Which was better built--Leicaflex SL2 or Nikon F2?

Eagle Blue · Jul 19, 2017

I'm kind of new here and don't get much computer time, but may I throw a 3rd one in the discussion, just for my own edification? But first I believe the Nikon F2 is probably the best built and finished 35mm of all. And I further believe that the Leicaflex with a rubberized cloth shutter can never hold that spot, because of the rubber. They should have stayed with just plain cloth, like a Mamiya Sekor, if they were going to do cloth at all. But the 3rd one I really want to hear about is the Contax RTS with Zeiss lenses. I've never consider Yashica SLR's to be any better than the rest of the run of the mill Japanese stuff like Minolta, Konica, Ricoh, Miranda, Petri, Kowa, and the others like that. So I'm not exactly overjoyed Contax would have chosen Yahsica of all companies to team up with.. But did the Contax RTS with Zeiss lenses earn any spot in the category of fine equipment? thanks.

Eric Rose · Jul 19, 2017

Nothing beats the F2.

E. von Hoegh · Jul 19, 2017

Eagle Blue said:
I'm kind of new here and don't get much computer time, but may I throw a 3rd one in the discussion, just for my own edification? But first I believe the Nikon F2 is probably the best built and finished 35mm of all. And I further believe that the Leicaflex with a rubberized cloth shutter can never hold that spot, because of the rubber. They should have stayed with just plain cloth, like a Mamiya Sekor, if they were going to do cloth at all. But the 3rd one I really want to hear about is the Contax RTS with Zeiss lenses. I've never consider Yashica SLR's to be any better than the rest of the run of the mill Japanese stuff like Minolta, Konica, Ricoh, Miranda, Petri, Kowa, and the others like that. So I'm not exactly overjoyed Contax would have chosen Yahsica of all companies to team up with.. But did the Contax RTS with Zeiss lenses earn any spot in the category of fine equipment? thanks.

There was only one real Contax, and it was a rangefinder made at Dresden.

Some of the Contax branded slrs were pretty nice, I just wish they called them something else. I think one model even had a vacuum pressure plate, and the lenses were gorgeous.

Eagle Blue · Jul 19, 2017

The reason I asked that is I still think a Nikon F2 with something like a 50/2.0 is unquestionably the quality winner in every category. But just because of the name Nikon, that doesn't mean every Nikkor lens is the best lens that was ever hung on the front of the camera. I'm sure some Nikkors are dogs compared to a Takumar, for instance. I'm sure there's even a Vivitar lens in a particular focal length category was better. Nikon got its reputation on it's entire line. But everybody knows there were a few dogs in that system. So, my question is whether Zeiss lenses on a fancy Yashica (Contax) was actually better gear. BTW, I'm not trolling. Next year it looks like I'm going to start being able to buy a new toy. I'd really like to settle my opinion on the RTS stuff.

chip j · Jul 19, 2017

What would you rather have--a camera used by a "pro" (likely a hack), or a camera that the wealthy chose?

Eagle Blue · Jul 19, 2017

Thank you. BTW I won't be constantly monitoring or trolling this thread for new replies. It's liable to be a week before I can get on here and see what opinions are. So the thread can proceed without any further thoughts of me turning the thread from its intent. So just let the RTS idea float around naturally, if it does at all. Thanks.

Paul Howell · Jul 19, 2017

Although I have never owned a RTS, I did have a FX2 with a few lens, only used it once, it was a gift from my girl friend at the time and when parted ways I returned it to her. The Yashica lens were quite good, the Zeiss lens are even better. I have had Nikon F, F2 and F3P along with a brace of lens, in terms of bodies the only body I currently have that I feel is as strong as the F2 is the Minolta 9. In terms of lens quality, in MF, best lens overall was Konica. Over the years I have bought a T3 and 4, 4 lens, all primes. I don't think Konica ever made a bad lens. Of the Nikon MF pro bodies, all were very strong, rugged, never had one fail in 17 years as a working PJ, or when shooting Air Force Fs during our little war in Southeast Asia. For body I would give the nod the Nikon, for lens, Zeiss.

Dave Ludwig · Jul 19, 2017

Let's find out. Take your SL2 stand at the top of your basement steps holding it out in front of you waist high. Now drop it and watch the beauty of your camera tumbling down the wood steps, the contrast of the red oak planks and the black finish of your camera are breathtaking, hitting what seems to be every step along the way. Make sure when it gets to the bottom it slams into a cement wall before hitting the cement floor and tumbling 3 more times. Pick up the camera and if it is broken your question is answered. F2 is better built.

mshchem · Jul 20, 2017

Eagle Blue said:
Thank you. BTW I won't be constantly monitoring or trolling this thread for new replies. It's liable to be a week before I can get on here and see what opinions are. So the thread can proceed without any further thoughts of me turning the thread from its intent. So just let the RTS idea float around naturally, if it does at all. Thanks.

I've used F2 and F bodies since early 70's. Iconic. I would recommend a late F2A w/ 50 1.4 Ai, then to be cool get a waist level, a couple of screens. You can use AF-D lenses with the metered prism if you ever go D***tal the AF-D lenses will work. I have an 85mm f1.4 AF-D, on the F2A it's SO COOL.
I'm not a professional, but in over 40 years I've never had a F2 or F fail to work.

mrosenlof · Jul 20, 2017

They're both built well enough that it really doesn't matter which is "better".

E. von Hoegh · Jul 20, 2017

mshchem said:
I've used F2 and F bodies since early 70's. Iconic. I would recommend a late F2A w/ 50 1.4 Ai, then to be cool get a waist level, a couple of screens. You can use AF-D lenses with the metered prism if you ever go D***tal the AF-D lenses will work. I have an 85mm f1.4 AF-D, on the F2A it's SO COOL.
I'm not a professional, but in over 40 years I've never had a F2 or F fail to work.

Isn't 'cool' an outmoded concept, at least among adults?

mshchem · Jul 20, 2017

E. von Hoegh said:
Isn't 'cool' an outmoded concept, at least among adults?

I'm 60, I'm not an Adult! And when cool isn't cool, you should consider a career with the Internal Revenue Service

blockend · Jul 21, 2017

Eagle Blue said:
So, my question is whether Zeiss lenses on a fancy Yashica (Contax) was actually better gear. BTW, I'm not trolling. Next year it looks like I'm going to start being able to buy a new toy. I'd really like to settle my opinion on the RTS stuff.

The RTS was a camera of its time. Lots of tech, pretty well built, rubbery coverings. As you know, it was Kyocera (Yashica) wanting a brand to gain a foothold in the pro/camera sniffer market. It failed in the professional aspiration (at least in volume sales) but Kyocera-Contax succeeded in attracting amateurs who wanted something to separate them from the common herd. The RTS bodies were good, though it's debatable whether they were better than the simpler Yashica FR range, but the Zeiss lenses were excellent.

Japanese Contax were not great innovators. Sure they had a vacuum back on the RTS III and a few other tricks on earlier models, but nothing to compare with Nikon's development of its F-models, or Canon's use of electronics. The RTS was a platform for excellent lenses, a good Japanese camera, but it's debatable whether the range had a lasting legacy in a time of great technological change.

BMbikerider · Jul 21, 2017

Ask yourself, how many Leica cameras or Nikon F2's in the same era were used by the press? your answer is there.

With the press/media thery insist on reliability and availability,cost would not really come into it.

chip j · Jul 21, 2017

Yes, but the press were not ARTISTES.

Paul Howell · Jul 21, 2017

There were many reason that the press or photojournalists drifted towards Nikon and Canon 35 mm SLR with Nikon in the days of manual focus having the lion share. True both Nikon and Canon made very rugged pro level bodies, but they also offered very good mid level cameras that made good second bodies. Both offered a wide range of range lens. The wires or papers often had lens and bodies usually in Nikon mount that could be memoed out for special assignments, like high speed motor drives, very long lens. Both Nikon and Canon had world wide service centers, and in most large cities you could rent Nikon gear. When I was a working PJ most Americans shot Nikon. We did see a few used Leicaflex, Contax, Alpa, Minolta, Olympus, but by far Nikon was king. Saying that, in the post film era, none of that really matters. You need a body that is serviceable or so cheap it can be replaced, has the features you need, a good selection on lens, at cost you can afford. In case of OP needs, how about a Nikon F2 or 3 with Zeiss MF lens in Nikon mount?

RalphLambrecht · Jul 21, 2017

Theo Sulphate said:
I've got numerous F2's and Leicalflex SL's (no SL2). My sense is that the F2 is more robust; it was designed for long term hard professional use.

Two known issues with the SL (not sure about SL2) are the flimsy lens release lever and desilvering on the prism.

I suspect, they are both fairly rugged but would chose a Nikon due to availability of lenses and cost.

bimmey · Jul 21, 2017

blockend said:
Japanese Contax were not great innovators. Sure they had a vacuum back on the RTS III and a few other tricks on earlier models, but nothing to compare with Nikon's development of its F-models, or Canon's use of electronics. The RTS was a platform for excellent lenses, a good Japanese camera, but it's debatable whether the range had a lasting legacy in a time of great technological change.

Always thought the Contax AX was innovative. By shifting the film plane back and forth you gained auto focus on all your fine Zeiss lenses.

Eagle Blue · Jul 21, 2017

blockend said:
The RTS was a camera of its time. Lots of tech, pretty well built, rubbery coverings. As you know, it was Kyocera (Yashica) wanting a brand to gain a foothold in the pro/camera sniffer market. It failed in the professional aspiration (at least in volume sales) but Kyocera-Contax succeeded in attracting amateurs who wanted something to separate them from the common herd. The RTS bodies were good, though it's debatable whether they were better than the simpler Yashica FR range, but the Zeiss lenses were excellent.

Japanese Contax were not great innovators. Sure they had a vacuum back on the RTS III and a few other tricks on earlier models, but nothing to compare with Nikon's development of its F-models, or Canon's use of electronics. The RTS was a platform for excellent lenses, a good Japanese camera, but it's debatable whether the range had a lasting legacy in a time of great technological change.

Thank you for settling that. Rubbery coatings. So obviously the whole camera either is likely to be gooey or dried out and cracked. Rubber is no material that has any business on a camera. I remember 40 years ago wondering why a fine German camera maker saw any benefit in teaming up with Yashica. As far as I'm concerned, Yashica was pretty good with Yashicamats, and mostly only because they looked so much like a Rollei, and that the Yashicamat was actually a pretty good camera in it's own right. But that's about it.

jimjm · Jul 21, 2017

Actually, the RTS and RTSII have a leather (or leather-like) covering. No rubbery stuff like 90's Nikon, Cosina, etc. The only fault I've heard of is that the covering can separate along the edges, but I have one of each and they're in perfect condition.

They're really nice-looking cameras - I used to drool over the Contax ads in the 80's when all I had was a Canon AE-1. I bought these so I could use the C/Y mount Zeiss glass.

blockend · Jul 22, 2017

jimjm said:
Actually, the RTS and RTSII have a leather (or leather-like) covering. No rubbery stuff like 90's Nikon, Cosina, etc. The only fault I've heard of is that the covering can separate along the edges, but I have one of each and they're in perfect condition.

They're really nice-looking cameras - I used to drool over the Contax ads in the 80's when all I had was a Canon AE-1. I bought these so I could use the C/Y mount Zeiss glass.

You are correct. I was confused because many of the RTS bodies advertised have peeling coverings, or show evidence they've been stuck down. A few have had the coverings removed completely so there seems to be an issue. Yashicas of the same era have conventional surfaces.

Lachlan Young · Jul 24, 2017

Having handled both, can't say I care for either. A nice Nikon F with a plain prism is what I'd rather have.

chip j · Jul 24, 2017

Yes, my clean, fully operating Photomic FTN beats the F2.

summicron1 · Jul 24, 2017

OK, here's what you do:

Take a Nikon F2, and a Leicaflex SL2. Drop both onto a concrete floor from one foot in height. Make care to drop both onto the same part of the camera -- perhaps the bottom.

Both still work? OK, now drop them from two feet.

And so on. First one to fail loses.

And, no, you may not borrow my cameras for this test.

summicron1 · Jul 24, 2017

Paul Howell said:
There were many reason that the press or photojournalists drifted towards Nikon and Canon 35 mm SLR with Nikon in the days of manual focus having the lion share. True both Nikon and Canon made very rugged pro level bodies, but they also offered very good mid level cameras that made good second bodies. Both offered a wide range of range lens. The wires or papers often had lens and bodies usually in Nikon mount that could be memoed out for special assignments, like high speed motor drives, very long lens. Both Nikon and Canon had world wide service centers, and in most large cities you could rent Nikon gear. When I was a working PJ most Americans shot Nikon. We did see a few used Leicaflex, Contax, Alpa, Minolta, Olympus, but by far Nikon was king. Saying that, in the post film era, none of that really matters. You need a body that is serviceable or so cheap it can be replaced, has the features you need, a good selection on lens, at cost you can afford. In case of OP needs, how about a Nikon F2 or 3 with Zeiss MF lens in Nikon mount?

biggest reason the press loved nikon was the level of service -- they offered fast pro-repairs and turnaround. They even sent service techs to events where a lot of folks would be to offer on the spot repairs and loans of equipment. I saw them when I was covering Grand Prix races in Watkins Glen, NY, back in the 70s and it was amazing.

And there I was, shooting with my humble Exakta because my paper was too cheap to buy me a decent camera. Oh well.

Which was better built--Leicaflex SL2 or Nikon F2?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency