images that can enlarge on 11x14 paper with no problem. They will set you back you a few bucks but worth it. KEH is having a sale right now on selected items with free shipping. You might be able to get a lens and a body for $1000.00.

Todd

 

[Jim Noel]

I recently held for the first time a Leica IIIf and fell in love... I would like to actually use one on a trip I will take next spring to the Rockies (I need small and light!). I'm currently using and OM system which is quite compact and light already, but not like these old gems. I was curious to know if any of you know how well the lenses perform. Looking for a wide, normal, and tele lens set up. How do these lenses stack up to the newer Leica glass? Is the difference immense? Should I just start saving and get an M system? In particular, do any of you know if there is a huge difference between the f3.5, f2.8, and f2 lenses? The ultra compactness of the 3.5 is just incredible and I would love to have that always mounted and in my pocket... I'm not so interested in brightness of lenses, I rarely shoot any wider than f5.6-8.

I assume you are kidding about the lenses. I had a IIIb, the last of the small bodies, which I carried and used everywhere. I even carried it in my float tube while fishing. I think you will love the outfit.

 

[summicron1]

the leica lenses made in the 50s will not perform on an optical bench as well as modern lenses.

However, since you do not take pictures on an optical bench, you can use those lenses with complete confidence that your images will have the same qualities that made Leica famous. They are wonderful lenses, usually very compact, well-made, a delight to use.

 

[Paul Howell]

In the late 60s I bought a IIIF which I later traded in for a IIIG, I had the 50mm F2. The IIIF is a great camera, I agree with the feel, the IIIG was as nice in the hand, but when I got a Canon 7S, while it did not have the same feel, in terms of function the 7S was so far advanced, and the Canon collapsible 50mm 1.9 was just as good as the 50mm F2.

 

[Hatchetman]

They are great cameras. Good for landscape. Elmar, Summicron, Summitar will all get the job done.

 

[Kyle M.]

Great camera great lenses, these were taken with a 1951 IIIf with a 1946 3.5 Elmar.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/kylemichaels90/albums/72157660759752380

 

[GregW]

The Summitar is my favorite in the normal length, wide open it's a dreamy wonderful lens. As with any of these lenses, be sure to get a hood. Mine lives on the body with a tiny Nikon 35 3.5 in reserve. I wouldn't go longer than a 90mm tho with a rangefinder.

 

[Jim Jones]

For years a IIIf with a collapsing Summicron 50mm f/2 was my favorite setup. The lens was sharp enough wide open for anything I wanted to shoot in poor light. Later I had a Canon 7S with a Canon 50mm f/1.4 which didn't perform as well in low light. A newer Summicron on a M4 is my current rangefinder setup.

 

[pentaxpete]

When I was in Germany in the British Army, 1956-58, I got sent to Iserlohn in the British Zone and we had the Canadian Army there so there was a Canadian 'Maple Leaf Store' we could use -- there they were selling BRAND NEW Leica IIIf with 50mm f3.5 Elmar for £45-00 in British Money $64.80 in US rate ---

 

[4season]

Maybe just start with a 3F + 50mm Elmar and see how you like it. Other lenses require a shoe-mounted finder, so some of the amazing compactness is lost.

The M-system is certainly more convenient, but it's also larger and heavier. In fact, an M-body is very similar in size to an OM or Leica R4-series SLR body, save for the pentaprism bulge and increased depth due to the swinging mirror. So the real M vs SLR space savings are the lenses themselves, which are typically smaller than their SLR counterparts.

Not especially fond of using focal lengths longer than 50mm on any Leica rangefinder body, but if I had to choose, I'd probably opt for one of the more compact 90mm Elmar/Elmarit variations. But even the M really seems optimized for the 35 and 50mm focal lengths.

Subjectively, the 50/3.5 and 50/2 collapsable that I've owned were capable of very pleasing results. Non-collapsing lenses with 39mm filter threading would be handiest users IMO: I've tended just to leave the collapsable optics in their extended positions, so that particular feature has been mostly lost on me. Too lazy I guess!

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Love my IIIf RD. Feels and handles like nothing else. A joy to use. That said a bit of inherent trade offs and limitations of course. Lenses range from terrific to so-so but few I'd consider bad. Many with terrific "character" especially for subtle nuances in B&W film work. If ultimate sharpness and contrast is what you're after for landscapes and such it may not fill the bill but then again for that I use a Hasselblad at a minimum and even 4x5. But for wonderful compactness and lenses of superlative and unique character its hard to surpass.

 

[frank]

My screw mount poison comes in the form of a llla.

No clue why it loaded upside down.

 

[ph]

If needed, and you use slower films than the old tri-X, and want higher resolution and contrast, you can always get some newer (and very good) Cosina alias "Voigtländer" optics. The SM Leitz products are eminently pocketable (large jacket pockets) and unlike their electronically infested cousins, they tolerate rainy&stormy weather.

A long time ago, I used a screw-mount body with a collapsible Summicron + Kodak Panatomic to get good images. The reason I switched to the M-series was their superior viewfinders. The film still limited final resolution (and contrast -depending on development).

p.

 

[John Koehrer]

Yup! The lenses give different results between old & new.
I don't think I'd consider an ltm camera for telephoto lenses though. The viewfinder is very small
lots of folks will use an accessory finder even with a 50.

You can get Cosina lenses in ltm with modern formulas and coatings pretty cheap. The 50/3.5 you're
thinking of is only about $200. though.

 

[ColColt]

How about this...straightened it up a bit.

image by David Fincher, on Flickr

 

[chrchr]

I don't have Leica screwmount experience at all, but am I the only one who feels like the Leica II cameras are more attractive? It seems like the slow speeds are difficult to keep in repair, and I'm not walking around with a tripod all the time anyway.

 

[ColColt]

I don't worry about slow speeds. I can count the times on one hand in the last five or more years I've used anything less than 1/60th second.

 

[frank]

The llf that I had had a blank plate where the slow speed dial would be. Looked a bit weird. For me, it's nice to have the option. A flat surface can act like a tripod.

 

[wwilliams]

I second the person who said to try it first and if you decide to keep it, get used to it before the trip. That said, the SM Leicas are marvelous machines and shooting with them is a unique rewarding experience. The slower lenses are simpler designs and usually have somewhat higher contrast with more than adequate sharpness. I have a 3f, an 50mm Elmar and a 25mm Skopar making a very compact kit that I get super results with. Downsides include slower handling and PITA film loading. I had to buy and sell 2 Leica screwmounts before I convinced myself that it was a camera whose positives outweighed the negatives. FWIW the M2 I tried was nice (and had a much better viewfinder) but just didn't do it for me.

 

[ColColt]

I thought about trying one of these, liked the looks but just couldn't get away from my first love, the M2.

 

[02Pilot]

I have and regularly use two IIIcs. My travel kit is normally 25/4 Snapshot Skopar, 50 (more on that in a minute), and either 90/4 Elmar or 100/3.5 Canon. For 50s, I prefer the Summitar for most situations, but have a FED 50/3.5 for when compactness is the primary consideration, and a Canon 50/1.5 if I need the extra stop (and a few others if I get bored, which happens with alarming regularity).

The flexibility is great, but as others have alluded to above, these cameras really are at their best with a small collapsible 50 and nothing else. That's how I use mine most of the time.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Is loading the camera always aggravating or does one get better or just used to it? I've never even held a pre-M Leica. My understanding is that it helps to remove the lens, trip the shutter on T, and observe the film as you position it inside.

 

[Hatchetman]

I dunno why people complain about the loading. I bet I can do it in 15 seconds. Just remember to trim your leaders at home.

 

[Jim Jones]

To load pre-M Leicas with short tongue film, I insert a card in the film slot to cover the film gate, load the film behind the card, wind enough film so the shoulder of the tongue is past the film gate, and remove the card. This adds little to the nuisance of loading these cameras.