A 40mm Summicron on its own should be worth $700, but of course there is no frame line for it on the M2 and it will bring up the 50mm frame. The 35mm Skopar is an excellent lens and punches well above its price. The M2 is a more useful camera than an M3 for most modern photographers who prefer a wider lens option. But the two M2 bodies sound a bit dodgy and a CLA would add $500 to the cost. Conclusion, don't bother, wait for a better M2 body and get the lens you want for it, if budget is a concern then the Skopar is a great choice.
Steve
Thanks for the helpful replies!! I should have been more informative, I want to use the camera for taking pics of buildings and folks in Venice and Tuscany, see my portfolio on the rangefinder Forum for a couple-3 examples:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffgallery/showcollection.php?cid=9974
The M2 is chrome. Appreciate the comments. And what about the image quality of the Skopar vs the Summicron???
JOhn K---PM sent.
Personally, to me main benefit of Leica M is in frame lines, which gives me precise framing. Getting any lens which doesn't match the frame lines makes no sense to me.
I owned CV 35 P LTM version, it was razor sharp wide open. Sold it with Bessa R and purchased PII M mount version of the same lens for my M4-2.
Also good lens in terms of sharpness and details in the scan and on the print. Nothing particular in the character, but I prefer 50mm lenses if I want something special in the rendering.
The M2s 35mm frame is closer to 40mm than 35mm, so many 40mm lenses have their lug filed to show the 35mm frame rather than 50mm. Leica changed the frame sizes for the M6 and later I think.
Cosina say the 35mm LTM and M have the same optic design.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?