Leica CL vs. Bessa R2

[aprea]

im trying to decide on purchasing a Leica CL or maybe getting a bessa r2 as my first rangefinder, unless you count my yashica J. are these two bodies even worth comparing? ive used the m4, m6, and m7 quite a bit, but havent shot with any voigtlanders. as you can see i have a tight budget. Any suggestions?

[PlantedTao]

Never used the CL.
However, the R2 was my first purchase into rangefinders and I have not regretted it. The r2 is the best bang for the buck in my opinion...and the CV glass is top notch if your on a budget. The meter read out and accuracy on the R2 is great and the build quality feels solid. It is a solid tool, especially for someone starting out in RFs. I've put roll after roll into the R2 with no problem.
The downside...a short baselength Rangefinder and a noisy shutter (not nearly as loud as a SLR, not as quite as a Leica).

hope this helps.
Jason

[wlewisiii]

I went with the CL (Dead meter one, too) and love it. Cosina's products are good - but if I'm going to deal with the limitations of a shorter RF baseline, I'd prefer to have the rest of the size be compact as well.

The CL has it's many quirks. But overall it's a fun little camera that is easy to use and great to carry in a pocket (it fits the pocket of my coveralls just fine... ) with either my Canon 28/3.5 or Collapsible Summicron mounted. Just see my current avatar The best camera in the world is the one you have with you - and pocketability aids that tremendously.

William

[clintock]

The CL has strap lugs (slots) both on one side, the Bessa- rings on the front like an SLR, with short lenses, the bessa is a pain to carry, as it keeps trying to flip back some.

The CL has only three frame lines, 40, 50 and 90. The 40 and 50 are always up, the 90 can appear only if you put either a 90 m mount lens on, or 90 m adaptor, the bessa has a manual selector switch for 35,50,75,90 framelines.

The CL has a real needle in the viewfinder, and a needle indicated shutter speed display in the finder too, while the bessa has some leds for the meter, and no shutter speed indication. The meter switch on the CL is the wind arm, and I often forget to pull it out to the on position, but it reminds you when nothing makes the needle move.. The Bessa meter comes on when you start to press the release some, then stays on a little while after that. I've taken maybe five shots of tree bark and concrete by pressing the button too far (r3a) while metering.

The CL is old, and the foam dampers in the mechanical meter are now often disintegrating, making the exposure meter stick either at one end of the travel until bumped, and/or some of the foam bits can fall into the meter movement, requiring cleaning to remove. While it is quite easy to take the top off of the CL and get to the meter, not many repair people are left who will fool with it, and at some time every CL will probably need something done to at least clean the meter movement..
That said, it is a Leica, so it's value will always mean that somewhere someone will be there to fix it somehow, using leica service documentation. Most CL by now if sold in working condition have had the meter foam etc dealt with already.

The CL loads film in a slightly more combersome way than the bessa, the CL bottom and back come all the way off requiring three hands, the bessa has a door.

You have to deal with the battery issue on a CL, and wein cells are not so good for these, because the CL has the 625 cell clipped inside of the film chamber, so if you use a zinc air cell, you run the risk of the cell dying if you let the camera sit around for a couple of months with the same roll of film in it. The meter is easy enough to calibrate for the excell silver oxide 625 cell. The bessa uses common silver oxide batteries, and they can be changed without removing the film.


The CL is quieter and even old, the wind seems smoother. The bessa is very good though, it has a crisp feel to it, I like the shutter sound, it's not the quiet flit of a leica m, but not the kapow of an slr, it's just the sound of a metal focal plane shutter..

The CL finder does not seem as big and bright as the Bessa, I am able to usually focus a Bessa faster, unless my eye is in the wrong place and the rf patch disappears which can happen on both, just seems to more often on the Bessa.

I suppose a big factor in deciding which to buy is if you already have any lenses.
If you have a 35, then the Bessa r2, but if you have no lenses at all, maybe try to get a CL with the 40 that was usually sold with it- a neat little lens.
Another good deal I keep harping is the Bessa r and 35mm combo deal from either coast's CV dealer. 399 I think, if any are still in stock. (but you know the R is screw)

[Spyderman]

I vote for Bessa. Because of its viewfinder.

[GeneW]

I've owned and enjoyed both. On balance, I found the Bessa R2 a nicer camera to use. Easier and faster to load, better meter, better viewfinder. But the CL is compact and lovely in its own way.

Gene

[FrankS]

I have both. I am currently using the R2 more.

[Flyfisher Tom]

I own the R2a and CL. The R2a is a very good camera, well built, easy to load and use. Reminds me very much of my FM3a.

But I really love the CL. Here are the advantages that I like about the CL: much more subtle shutter noise (very much like a Leica M); more compact size (particularly paired with a 40 cron or 40 rokkor).

There are differences, but not enough to say that one is better than the other, both will serve you well. But if you want the smallest package, with the relatively more quiet shutter, CL wins. For ease of loading, go R2. good luck with your choice!

[Avotius]

I would go for that R2 because the batteries are easy to find, the back is easier to use, the veiwfinder is actually pretty nice for such a cheap camera, and the meter is going to have fewer worries then the CL. But most of all, you could beat the hell out of one of these cameras and wouldnt feel bad about it.

[KoNickon]

Get the R2. I think you'll like it a lot -- and things like meter reliabilty, battery compatibility, and the ease of loading film are all pluses it has over the CL. (Mind you, I like the CL very much, but it is a 30 year old camera and does have some reliability issues at this point.)

[aprea]

thanks everyone. i have recently found a deal for a black r2 with the 35 2.5 C color skopar. at $300 for the body and the lens, i feel that i just have to go with it. im checking it out this weekend, so i hope it all works out. besides, i would feel a lot better about dropping a used r2 than dropping a leica. i just dont think i woud sleep right. thanks.

[aprea]

oh yah, it comes with the screw mount adapter, so ill have no problems using the lens. right?

[ampguy]

I would just consider paying ~$100 more and getting an m4-2/p and not hassling with the limitations of these baby rf's.

Originally Posted by aprea

im trying to decide on purchasing a Leica CL or maybe getting a bessa r2 as my first rangefinder, unless you count my yashica J. are these two bodies even worth comparing? ive used the m4, m6, and m7 quite a bit, but havent shot with any voigtlanders. as you can see i have a tight budget. Any suggestions?

[RayPA]

I've not shot with a CL. I have a CLE--similar, but different. I used to own the R2, but I preferred the CLE. The R2 is nice, but it is noisier (not just the shutter, but the film advance too). The R2 also has that annoying red meter light that can be seen from the front of the camera.

On the other side the CL metering arm has always given me a bad feeling about that camera, and I think that's the camera's weak link (CL users?). However, if forced to choose between the two, I'd go with the CL. But personally, I'd look for a user M4-P (built like a tank, Leica shutter and advance and lots of framelines) and a handheld meter.

[vrgard]

It seems to me that we're doing a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison here. I assume the underlying basis of the question is price else why compare an easily pocketable camera with some ergonomic film-changing challenges and possible meter issues to a newer camera with greater size and noise? In other words, if price is the starting point for why you're considering these two cameras then you need to decide as a secondary matter whether the smaller size of the CL is more important to you than whatever benefits the R2 might provide. Since I have a CL yet have never used an R2 I can't really give you any advice based on personal experience. But I can tell you that the reason I bought a CL is because I wanted an M mount camera that was easy to travel with. And I've been very happy with my CL.

-Randy

[RayPA]

Hi Randy,

I thought the same thing. The two cameras are fairly disparate--though maybe not quite apples and oranges But one wonders how these two ended up being the two to choose from. CL vs. CLE, yes. R2 vs...Canon P, OK. But CL vs. R2? Please explain.

.

[ghost]

cost.

with so many reports about meters and shutters going bad, i just don't trust the cl. bessa r2 all the way.

[Flyfisher Tom]

Originally Posted by ghost

cost.

with so many reports about meters and shutters going bad, i just don't trust the cl. bessa r2 all the way.

In fairness, the CL has been around multiple decades before the Bessas, so I would not make too much of online reports. Meters do go bad but that is true of ALL cameras. I've never heard of anything about "shutters going bad". Nor have I heard of inordinate numbers of CL meters going bad versus other cameras. Keep in mind that most of the CL's fellow RFs simply didn't have internal meters to begin with.

Here is the fairness part, in 30 years, we can see if the R2 has a stronger or weaker history or reliability. In the meantime, tons of CL users, like myself, have had no problems with our CLs. Nor have I had problems with my Bessa.

I think they are both great cameras. The key is to find a good sample, the same way you would shop for any used camera.

cheers

[ghost]

i think it's more important to have a camera you can trust now. the cl has a 30 year disadvantage in this game of chance.

[ampguy]

I think the CL is a great 2nd M-mount body for someone like Randy who has 2 M6's to break before he has to dig out the CL and who doesn't need a decent baselength for close focusing and/or fast lenses.

I've had a bad CL, and even after $240 of overhaul, the meter still didn't work.

The meter design with the lever stalk rotating almost 90 degrees with each shutter click is not a robust long lasting design.

I have dozens of cameras from Nikon, Pentax, Yashica, Olympus, Minolta, Konica, Canon, etc. from the same era of the CL, and the meters always work.

Did you ever wonder why the off of the film plane stalk meter of the CL and M5 was not continued into the CLE, MP, M6, M7, and M8 designs? Or why Bessa or others did not think to use a similar design??

Originally Posted by Flyfisher Tom

In fairness, the CL has been around multiple decades before the Bessas, so I would not make too much of online reports. Meters do go bad but that is true of ALL cameras. I've never heard of anything about "shutters going bad". Nor have I heard of inordinate numbers of CL meters going bad versus other cameras. Keep in mind that most of the CL's fellow RFs simply didn't have internal meters to begin with.

Here is the fairness part, in 30 years, we can see if the R2 has a stronger or weaker history or reliability. In the meantime, tons of CL users, like myself, have had no problems with our CLs. Nor have I had problems with my Bessa.

I think they are both great cameras. The key is to find a good sample, the same way you would shop for any used camera.

cheers

[FrankS]

Originally Posted by vrgard

It seems to me that we're doing a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison here. I assume the underlying basis of the question is price else why compare an easily pocketable camera with some ergonomic film-changing challenges and possible meter issues to a newer camera with greater size and noise? In other words, if price is the starting point for why you're considering these two cameras then you need to decide as a secondary matter whether the smaller size of the CL is more important to you than whatever benefits the R2 might provide. Since I have a CL yet have never used an R2 I can't really give you any advice based on personal experience. But I can tell you that the reason I bought a CL is because I wanted an M mount camera that was easy to travel with. And I've been very happy with my CL.

-Randy

As I said, I have both these cameras, and I find them to be very similar: metered, mechanical, M-mount, very good finders, shorter RF baselength than Leica M, smaller, lighter, less expensive than Leica M. I use both for the same purpose: a daily carry-around camera.

[vrgard]

Originally Posted by ampguy

I think the CL is a great 2nd M-mount body for someone like Randy who has 2 M6's to break before he has to dig out the CL and who doesn't need a decent baselength for close focusing and/or fast lenses.

I've had a bad CL, and even after $240 of overhaul, the meter still didn't work.

The meter design with the lever stalk rotating almost 90 degrees with each shutter click is not a robust long lasting design.

I have dozens of cameras from Nikon, Pentax, Yashica, Olympus, Minolta, Konica, Canon, etc. from the same era of the CL, and the meters always work.

Did you ever wonder why the off of the film plane stalk meter of the CL and M5 was not continued into the CLE, MP, M6, M7, and M8 designs? Or why Bessa or others did not think to use a similar design??

Ted is right that I do not use my CL as my daily camera. And I wouldn't want to rely on my CL for close focusing with a fast lens. But it's great otherwise and I have no hesitation about using when I travel.

As for the meter, Ted shared with me that his overhaul did not include replacing the bad meter cell so it's not surprising that it still didn't work after the overhaul. And I find it quite refreshing that I can still get my 30 year old CL overhauled and even the meter repaired. That's more than can be expected of most things in this world. Lastly, sunny-16 ain't that hard to do so I'm learning to shoot without a built-in meter (forcing myself to learn with my M3) so I should be fine with my CL should the meter decide to stop working altogether. In fact, in addition to travel use, that's the other reason I bought the CL rather than a barnack Leica - easily carried and still an M-mount camera - and I can always use it without a meter if the need arises.

-Randy

[clintock]

The meter cell on the m5 and cl was a cds light dependent resistor, which had to be big back then, and minolta hadn't yet invented the off the curtain/film metering method that was made popular in the CLE and OM-2. The common SLR meters put the big ol' cells of the day up in the viewfinder, but that wouldn't work too well on the rangefinder types, with no diaphram coupling to tell the meter how to compensate for stopping down.
So in light of those limitations, the meter cell on a stalk was the only way left. One extra moving part.

[FrankS]

I wouldn't shy away from a CL with a dead or inaccurate meter. Simply use it with a handheld or CVmeterII lightmeter, as you would if it were a screwmount Leica. The CL's advantage over a screwmount is it's M-mount and better viewfinder.

[Flyfisher Tom]

The CL is fun ... that's good enough for me. DAG and Krauter can easily fix the meter for very little outlay. Problem solved.