Leica M or Leica IIIF?

[JerseyDoug]

I don't think anyone did. But IIIG cameras are quite expensive to be a compromise - they rival the price of M3 cameras without being able to use M lenses.

Agreed on the cost of a good IIIg, but another advantage is that it eliminates the temptation to buy M lenses

 

[chuckroast]

Agreed on the cost of a good IIIg, but another advantage is that it eliminates the temptation to buy M lenses

Oh, my dear, dear friend. You are sooooo wrong. I have a "friend" who ...

"If I buy an LTM collapsible 'Cron, I might someday use it on an M body.
Buys the 'Cron.
1 month later ... "Well, since I have a Cron, I should really get an M2 just to see what the fuss is all about."
Buys the M2.
2 months later "I love the fact that the M2 can frame a 35mm lens."
Buys a 35mm ASPH Cron.
2 months later "There's an an M5 Jubliee edition in great condition for sale - I always wanted an M5."
Buys the M5.
1 month later "The 50mm Cron is a classic, and everyone should own one."
Buys the 50 Cron
Rinse repeat

Then there is the cycle of "I really would like more modern glass on my Barnack, so I'll go buy a bag full of LTM Color-Skopars ... I mean, I can use them on my THREE M bodies with adapters"
Buys Skopars.

A Barnack body is nothing more than a gateway drug to M family equipment.

(At least that's what my "friend" told me.)

 

[BradS]

...

A Barnack body is nothing more than a gateway drug to M family equipment.

Yup. That's exactly what it was for me. Not complaining but kinda wish I had skipped the Barnack, and gone straight to the M2. Also mildly regret selling the 50mm f/3.5 Elmar with the Leica IIIF....but I guess it all worked out ok in the end...and it **was** kinda fun along the way.

 

[chuckroast]

Yup. That's exactly what it was for me. Not complaining but kinda wish I had skipped the Barnack, and gone straight to the M2. Also mildly regret selling the 50mm f/3.5 Elmar with the Leica IIIF....but I guess it all worked out ok in the end...and it **was** kinda fun along the way.

Well although I now own ... er, I mean my friend owns ... three M bodies and a bunch of glass ... I have to say that my IIIf remains top of the list for travel. It's small even when fitted with a finder an the 21mm f/4 Color Skopar and makes a terrific walking around kit. If I were pressed to travel at minimum weight it would be that camera and the D-Lux Typ 109, each of which can be carried in a jacket pocket.

I just took the IIIf up into the mountains on a ski trip, with a 35mm f/2.5 Color-Skopar plugged into it, as a matter of fact. Here's a shot I took with the camera and the 21mm wilst in Italy last year. Scan of silver print:

BTW, I eventually sold the 50mm collapsible Cron in favor of a newer design 50mm f/2.2 Color-Skopar, but I kept my uncoated collapsible 50mm f/3.5 Elmar. That lens is from around 1945 and mine is absolutely pristine. I kept it because it does glowy things around light sources and specular highlights.

 

[M. Axel Wikstrom]

I don’t know why people make such a fuss about loading an LTM Leica. Only a klutz couldn’t get the hang of it after a few times.

 

[chuckroast]

I don’t know why people make such a fuss about loading an LTM Leica. Only a klutz couldn’t get the hang of it after a few times.

Because some of us don't have tiny fingers to pry out those wretched takeup spools, that's why Fortunately, Leica made a replacement spool for that camera that has an M2 style popup nib on it that is waaaaaaaay easier to extract. They are scarce on the ground though, and nosebleed expensive. I bit the bullet and got one and it has been a Godsend.

 

[miha]

One more view on this: https://pindelski.org/Photography/2025/02/04/leica-m3/

 

[Pieter12]

Something that has not been pointed out that with a rangefinder camera you cannot detect focus shift at wide apertures until it's too late.

 

[Don_ih]

Something that has not been pointed out that with a rangefinder camera you cannot detect focus shift at wide apertures until it's too late.

I expect that is something taken into consideration by the lens designers for those cameras.

 

[Pieter12]

I expect that is something taken into consideration by the lens designers for those cameras.

Not really. Focus shift is an inherent design flaw in certain lenses. The only way to compensate for it is to be able to check focus optically by stopping down to the exposure aperture or by estimating from experience with the lens.

 

[Don_ih]

Focus shift is an inherent design flaw in certain lenses.

Yes. But unlike for an slr, where you focus with the lens wide open but it may take the photo very stopped down, which will make for the most significant focus shift, the designer of a rangefinder lens can choose which aperture focus is optimized for. So, if that's two stops down from open, that will minimize the shift either way.

Also, the closer the focus, the more significant focus shift becomes. Most rangefinders don't focus that close.

 

[Pieter12]

Yes. But unlike for an slr, where you focus with the lens wide open but it may take the photo very stopped down, which will make for the most significant focus shift, the designer of a rangefinder lens can choose which aperture focus is optimized for. So, if that's two stops down from open, that will minimize the shift either way.

Also, the closer the focus, the more significant focus shift becomes. Most rangefinders don't focus that close.

Unlike An RF, you can preview the focus at the taking aperture on an SLR. And yes, the designers of those lenses do optimize close focus for a certain aperture (usually 2 stops from wide-open) but the photographer needs to take that into account, too. If one wants to take advantage of the wide aperture (one of the raisons d'être of such a lens) the shallow depth of field can be critical and unforgiving. Like missing focus on the eyes of a subject. For more general use stopped down, it is not an issue.

 

[M. Axel Wikstrom]

Something that has not been pointed out that with a rangefinder camera you cannot detect focus shift at wide apertures until it's too late.

Total non-issue in my experience with the Leica lenses that I have in the real world.

 

[M. Axel Wikstrom]

Because some of us don't have tiny fingers to pry out those wretched takeup spools, that's why Fortunately, Leica made a replacement spool for that camera that has an M2 style popup nib on it that is waaaaaaaay easier to extract. They are scarce on the ground though, and nosebleed expensive. I bit the bullet and got one and it has been a Godsend.

Most of us don’t have tiny fingers and it’s not an issue. I’m sure that people with sausage-like fingers have other issues too, like finding gloves that fit etc.

 

[Pieter12]

Total non-issue in my experience with the Leica lenses that I have in the real world.

It is mostly evident in fast lenses with spherical aberration problems like the Zeiss Sonnar 50 1.5 and the Voightlander Nokton 35 1.4, as well as the early Leica Summilux 35 1.4 ASPH.

 

[Don_ih]

you can preview the focus at the taking aperture on an SLR. And yes, the designers of those lenses do optimize close focus for a certain aperture (usually 2 stops from wide-open) but the photographer needs to take that into account, too.

If the aperture doesn't change after focusing, the focus doesn't shift. If you have a lens wide open on an slr for focusing, shift is only an issue if the lens stops down for taking.

Of course it will be a compromise with rangefinder lenses, but it will be one that is largely irrelevant due to focus distance. In the meantime, it's easy enough to test at the closest distance range. Set up a tripod and take a series of exposures through the aperture range at the closest focus distance. Tell us the results.

 

[M. Axel Wikstrom]

It is mostly evident in fast lenses with spherical aberration problems like the Zeiss Sonnar 50 1.5 and the Voightlander Nokton 35 1.4, as well as the early Leica Summilux 35 1.4 ASPH.

Even with those non-Leica lenses I wonder how evident it is in the real world. The fastest lens I use with my rangefinders is f2. Probably a non-issue for the vast majority of rangefinder users - certainly my experience.

And by the way, most SLRs are focused wide open and stop down only when taking. The same perceived “issue” could happen with them.

 

[Pieter12]

If the aperture doesn't change after focusing, the focus doesn't shift. If you have a lens wide open on an slr for focusing, shift is only an issue if the lens stops down for taking.

Of course it will be a compromise with rangefinder lenses, but it will be one that is largely irrelevant due to focus distance. In the meantime, it's easy enough to test at the closest distance range. Set up a tripod and take a series of exposures through the aperture range at the closest focus distance. Tell us the results.

That is my point. I am aware of focus shift and which lenses are affected. It is up to the individual and their camera and lens combination to be able to deal with the issue.

 

[Pieter12]

Even with those non-Leica lenses I wonder how evident it is in the real world. The fastest lens I use with my rangefinders is f2. Probably a non-issue for the vast majority of rangefinder users - certainly my experience.

And by the way, most SLRs are focused wide open and stop down only when taking. The same perceived “issue” could happen with them.

Lots of photographers love to shoot fast lenses wide open, not sure who is in the majority. I am well aware that SLRs focus wide open, but they also have the ability to preview the scene at the taking aperture, allowing the photographer to see if there is any shift in focus.

 

[chuckroast]

Lots of photographers love to shoot fast lenses wide open, not sure who is in the majority. I am well aware that SLRs focus wide open, but they also have the ability to preview the scene at the taking aperture, allowing the photographer to see if there is any shift in focus.

I have a Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 and an 85mm f/1.4 - both AIS lenses. Shooting them wide open does delightful things to the bokeh.

The 35mm is well behaved wide open and has a really nice classic Nikon look.

But that 85mm is a demanding lens. Wide open, it has almost no depth of field. A Portrait composed to shoulder will either have the eyes or the nose in focus, but not both. So it has to be VERY carefully focused at larger apertures. It also has a much more clinical sense of sharpness and contrast. It acts a lot more like Zeiss Planar than a Nikon lens. It's a wonderful piece of glass but you really have to take care in its use.

By contrast (pardon the term), I have a 21mm f/4 LTM Color-Skopar that I use on my Leica bodies. The combination of a very wide angle of view and relative slow lens speed lets me throw this lens at almost anything at any aperture and get wonderful results, albeit at the cost of almost no bokeh.

So, as always, the painting determines the brush.

 

[M. Axel Wikstrom]

Lots of photographers love to shoot fast lenses wide open, not sure who is in the majority. I am well aware that SLRs focus wide open, but they also have the ability to preview the scene at the taking aperture, allowing the photographer to see if there is any shift in focus.

We can debate this until the cows come home, but in the real world these issues aren’t really an issue for most photographers. If a lens of mine has enough focus shift to become a problem, that lens will soon find another home. Adapt and keep shooting with whatever equipment you prefer. I prefer rangefinder cameras. (For 35mm.)

 

[chuckroast]

Total non-issue in my experience with the Leica lenses that I have in the real world.

I think the complaint about focus shift it primarily found in the very high resolution d****al world. The pixel peepers with M11s complain about this and speak of having to have the lens tuned to the body. In my view, this is

A) Suspect

B) Only an issue, if it is, under very critical, very high magnification

C) Pragmatically unimportant

I am, however, the first to stipulate that I do not have such a camera, nor the money or interest to buy one, so I am more than willing to be shown to be wrong on this.

I am deeply amused to see people with $15-30K worth of digisnapper and lenses complaining about this, but whose output is destined only for the web ...

 

[Pieter12]

Fast zoom lenses often exhibit focus shift, usually older designs. Currently-manufactured primes like the aforementioned Zeiss Sonnar ZM 50mm 1.5 and the Voightlander Nokton 35mm 1.4 suffer from focus shift. And, yes film is more forgiving than high-resolution digital, but the shift can be annoying when one is shooting wide-open for a certain look. My point has been that one needs to be aware of the phenomenon and be prepared to deal with it. Easier to preview with an SLR, not possible with an RF camera.

 

[Pieter12]

I am deeply amused to see people with $15-30K worth of digisnapper and lenses complaining about this, but whose output is destined only for the web ...

Speak for yourself.

 

[cliveh]

Fast zoom lenses often exhibit focus shift, usually older designs. Currently-manufactured primes like the aforementioned Zeiss Sonnar ZM 50mm 1.5 and the Voightlander Nokton 35mm 1.4 suffer from focus shift. And, yes film is more forgiving than high-resolution digital, but the shift can be annoying when one is shooting wide-open for a certain look. My point has been that one needs to be aware of the phenomenon and be prepared to deal with it. Easier to preview with an SLR, not possible with an RF camera.

Why would I ever wish to use a zoom lens on a rangefinder camera? I wouldn't even use one on a SLR.