OK, I'm going to buy an M6!

[merciful]

Now - we've got that settled. I haven't been using my EOS-1, Rolleiflex, or Fuji GW670II, so I'm selling them all (and some EOS lenses) to finance a nice M6 .72, because I've been shooting almost exclusively with my Canonet and really need to be able to use interchangeable lenses.

So - what do I buy? On a budget of about US$2200, with say, $1100 (or maybe a little less, considering the release of the new digi-range) for an M6. I want a 50mm and a 90mm, almost all of my work is portraiture (example attached), some in very low light, almost all indoor. I have no objection to old lenses, or non-Leica lenses, or old, non-Leica lenses - in fact, I really like old stuff. But it's hard to wade through all the myths and craziness on the web to know what to do.

So - let me know! And thanks from Canada.

[SolaresLarrave]

Good news! Another Leica-maniac in the forum! :D

Now... if you like using long lenses, don't dismiss the M6TTL, specially if it's a 0.85 magnification viewfinder because this one will help you work with those long glasses you like. Sure, the 0.72 will do the trick too, but if you're really sure you'll use the 90mm lens, pick a 0.85 if you can.

In any case, either the so-called "Classic" M6 or the M6TTL will be great for you.

Regarding lenses... depending on your budget, I'd recommend a Summicron of any age. In fact, my first lens was an old 1956 Summicron with hood and everything, which I later traded for the latest version (in black). Summarits and Summiluxes may be tempting (and faster!), but the f2 is a handy, useful maximum aperture. Besides, you can find a lot more Summicrons in the used market than Summarits (f1.5) or Summiluxes (f1.4). As for a long lens... your choices are larger: you can go for used Summicrons (f2), Elmarits (f2.8) or Elmars (f4), and you can get most of them in either bayonet or screw- mounts. I got a very old Elmar for $85 (including adapter ring), and even though it's uncoated, the results are very satisfactory.

This is the moment, merciful. Do you have some choices lined up? Any merchants or vendors? I can recommend two places: Don Chatterton, or Ritz Collectibles (I bought a Leica from each of them). Have you made a choice between black- or silver-chrome body? Are you ready to want a large number of gadgets and Leica-thingies? How about film?

Welcome to the terrible world of the Leica obsession for perfection! :)

[merciful]

Thanks, Francisco - I'm glad to be here.

I think I need the .72 - I should have mentioned that I wear glasses. I figure that the .58 just isn't going to work well with the 90mm, particularly.

Good suggestions, thanks. I don't think that the Elmar will work, but the Elmarit prices are certainly right for me. The Summiluxes are tempting (I just love those wide apertures) but I'll probably take your advice and start with a Summicron.

Film? I shoot Tri-X almost exclusively. Push, push, push!

I will thankfully check out the places you recommend, as well.

I suppose I shouldn't even let myself consider a nice Hexar kit with 50/2 and 90/2.8...

[taffer]

Merciful, welcome to the forum and hope to hear from your new Leica soon ! :) I consider myself too young to "honor" myself with one of them, but Francisco tried to convert me to the "dark" side, hehehe...

Of course I also let him know the hidden treasures of Former Soviet Union cameras ;)

Good luck !

Oscar

PS: and btw, I like a lot that shot !

[merciful]

Thanks, Oscar - for the welcome and compliment. That's the style in which I work almost exclusively.

I have to get to work selling in order to be able to buy that M6.

[Doug]

Welcome, Merciful! I've had my Leica gear (M2, 35 Summicron, 90 Tele-Elmarit) since the late '60's so I predate today's prices.

It's said the M2,3, M4 (before the M4-2?) and M5 had the best workmanship. With the M2 I got used to making incident meter readings with a separate meter, so don't miss the internal meters of the later Leicas. But the convenience of auto-exposure as in the M7 is tempting.

I agree about the Summicron series of lenses as an excellent default choice. There seems to be a sacrifice of some sort with faster lenses, whether sheer size/weight or compromized optical quality. But if there's a good reason to go Leica, it's surely with the wonderful lenses!

Speaking of lenses, I'm curious which one was used for your posted pic. It has a nice soft look in the near out-of-focus area, yet a distinctive harshness for the far OOF background. Interesting photo for the foreground couple too!

If there is truly a "Leica style" of photo, this is it. :-)

[merciful]

Thanks, Doug.

I think there'll be faster lenses in my future, perhaps even the famed (and reviled) Noctilux. With the light I work with, it'd be a treat, even with its oddities.

That photo is with the 40/1.7 permanently attached to my Canonet QL-17 GIII - when I started working with it, I almost immediately started thinking Leica. 1/4 second at f1.7, Tri-X at ISO 6400.

[back alley]

hay merciful, welcome to the forum.

have you tried delta 3200 film? i noticed your post stating that you were shooting tri-x at 6400 and thought a higher speed film might fit your needs better.
i prefer ilford to kodak but that's more a personal decision.
i quite like the delta films in general but i love the 3200.
just an idea...

joe

[merciful]

Thanks, Joe.

I've developed a real thing for Tri-X for most of my shooting needs. My last exhibition was a mix of Tri-X and Delta 3200 prints, and I much preferred the Tri-X examples. Of course, I might very well start to use 3200 again sometime.

[SolaresLarrave]

Another Tri-X maniac? Man... I have to return to my B&W roots.

BTW, Oscar, you've been successful! Lately, I've found myself thinking (and admiring) the Contax look-alike Kievs on eBay. And in Casanova they had a real one! A "veritable" Contax that just looked great, but I kinda liked the black finish on your Kiev better.

Now, I'd like to learn how to develop film at home. Otherwise, I'm a slide man! And, in B&W, a true Scala fan.

So, merciful, will it be a black- or a silver-chrome body? Rumor has it that silver is much more durable, but the black look (despite the much maligned red dot, which some tend to hate) has a definite advantage: it's nearly invisible.

I see how the Canonet led you astray. I'm in the same boat! My first rangefinder was a Canonet, and then I got a series of old, Japanese classic cameras before ending with a Contax G1 and my Leicas.

[merciful]

Yes, I develop all my own b&w - it's good fun and the only real way to know just what you're going to get.

Black would be preferable, aesthetically, but whatever comes at the right price is what it'll be.

[SolaresLarrave]

There's a fellow in photo.net selling a black Leica M6TTL with a 50/2 Summicron lens for $2200 (probably shipping included).

You can always call Don Chatterton and see if he has M6TTLs for around $1295/body (Sh. included), and then contact Richard Oesterling, from KBCamera.com, and get yourself a nice, brand new 'cron 50/2 for $949. That's how I got some of my own stuff, and even though it sunk me in deep debt, I don't regret it. Good luck!

[merciful]

No, there's just too much debt already - the stuff has got to sell first, and the body and two lenses must come in under my limit. There's no real point in having the Leica if I can't afford the 90mm as well, because the Canonet is doing the job. If I have to wait - so be it, I'm used to it.

I expect prices to drop a little bit as a few users dump second bodies to buy those silly new Epson digital rangefinders. Maybe hope, rather than expect...

[SolaresLarrave]

I see... you're doing a very sensible thing: first sell, then buy. I did the same thing, only my sales weren't enough to cover my purchases.

Good luck with your sales! :)

[Andrew Touchon]

If you can live with a maximum aperature of F4,you might want to check out the Minolta Rokkor 90mm F4 lens that was designed for use on the Minolta CLE. It is an improved version of the Leica 90mm f4 Elmar. The Rokkor is fully leica compatible and multi-coated. You should be able to purchase a nice 90mm F4 Rokkor for about $250-$350.

[taffer]

Originally posted by SolaresLarrave
BTW, Oscar, you've been successful! Lately, I've found myself thinking (and admiring) the Contax look-alike Kievs on eBay. And in Casanova they had a real one! A "veritable" Contax that just looked great, but I kinda liked the black finish on your Kiev better.

Hehe, so you liked the black Kiev eh ? :-) I've seen some more custom made black Kievs on eBay lately (alex-photo had some, together with a black fake Contax). Fedka.com also has some different versions (mostly 4a and 4am) in black finish, which in my opinion gives that camera a great "new" yet discrete look.

A real Contax ? did you ask how much ? just curious...

Ironically, when talking with a guy in CasanovaFoto about the black Canonet, he told me that back then when that camera was introduced, nobody wanted to pay the few extra bucks for the black one. Check the prices today on black canonets vs. chrome ones and cry !

It's so easy to be seduced by the "dark" side :p

So Merciful, I join the others here, good luck with your sales !

Oscar

[Brian Sweeney]

Hey Guys! Let's go Shopping!
(just to give some ideas, other than EBay prices)

From Woodmere Camera's listing as of 3/12/04:

M6 BLACK "CLASSIC" (9 TO 9+) $ 1049
M6 BLACK TTL 0.85,BOX (8+ TO 9) $ 1125

Older Glass, In Screw Mount, need adapters:
35/3.5 SUMMARON (8+ TO 9) $ 225
35/3.5 SUMMARON (9) $ 249

50/1.8 CANON BLACK (9 TO 9+) $ 165
85/2 CANON SERENAR (9) $ 149

[merciful]

Thanks, Andrew. Not an ideal aperture for me, with all my available light indoor work, but of interest in any case.

[merciful]

Ooh, I wonder how that 85/2 Serenar would be?

[strangedoctor]

Why is everyone avoiding the Voigtlander lenses as a recommendation? When I bought my M6 in 1995 I had very few affordable lens options. I was forced to buy imperfect Leica lenses and Canon screwmounts if I could find them.
Today, thank the lord, we have the Voigtlander options. I bought the 28/3.5 and am astounded by the quality. (Better than the 1970's Leica 28/2.8 I have)

Don't get suckered into the poor house by spending thousands of dollars on a lens. It's not worth it. Voigtlander lenses are great and affordable. The Leica lenses might be better (doubtful) and are better made (it's not like you're going to take pictures in a battlefield, are you?). But they're WAY too expensive. The only time I bought a new Leica lens was when the 21/2.8 aspheric first came out, the previous model went "down" to $1100. It was a fantastic lens, but I was always afraid to take it anywhere, which is ridiculous, so I sold it.
I then bought a 1950's Canon 50/1.5 for about $100 and took it with my M6 all over Cuba and the Dominican Republic -- that's
all I needed in life (plus a bottle of rum).

When I was more into Leicas back then I was disgusted by the Leica fanatics. Take no offense, please, but they can be really dispicable people. I would watch in amazement at used-camera shows as rich old Japanese men would plunk down 3g's in cash for a silly little peice of chrome and glass. If they ever used these lenses, they would take pictures of a puppy. The rest of us could only afford a lousy scratched lens since these fanatics drove the prices of everything sky-high!
All the photographers knew that ultimately the lens means much less than the eye.
(Example: the photographer Richard Billingham's Ray's a Laugh series. He used a junky Olympus Trip!)
Find lens alternatives!

[MP Guy]

grt in touch with anthony at ACC photo. He has new and used gear at incredible prices. There is a link to his site on the home page. He negotiates the advertised prices.

Here are his ebay listings:

http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewSellersOtherItems&include=0&userid=amhlee&sort=3&rows=25&since=-1&rd=1

[SolaresLarrave]

You're right, Strangedoctor, Leica prices are high, but driven even higher buy "collectors" who get them just for show.

I was going to get myself a CV Ultron lens, but a Konica Hexanon crossed my path and I fell for it. Now, if I were a big user of long glass, I'd go for the 90mm glass they offer, but, to tell you the truth, I'm more drawn to wide angles than to long lenses... which of course makes the CV 21mm a very nice choice!

FWIW, the 50mm Nokton has been getting very good reviews from Leica users. It's faster (just by a hair) than the Summicron, and a lot more affordable! :D

[strangedoctor]

Francisco,
Isn't the Nokton a full stop faster than the Summicron?

[merciful]

The Nokton is very nearly a stop faster than the Summicron, at 1.5.

I'm very interested in lens alternatives, no question. While I want what the Leica body offers specifically, performance from the lens is all I need, not name.

You know, I was watching a show on the German army's attack on the Soviet Union today (I'm rather a history buff) and I was fascinated by the way the stills and movie footage looked. I'm not even really sure I can describe what I liked about it so much - it just seemed particularly dramatic and dark, though the exposures were right. Am I just perhaps noticing now what old German lenses are like?

[strangedoctor]

Merciful,
I know exactly what you mean about that old footage. I think it has more to do with simplicity than anything else. Back then nothing was really shot in wide angle, and I believe that most amateur photos today are. If you read old photo magazines, 28mm and 35mm lenses were considered radical wide-angles when they first came out. Our eyes are becoming used to wide-angle distortion, so old pictures, to me, seem so simple and blunt. They are not made hideous by excessive detail.
I too am a history guy; I'm pretty sure that that WWII footage you mentioned was shot with 16mm film. I really think the historical "feel" of rangefinders are in the mechanical simplicity that was at its peak in the forties and fifties.
One of the first lenses I ever got was an early coated 50mm Summitar. It is a really great lens (though not that sharp), the way it pops out, and it seems so eerie to wonder about what it "saw" in the past.

[merciful]

Thanks - I hadn't thought about focal length. I'm going to keep older Summicrons and Summitars on my want list. I'd really like to get a 90/2 in the kit along with a 50.

That war footage is just perfectly in tune with my style.

[SolaresLarrave]

I prefer to think of half a stop between the 'cron and the Nokton, so it's not a hair. I probably had Summilux in mind instead of Summicron, hence the "hair" remark.

But when it comes to the Summilux and the Nokton, the difference really is a hair.

[merciful]

I got an M-Hexanon 50/2 on eBay yesterday. Now, all I need is a nice 90mm. And an M6 - I forgot all about that for just a moment.

I've been seeing the odd 85/2 Canon Serenar around. Forgive my ignorance, but how would I frame with that on an M6 - no framelines, right? Just look a little outside the 90mm lines and get used to it?

[SolaresLarrave]

merciful, congratulations on your purchase!

Now, with a 50mm lens under your belt, you're going to lust after a wide angle... even if you like portraits (think of it as a good tool for environmental portraits). Keep your eyes peeled!

Let's see what other people say about this Canon lens. Good reputation, indeed, but to me, the problem is, again, framelines. Besides, I'm not really crazy about long lenses... In fact, I have to admit to myself I already have all the Leica gear I wanted.

Good luck in your pre-purchase research endeavors! :)

[merciful]

Thanks again.

I'm not much of a wide-angle guy: 50mm is usually as environmental as I want to get with my portraiture. My style requires a longer lens for traditional portraits, and also to do environmental stuff from a little distance, without being intrusive. I hope to be doing a major project soon that requires some subtlety in this regard.

M-Hexanon 90mm from eBay, or Voigtlander 75mm/2.5 new for $319 (+ adapter)? Herr Puts speaks well of it here: http://www.imx.nl/photosite/japan/voigtl01.html

[strangedoctor]

The 85mm Canon is a good lens. I've used the Russian 85mm (although that has focusing problems) and I used a 1950's 105mm Nikon. Neither of these have corresponding framelines but the'yre close enough. The 85mm is close enough to 90mm (and better being slightly wider) that, depending on your subject, it shouldn't matter.
I used the 105mm on a job once photographing city signs and I never clipped anything with the inacuracy. These longer lenses are underrated.
90mm 2.8 Elmarits are relatively inexpensive.

[SolaresLarrave]

If you want to know what I'd do: go for the Konica glass.

However, you can also get an Elmar 90/4 if you don't mind a slower lens. It's less expensive and you get Leica glass. I do have one, uncoated, which I use only with black & white. Consider it a Plan B, in case neither of these good choices of yours pan out. Price paid? $55. That's priceless!

And see what I did with it:

[merciful]

Solid portrait work - and I like the look of the Elmar.

I think I'll end up with one of those eventually, but speed is pretty important to me a lot of the time. I could really be in trouble sometimes with the f4 as opposed to, say, an 85mm/2 Serenar. We'll see...

[SolaresLarrave]

My Elmar is very quirky, and I'd find it difficult to replace because of the unexpected bits it shows at times. Check this link out:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/505/12Barri_Gotic_5-Pidgeons.jpg

That's one of my photos in the RF Members Gallery, done with the same Elmar 90/4. See the slight flare in the middle? Seems to add a 1930s air to the image...

BTW, my lens dates from 1936.

Good luck in your ebay searches!

[Doug]

Merciful, congratulations on the 50mm Hexanon; I don't have a 50mm lens... hmmm. But I've had a 90mm for a long time that has gotten little use. So, thinking 90 might be a bit long, I got a 75mm Voigtlander lens on eBay for $212. Can't say as I've given it any more use than the 90! But it performs very well.

[merciful]

That's a beautiful result, Francisco. just what I'm hoping to produce.