Nikon SP vs Leica M for choice of lenses

I want to get a 35mm film rangefinder and I am torn between Leica M3/M6 vs Nikon SP. Both cameras have solid reviews, my confusion stems from the choice of lenses. Getting a Leica, from the looks of it, would mean a broad array of choice.

However, I own a Nikon D90 with handsome collection of lenses, I know that I will not be able to use DX/FX format lenses on Nikon SP but will I be able to use the SP lenses on Nikon? How easy or difficult it is get lenses for SP? Do I have as many choices as Leica M? Are the lenses as expensive as M lenses?

Also, can I use Nikon lenses on Leica M with some adapter?

Any help will be of great help!

The “s” series lenses including P for professional (SP) are collector items! I don’t know too many people who actually take out their S lenses??? But even if they do, (digression) . Anyway. .

BL. Buy a Leica to shot, buy a SP to collect.

I think the MP is my favorite. You can’t go wrong with Leica, FOR 35MM.

Of course I would try to dissuade you from 35 and move to 120. But hey,,,, do your thing and enjoy

Buying a Leica M doesn't limit you to Leica made M lenses even though that offers a vast number of options in itself. You can also use a simple adapter on Leica Thread Mount lenses (LTM) and use those, plus Voigtlander LTM and M lenses (again a vast and high quality range), and Canon LTM lenses. There are many others as well. You can put a Nikon F lens onto a Leica M, but you wouldn't have rangefinder focusing, so you'd have to use guesswork, this is however a valid approach for digital M's that have an LCD to focus with. An M6 would be an obvious choice because it has the full set of framelines available, and a meter. The M3 is more a connoisseur choice and unless you carry lots of accessory viewfinders to clip on the accessory shoe it defeats the object of potentially using a wide range of lenses, particularly 28mm and 35mm.

There are cheaper options to a Leica M if you feel nervous about the prices at the moment, so it's worth doing a lot of research on rangefinder cameras, I'd recommend https://cameraquest.com/ as a starting point, it has a lot of information contained in it's 'Classic Camera Articles' pages that cover pretty well all the questions you could come up with concerning Nikon and Leica rangefinder cameras.

I have and shoot M cameras and Nikon S2. While the Nikon has the build quality of a rank, for ease of handling nothing beats a Leica M. The simple fact is that the arrival of the M3 put Nikon, Canon, and Zeiss out of the rf market. 250swb has laid out the advantages of Leica. I might add that the Zeiss bayonet mount of Nikon rf cameras is rather fiddling compared to the ease and speed of M cameras.

If you’re asking if you can use rangefinder lenses on your Nikon D90 the answer is yes but only for macro shots. The film to flange distance is greater on your D90 than on a Leica M or Nikon S body. Nikon S lenses can be used on Leica M bodies but not the other way around without some radical lens modification.

I have a Nikon S2 and S, and several Leica bodies. I can use all my Nikon ( rangefinder lenses ), on my Leica bodies since I have an Amedeo Nikon S>Leica LTM adapter.

There’s way more versatility with the Leica M body.

Having used cameras with both mounts my vote would be for any M-mount Leica, hands down.

It gives you the widest range of lenses to choose from; in M-mount (from Leica, Zeiss, Cosina, Konica, and others), Screw mount (from Leica, Nikon, Canon, Zenit and many, MANY, others), and if you can find the proper adapter(s) even Nikon S-mount lenses, (from Nikon or Codina) and Zeiss (the original Contax).

The amount of lens choices can be overwhelming, but I have found it allows you to decide what priorities are most important (to you). Be it small size, light weight, lens speed, focal length, and/or cost.

My own journey into rangefinders began with a $20 Zorki 4 and a Jupiter elmar clone, and has only snowballed from there. I’ve had lots of fun along the way!

Leica M’s are great cameras, clearly. I like my Nikon SP as well.
For a broad selection of lenses for a rangefinder, you can’t beat the Leica M mount. Especially since you can convert the M39 screw mounts to M with a simple adapter.
That said, I find that I rarely use anything other than 35/50/85(90) mm lenses on my rangefinders- though I have wider and longer focal lengths. So with that limited range I am easily covered by choices in either Nikon S or M mounts.
A note on the Amedeo mount (Contax or Nikon S to Leica), I had one and found it very fiddly. I sold it and bought what lenses I wanted in their native mount, much easier.

Although I don't currently shoot Leica, I had a IIIG, and a Canon 7S, wanted a SP with motor drive, could not afford one, I only needed 3 lens for Canon and Leica, 28, 50, and 90. Perhaps if you want a very wide, 18 to 20mm a Leica would make a difference. Otherwise, what camera is more easily serviced, do you want an internal light meter, M5 or 6, maybe you can find a Canon 7 or 7S with a working meter, not TTL? Does ease of loading make a difference? While working I used the Canon 7 as loading the IIIG in the field is a pain the rear. Last how much do you to spend?

Sold my Nikon RF cameras. Kept my Leica Ms. The Leicas are so much better it's not even funny.

The NIkons are nice, but like others have said, not a lot of lenses for them. If one lens is enough though, then if you enjoy using it they are enjoyable cameras. I wouldn't mind having one for fun.

You can use Nikon RF lenses on the Leica, but it is fiddly. I sometimes use Contax lenses on the Leica. It is fun for about a half hour. Lol. They focus the wrong way too on a Leica. That is annoying.

Leica of course is Leica. Tons of lenes made for it. In fact so many at this point you couldn't even keep track of them. Voigtlander, Zeiss, Chinese lenses, I mean they are coming out of the woodwork these days. Leica RFs have the largest array of lenses that will fit of any camera I am sure. And if you like a lens then there is a machinist somewhere that could make that fit as well. I have a Pentax 50mm adapted to Leica.

One alternative if you are price conscious (doesn't sound like you are) would be a Canon rangefinder like a 7 or P. Great cameras and you could use any lens that fit on those (LTM) on a Leica if you get one later. I use my Canon 7 more than I use my M3 but less than I use my Hexar.

There is also the Konica Hexar RF and the Zeiss Ikon as well as the Voigtlander Bessas and the Minolta. I own a Hexar but I don't think I'd buy one these days. Good luck fixing it. Same for the Minoltas. The ZI and the Bessas are newer but for the price they command, forgetaboutit. Both are selling for more now than they were new. I really don't get why the Bessas are selling for so much these days. I mean back when they were new you could buy a used one for like $300. I thought they were overpriced then. Go figure.

The best thing about Leicas is unless you get an electronic one, they will always be repairable. There are issues these days though with the electronic ones. I just read a couple days ago that the boards for the M6 are no longer available. I think the M7 is unrepairable for several problems too, but don't quote me on that.

Patrick Robert James said:

The NIkons are nice, but like others have said, not a lot of lenses for them. If one lens is enough though, then if you enjoy using it they are enjoyable cameras. I wouldn't mind having one for fun.

You can use Nikon RF lenses on the Leica, but it is fiddly. I sometimes use Contax lenses on the Leica. It is fun for about a half hour. Lol. They focus the wrong way too on a Leica. That is annoying.

Leica of course is Leica. Tons of lenes made for it. In fact so many at this point you couldn't even keep track of them. Voigtlander, Zeiss, Chinese lenses, I mean they are coming out of the woodwork these days. Leica RFs have the largest array of lenses that will fit of any camera I am sure. And if you like a lens then there is a machinist somewhere that could make that fit as well. I have a Pentax 50mm adapted to Leica.

One alternative if you are price conscious (doesn't sound like you are) would be a Canon rangefinder like a 7 or P. Great cameras and you could use any lens that fit on those (LTM) on a Leica if you get one later. I use my Canon 7 more than I use my M3 but less than I use my Hexar.

There is also the Konica Hexar RF and the Zeiss Ikon as well as the Voigtlander Bessas and the Minolta. I own a Hexar but I don't think I'd buy one these days. Good luck fixing it. Same for the Minoltas. The ZI and the Bessas are newer but for the price they command, forgetaboutit. Both are selling for more now than they were new. I really don't get why the Bessas are selling for so much these days. I mean back when they were new you could buy a used one for like $300. I thought they were overpriced then. Go figure.

The best thing about Leicas is unless you get an electronic one, they will always be repairable. There are issues these days though with the electronic ones. I just read a couple days ago that the boards for the M6 are no longer available. I think the M7 is unrepairable for several problems too, but don't quote me on that.

Click to expand...

+1 .well said

bpndy said:

I want to get a 35mm film rangefinder and I am torn between Leica M3/M6 vs Nikon SP. Both cameras have solid reviews, my confusion stems from the choice of lenses. Getting a Leica, from the looks of it, would mean a broad array of choice.

Click to expand...

The Nikon SP is better built internally, and has a rock-solid shutter (basically the same shutter as the one in the Nikon F). A tank.

But the lens choice will be limited. You're limited to the Nikon lenses, and in theory the Contax lenses (and Kiev RF russian lenses) will mechanically fit just fine, but they will need slight modification of focus distance to be able to focus sharply with the Nikon.

There are great lenses for the Nikon RF system (and very expensive btw), but far more choice for the Leica M system. If you want choice, the answer is clear -- Leica. But if you want a really unique object, the Nikon SP is the dream rangefinder of many collectors.

The clincher is to look through the VF of an M2/M3 (or any other M) and compare the sharp, contrasty, well defined RF patch of the Leicas to the fuzzy blob in a Nikon RF.

Black. Nikon SP, S2, S3, the best looking cameras. So much swag.

I could live happily using only Nikon S cameras but no, Leica constantly interferes.

Huss said:

The clincher is to look through the VF of an M2/M3 (or any other M) and compare the sharp, contrasty, well defined RF patch of the Leicas to the fuzzy blob in a Nikon RF.

Click to expand...

The focus patch is the big differentiator.

I mean, other things are subtle, and workflow is a touch smoother on my M3. Not much, I mean the louder shutter or the locking razor wheel or whatever really don't matter on the Nikon. The year 2000 50mm is a stellar lens. You can take good photos there, for sure.

The M3 is a nicer looking focus patch, period. The fundamental part of shooting -- frame the shot nail the focus, click -- is just easier on the Ms, and that's where the difference lies. I never have a problem focusing on the Nikon. It's bright and sharp in the middle of the rangefinder patch, but the M3 patch is just better.

Huss hit it on the head. I love the SP for the build and the look but the thing that's been making me really want to sell it lately is how abysmal the rf patch is. Had it cleaned and overhauled by DAG and it went from bad to moderately OK. The patch of any M is just better defined and light years easier to use than Nikon's.

Finn lyle said:

Huss hit it on the head. I love the SP for the build and the look but the thing that's been making me really want to sell it lately is how abysmal the rf patch is. Had it cleaned and overhauled by DAG and it went from bad to moderately OK. The patch of any M is just better defined and light years easier to use than Nikon's.

Click to expand...

And that's the reason why Nikon threw in the towel with their rangefinder system. Leica was so far superior it wasn't worth it to them to try to keep going. They focused on SLRs which was a bigger market, and left the RFs to Leica.
If it was worthwhile economically for Nikon to stay in the RF business, they would have. But when their latest and greatest was still trounced by an M, well, why bother?

I think Nikon's biggest mistake was to create a pseudo Contax lens mount. They should either have gone with the universal LTM, or Leica's M mount. At the time their lenses were much cheaper than Leica's and so that would not only have resulted in cross shopping, but also encouraged current Leica owners to look at the Nikon.

Either way, forget everything else. Just look through the viewfinder of both and that will tell you all you need to know.

Huss said:

And that's the reason why Nikon threw in the towel with their rangefinder system. Leica was so far superior it wasn't worth it to them to try to keep going. They focused on SLRs which was a bigger market, and left the RFs to Leica.
If it was worthwhile economically for Nikon to stay in the RF business, they would have. But when their latest and greatest was still trounced by an M, well, why bother?

I think Nikon's biggest mistake was to create a pseudo Contax lens mount. They should either have gone with the universal LTM, or Leica's M mount. At the time their lenses were much cheaper than Leica's and so that would not only have resulted in cross shopping, but also encouraged current Leica owners to look at the Nikon.

Either way, forget everything else. Just look through the viewfinder of both and that will tell you all you need to know.

Click to expand...

LOL Not really.

Nikon opened up a way more promising market, the SLR market. They made a total killing. They didn’t see any future in the rf market, and they were right.

When nikon ditched the rf world is the moment Leica went downhill.

NB23 said:

LOL Not really.

Nikon opened up a way more promising market, the SLR market. They made a total killing. They didn’t see any future in the rf market, and they were right.

When nikon ditched the rf world is the moment Leica went downhill.

Click to expand...

They didn't see a future in the RF market because their latest and greatest was still woefully behind the M3.

Leica went downhill so much they still are making RF cameras - film and digital, and are a profitable company. Nikon has abandoned all film cameras, and now is on the verge of abandoning digital SLRs and fully going to mirrorless.
Guess Leica had it right all along!

Huss said:

They didn't see a future in the RF market because their latest and greatest was still woefully behind the M3.

Leica went downhill so much they still are making RF cameras - film and digital, and are a profitable company. Nikon has abandoned all film cameras, and now is on the verge of abandoning digital SLRs and fully going to mirrorless.
Guess Leica had it right all along!

Click to expand...

You really believe what you are saying?

I know you’re quite new to the Leica world... but I wasn’t expecting such a lack of history knowledge.

At the moment I wish Cosina would have put out a few of the 'vintage line' aka Ultron lenses in Nikon S mount. Leica film cameras have gone beyond the realm of affordability. I saw a Leica M240 selling for less than what I've seen M6s, M7s sell for. I'm not paying north of $2k for an M4... I have learned to absolutely adore my F2 and the SP looks like a fun camera. I just wish I could buy the Voigtlander 35/2 for it.

In Nikon's defense, at the time 1959 the market was going SLR, with time and development Nikon could have improved the rangefinder patch, wasn't worth the effort. Leica made some pretty good SLR, but could not beat the price and lens line up of Nikon not to mention Canon, Minolta and Pentax. Looking back 60 years and saying that Leica saw the future and got it right? Not only did Nikon abandoned the rangefinder market, although both Canon and Minolta continued with consumer level fixed lens models, both abandoned the pro level bodies and lens. Sony has already killed it's SLR lineup, although the translucent mirrors were not much of a SLR, Sigma no longer makes a SLR and Canon may go as well, leaving Pentax as the last person standing.

If I had the money I would likely go M6.

Huss,

Please take a few dozens of hours to polish your photo history knowledge. All the ressources are out there and it’s a fun ride.

Basically, the Nikon F took the photo world by storm, selling in excess of 1 Million units while, during that same time, Leica sold only around 200K cameras. That makes it only 1/5th. And it all went downhill, extremely fast, deeper and deeper.

The niche rf world was in bad shape. What kept Leica alive were its diehard followers. Not the mainstream market.

Mainstream market was basically: amateurs, newspapers, olympics, sports, fashion, wide angle, telephoto... anything. Schools, moms and pops. SLRs. MILLIONS of SLRS. Probably 500 SLR cameras for every single rf sold.

Ask yourself the question, why did Canon exit the rf world? Did you forget about them? They used the LTM mount, as you alluded earlier. And you forgot about Olympus, Pentax, Minolta slrs?

Just a few years ago, before and during the M8 days, Leica was a hair away of bankruptcy, and that was following their M5 days, which followed the poor M4 days... B&H couldn’t unload the Leica lenses even with 25% rebates in the 2000’s. A summilux 50 was going for 2000$ and less, new. Almost nobody wanted to touch them except the diehards.
I for one, was willing to die with my Leicas and stop shooting the day they’d stop manufacturing. Folks like this are the ones who kept the boat. The 1%.

The camera that saved Leica was the M9, and the digital world/era. In the digital era, people started to expect SMALLER devices. Think iphone. And this is where Leica got their swag back by total and absolute luck, finally the M form got in tune with the digital times... fuji got on board.

Leica was on life support and somehow survived until the market changed in its favor. Not the other way around. They had extremely difficult years, decades.

And so on.

Leica started to breathe when Kauffman bought the ship from disaster. Before him, Lee the director was causing a lot of harm. Kauffman decided that, in its extreme Niche market, the only way to survive would be to go Luxury full speed. Luxury and legacy. Slowly, the HCB stories/hype started to follow. The Magnum “legend” got into people’s heads. Street photography got hyped again. Even Magnum got back its mojo, thanks to legendary obacure stories. Basically, the digital market was annew pradigm shift and the asian market was very thirsty for anything western.

In conclusion, Nikon, and Canon, did not see any future in the rf system, and there was NONE. Even today, the present and future is not in the RF but in the mirrorless system, and no rangefidners are not mirrorless. That’s where Canon and Nikon and Leica are headed: mirrorless.
The M film system is a sub-sub-sub-sub-niche for crazy people as myself and a few others. Leica does not survive on that, but it is our crowd that keeps it mythical. And Leica needs that Myth to stay alive.

Leica tried many times to get away from the M system as we know it. They didn’t succeed because of its core custimer base didn’t let them. This was a blessing but also a terrible curse. Look at the various M6 prototypes, the M5. The leica crowd didnmt want those, and they didn’t want the lesser SLR offerings. The Leicaflex was brilliant, but extremely expensive. Leica was really between a rock abd a hard place. They couldn’t break through. All they had was the M line, and that was a cursed position to be in.

Too much to write. Just look it up.

Good grief, can someone give me the Cliff Notes version?

If you plan on shooting 1950s Vintage Nikkor lenses- The SP is the best platform. Nikon made lenses in Leica mount and Nikon S-Mount. The latter are about 1/2 the price of finding the same lens in Leica mount. If you want to shoot newer lenses, or try lenses from many lens makers- get the Leica.

The SP has framelines for the 2.8cm, 3.5cm, 5cm, 8.5cm, 10.5cm, and 13.5cm lenses. The ones to get are the 2.8cm F3.5, 3.5cm F2.5, 5cm F1.4, 8.5cm F2, 10.5cm F2.5, and 13.5cm F3.5. Each of these lenses cost more to acquire in Leica mount. But, the cost of the Nikkor 5cm F1.5 in Leica mount was more than all of them. It is very rare.

The 3.5cm F1.8 is faster than the F2.5, but cost much more. except mine. It was $400.