Leica on a budget

[cmedin]

Before I decide I can't really get into the RF stuff (I've tried a few, and some are nice, but I just can't really seem to get serious with it) I'm considering trying out the real deal. I have a Bessa-L with 25/4 (both mint) that I am considering putting up for sale, which I think should get me enough to pick up a screw mount Leica body. Now, if I get one, what should I do lens wise? I am not so worried about optical superiority as I am getting something that 'feels right' to shoot (in other words, I care more about the camera body and rangefinder focusing than the sharpness); so I would gladly slap a cheaper lens on there just to give the camera a workout.

So: what body should I be on the lookout for, and what price range? And what would be a decent inexpensive lens (I'm assuming something russian) for it?

Edit: I should mention that the lens would be in the 50-85mm range since that's where I seem to enjoy shooting.

[italocam]

I suggest a M6 body with a 35mm Summicron F2.0, it's what Leica is all about.Italo C.

[cmedin]

I think you pretty much missed the point:

Inexpensive
50mm and up
Screwmount

But thanks for the input. Would you also recommend a $5k Hassy rig to somebody looking to dip their toes into medium format on the cheap?

[ferider]

Originally Posted by cmedin

I think you pretty much missed the point:
Inexpensive
50mm and up
Screwmount

I have used LTM Leicas and the Bessa R (and various M mount cameras).

The Canon P is impossible to beat for its current used price, IMO.
Get that, and a screw mount 50/2 Summicron or a 50/1.4 Canon LTM
lens and you will be happy for a long time.

You get the "Leica M feeling" for less than the price of a good Barnack body.

Best,

Roland.

[wlewisiii]

A CL with the 40/2 Summicron is a good choice for a budget Leica. For what you're describing, though, you'd probably be well served by a IIIC or IIIF and a pair of Elmars - 50/3.5 & 90/4. That set would come fairly cheaply (relativly speaking, of course, and provide a large amount of bang for buck.

Good luck & good light!

William

[cmedin]

Thanks, the Elmar 50 seems reasonably priced. Collapses too, which makes for a nice setup!

[aad]

IIIf or such with a 50 Elmar-this is so compact that even my Trip 35 seems huge-and I really prefer both the high magnification in the rangefinder, and the separate viewfinder, so much that I use auxiliary finders for everything.

[cmedin]

Any idea what price I should be looking at for a III with the 50 Elmar? I know KEH pricing, but I am also aware they tend to be somewhat high.

[peter_n]

I would agree with the above posters that a IIIC or a IIIF and an f3.5 Elmar (or FSU equivalent like an Industar 10, 22 or 50) would be ideal.

IIIC bodies seem to be a bit less expensive than the IIIF version and they both come up regularly for sale in the classifieds here.

[xayraa33]

with the Elmar, 325 to 500 dollars in good user shape.
you should check these Barnacks out in person if you have not already done so, as they might not be your cup of tea.
alot have faded RF patches .

[peter_n]

Pricing depends on condition. I bought a IIIC on eBay for $150 but it needed a CLA. Expect $200-300 for one in good user shape. You can really cut costs by buying an FSU lens. Their optics are excellent.

[cmedin]

Will the FSU versions mount OK on all III bodies?

Also, faded RF patches would be a royal pain -- is this something easily fixable? It's the main gripe I've had with most RFs I've tried so far. Yes, I am aware I'm asking a lot for such an old camera, but I really can't see forking out the dough for a perfect condition M when the same money will buy me some outstanding MF gear. Hoping to get a taste of Leica for a relatively modest sum, but obviously I don't want something that's going to be in poor enough shape to turn me off the whole thing.

[wlewisiii]

Originally Posted by cmedin

Will the FSU versions mount OK on all III bodies?

All the FSU lenses I am aware of will mount just fine on a Leica III. The Industar 26 and 50 are just as good as the Elmars and much cheaper.

Also, faded RF patches would be a royal pain -- is this something easily fixable? It's the main gripe I've had with most RFs I've tried so far. Yes, I am aware I'm asking a lot for such an old camera, but I really can't see forking out the dough for a perfect condition M when the same money will buy me some outstanding MF gear. Hoping to get a taste of Leica for a relatively modest sum, but obviously I don't want something that's going to be in poor enough shape to turn me off the whole thing.

I agree with Xayraa33 then, a nice Bessa R or a Canon P would be the best way to test the waters. Canon also made excellent Barnack style cameras - the IVSb can often be found $150 - $200 in good user condition.

William

[xayraa33]

get a CV Bessa R or a Canon P.

[ChadHahn]

Don't neglect to look at the IIs. I have a IIf with collapsible 50mm Summicron that is great.

The only thing that is different between a IIf and a IIIf is the slow shutter speed dial. How often do you need to go below 1/25th of a second anyway?

[cmedin]

Hmm, I hadn't thought about the II. For some reason everything I read kept saying go for the III for a budget setup. I'll go read up on them, thanks!

[cmedin]

Will a Bessa R really give me the taste of Leica though? I have a Bessa L as mentioned above, and while it's a nice camera for what it is it does convey a rather cheap-ish impression and I would never buy one with the intention of having it last for a decade. What I'm hoping for is to see the craftsmanship and precision of the classic Leicas, but obviously I want one that's usable as well; not with a rangefinder patch faded to where it can hardly be seen. If this is an unreasonable expectation based on my budget, I understand.

[wlewisiii]

Not really unreasonable, but I'll suggest looking at the Canons again as they had excellent production values and quality but do go for less currently than the equivalent level of Leica. The Bessas have done nothing but improve in quality but the R is still fairly early on in the line's developement. My R suits my needs just fine with my Canon lenses, but your needs are probably better suited by a good old school thread mount camera.

William

[alternatve]

If you want to go the Leica way, this is how I did it.

I got a BGD grade Leica IIIc from KEH and russian lenses like the Industar 50, the Jupiter 3 and Jupiter 9.

The Industar 50 is what I would recommend you to get as your first lens as it is very compact while folded. It has a tessar lens design which is excellent and still in production in sony digicams. The workmanship of this lens is usually solid and is available cheaply, around $25 USD without shipping. I recommend ebay sellors alex-photo and leon1965jazz for my russian gear needs.

Samuel

[cmedin]

I will take a considerable look at the Canons. Compared to the II/III series Leicas how do the Canons shape up prons/cons? Sorry for all the questions, but you guys are an excellent resource and this is one area of camera gear that I am very clueless in.

[wlewisiii]

Originally Posted by cmedin

I will take a considerable look at the Canons. Compared to the II/III series Leicas how do the Canons shape up prons/cons? Sorry for all the questions, but you guys are an excellent resource and this is one area of camera gear that I am very clueless in.

There are a number of smaller detail differences between the Leica II/III & the Canon III/IV series of cameras, but the important differences are in the viewfinders. Canon's major innovations were to use a combined VF/RF and to have multiple magnifications. There is a lever under the rewind knob that is marked F, 1x, & 1.5x. The F position gives a 50mm FOV with an accuracy sufficent for a slower lens like the 50/2 or 50/1.9 collapsibles. The 1:1 1x position gives the FOV of a 100mm lens (which is very usable for a 90mm lens as well) and is more accurate in focusing. The 1.5x gives the greatest accuracy in focusing and is very useful for larger aperture lenses (the 50/1.5 springs to mind) and gives a FOV appropriate for the 135mm lens. Anything wider than 50 will require an accessory VF but that shouldn't be an issue based on your earlier preferences. A Leica II/III by contrast requires an external VF for anything other than a 50mm lens and has a separate higher magnification RF window and the 50mm FOV VF window.

I really need to save the pennies for another IVSb - I had one and regret selling it. I found it much nicer in use than the one Leica III I've had a chance to use. Build quality seemed just about the same to me.

Peter Dechert, who has his own forum here, is pretty much the Canon RF guru. A question or two over in his forum might be useful for you.

In the end, I'd recommend the IVSb with a nice chrome Canon 50/1.8 or 50/1.5 lens. When you do want to go longer, the Canon 100/3.5 is another lens that works very well with this camera. But then again, I am a Canonista...

William

[BillBingham2]

There is a difference between a Bessa and a IIc or IIf. The Bessa has a built in meter, better viewfinder/rangefinder, is much quicker to load and is lighter in your hand. The Leica blends into my hand, is quieter (once CLAed) and takes a special cable release attachment (like a Nikon).

I am not a Leica screw mount expert, but a IIc would be the way I would go. The selftimer seems like a silly extra, slower shutter speeds may not be but that is for you to decide. As cost is an issue, a IIc or IIIc would be less expensive. Budget a CLA if you can.

Lens wise you can get a fine 50/2 and I would go with either a Leica or a Nikkor, both are great lenses. In the 85/90 range, a lot depends upon how fast you want her. The Steinheil Munchen 85/2.8 is a great option if you can find one, the CV 75 may be the perfect inbetween option There is a deal with a GREAT finder from cameraquest.com, or at least there was one. Moving up in price is the Nikkor 85/2 or several Leica options, but price goes up fast.

B2 (;->

[digitalintrigue]

You might also look into Nicca bodies. The feel of my IIIf and my Nicca IIIs is very much the same. The slow speeds the IIIs are a little erratic; the more I exercise the shutter the more accurate they get.

[Sonnar2]

You want a Leica for cheap? This one was actually cheaper than all of my CANON RF at ebay and WORKS...245USD not including the brightline finder

It isn't bigger than your Bessa-L, but full metal.

It was the predecessor of the Bessa-R, 65 years earlier.

If you need 1/1000s buy a Leica IIIa (but no black originally)

If you want a meter you need a Leitz CL but this is just half a Leica, and most have problems with meter. So better look for a M6.

[harry01562]

I'm a Canon collector, but I also own other gear. If you want to stay relatively inexpensive, but still try the Leica, I'd suggest a nice IIIa. It can be had with the
Summar 50/2, which is a very interesting lens. It has that soft so-called Leica Glow, and is fun to shoot with. It's small, collapses, and cheap. Main problem is usually haze, but cleaning is easy and cheap.

The IIIf is a nice camera, but quite a bit higher in price. From a ROI standpoint, I'd stay with a IIIa. You can always add a Summitar lens, also cheap, and get a different look to your shots. On another tack, the 50/1.8 Canon lens is a fine performer, and undervalued.

Harry