I keep getting tempted by Leica LTM gear to complement my M3. I am especially keen on the compact size for travel, and the quirky nature of the wee classics. Basically, they just look fun! But I want good results and reliability too. I was intrigued by Andrew Shanks's postings on the Elmar lens. But what to buy? Options: Most expensive: 1943 Leica IIIc with original case and 5cm lens (not sure which one). Apparently in mint condition. Other cameras here in NZ are rated only poor, fair, good, or very good. - A choice of IIIb 1938 or 1950 IIIc with 5cm 3.5 Elmar and 3.5cm Summaron with finders to be sold together. - IIIbs, Cs, F or G, plus either: - Summitar 5cm f/2 (cheapish, why?) - Elmar 5cm f/2.8 (quite expensive, but in good condition. Would also fit current hoods and filters) An early straight III with Summar has now gone. I can't inspect all of these, so would value your advice. Which bodies are better? Pre or postwar? Strangely, a pre-war IIIb is selling for more than a postwar IIIc. And which lenses? I like the idea of the collapsibles. The 2.8 Elmar might be a good bet. The Summitar is a lot less but is it any good? Yours in anticipation.

-- David Killick (Dalex@inet.net.nz), June 28, 2001

Answers

Dave, I've been using LTM cameras off and on for about 15 years now, and seriously (if there is such a thing) for the past 3. Originally a screw mount Canon (one of the direct Leica copies), then a IIIc and now a IIIg. I feel that if you are going to use it on a regular basis that you should search for a reasonable IIIg or get a banged up 'user' that's a decent price. The viewfinder is just so much easier to use in this camera than all the others. Previous to the IIIg the viewfinders were like most point and shoots of today. Squinty little boxes that were nearly impossible to use with glasses, whereas the IIIg had the M style viewfinder (sort of) with floating framelines for the 50 and 90. As well try to avoid the models where the viewfinder and rangefinders were seperated. Again if you're using it regularily it becomes quite easy to just avert your gaze from range to viewfinder window, whereas the earlier cameras required shifting either the camera or you moving your head to shift from window to window. Doesn't seem like much, but when your concentrating on shooting it does make a difference. For lenses I started out with a 90 Elmar, 50 Elmar collapsible and a 35 Summaron. Love the 50!! If I'm going to a party or out to dinner it slips into a jacket pocket easily with the lens collapsed. A small meter in another pocket and I'm set for anything. The 90 is nice, but I don't use it much. If I'm going to shoot tight I'll usually switch to the R. Hated the Summaron, primarily because most of my work is with the 35mm, and for the stuff I do (mostly indoors, available light), it was just too, too slow. Then a couple of years ago Leica brought out the 35 and 50, current models (Asph) in a limited edition of screwmount. If you can find one, get it. It turns the camera into a serious picture maker. A little less convenient than an M3, but with modern optics and much smaller, still easily pocketable. Only problem is that it is so sharp (I have the 35 Summicon Asph) that I only use the older lenses when I want a more romantic, dreamy look. Over the years I've had the aforementioned LTMs and a couple of M4s and I really feel that the IIIg is my most enjoyable Leica. Then again I have a 30 year old Alfa Romeo that I'd take over any modern car, any day.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), June 28, 2001.

The IIIc with elmar and Summaron is a great combination. A IIIF is more recent, but has slightly more complication due to the built-in flash sync. I don't like the IIIg because the rangefinder is compromised to make room for the projected viewfinder lines, and the price is determined more by collectors than by users. The IIIC is your best buy.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), June 28, 2001.

David,

I asked a similar question last year, and received a ton of advice from the people on this forum. You can chech out that thread at:

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0049Ja

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), June 28, 2001.

Whatever you end up with, got to have a 3.5 Elmar with as clean glass as you can find. A screw mount Leica without that compact Elmar just seems incomplete. I'd consider buying one from a reputable dealer here in the US that ships internationally--will open up considerably your choices. I Liked the IIIF's I've handeled-especially the ones with a recent CLA from Sherry Krauter.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), June 28, 2001.

While the IIIg is probably the best "screw" Leica to use, a good user will cost almost as much as a used M6. The best III series for the money is probably a IIIc which in user condition can be had for around $250-300 and incorporates a lot of improvements over earlier models. As for lenses most of the origional Leica screws except for the origional collapseable Summicron are inferior(but still decent)to present day M lenses.(As suggested if money is no object you can buy a IIIg with the recently released screw Summicron 50's and 35's and get great results but the camera will cost well over $1000 closer to $1500 and the lenses over $1000 each)That being said most of my photography is done with a IIIc and the older Leica lenses. I would recommend a Elmar 50/3.5 which when collapsed fits in a shirt pocket and will give good results and that origional experience. I also have a Elmar 90/4 which is reasonably sharp and gives the best Bokah I have ever seen. I hate to admit it but for the money the Russian lenses are generally better and much cheeper than the old Leica screws. I have a Russian Jupiter 50/1.5 manuf in '82 I paid $70 and I am very impressed with. Marc Small rates it superior the Summarit 50/1.5. I am also very impressed with the Jupiter-12 35/2.8 which is under $100 and from my experience is better than a M Summaron 35/3.5 I had a few years back. You could also purchase the Cosina/Voitlander lenses which while are not cheap are a fraction of the Current Leica lenses and have rec'd some excellent reviews. For a lot more info take a look at Stephen Gandy's site www.cameraquest.com. After a lot of rambling hope this helps.

-- Gerald Widen (gerald@sfa1.com), June 28, 2001.

One last note: You may want to try the 50 Elmar screw mount on your M camera before picking up the screw mount body. My M3 seems so much smaller with that lens on. I'm not sure the screw mount cameras are much lighter than the M cameras, and the slight reduction in size to me was offset by the major pain in the butt loading and archaic finder. For now at least, my screw mount interest has been curbed by using the Elmar on the M3 when I want a more compact camera. Just trying to save you some $!

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), June 28, 2001.

Right off, I want to make it clear that I own and cherish a IIIa and IIIf with 35/3.5, 50/3.5, 50/2, 90/4 and 135/4.5 LTM lenses which I've had since I was 12 or 13. I had the cameras overhauled a couple years back by John Maddox and they are cherry. I use them from time to time, they get a lot of interesting looks and start some interesting conversations, usually with elderly shutterbugs. But here's where my opinion might be unpopular with LTM users: with more modern equipment at my disposal I would not use them for travel work, nor would I risk possible theft or damage to them. They've served their purpose well for many decades, I believe they deserve the venerable status of "camera emeritus".

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), June 28, 2001.

To Gerald: It's to bad that the IIIg has gained so much collectors status, as it really is the most useable LTM. As I've mentioned before I know I'm lucky - 3 years ago I 'aquired' (quite legally) a IIIg, 35 Summron, 50 & 90 Elmars, in boxes, like new for GULP $150.00 CDN, the equivalent of about $100.00 US. This is of course one of the reasons why I consider the IIIg to be a user camera. To Jay: It's a shame not to use a good tool just because it's old. Same reason I keep pumping money into the Alfa, it's just a beautiful car that makes me very happy to drive - especially when my Leica is at the ready in the passengers seat. I hope that when I get 'old' no one decides I shouldn't be used anymore ;-)

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), June 28, 2001.

Bob. I remember your story a few months ago how you aquired the IIIg and lenses from I think a university. I was jealous then and still jealous now. I've never looked thru a IIIc but I'm sure the best LTM.

-- Gerald Widen (gerald@sfa1.com), June 28, 2001.

Don't overlook the II series - just like the III except no slow speeds. The lack of a slow speed dial helps the camera feel even better in my hands than my old IIIf. The elmar 50/3.5 is just pure Leica, a beautiful artist's tool, though less than convenient than newer lenses (changing the aperture is slow unless you have a valoo or a voola - welcome to the wonderful world of screwmount accessories!) Pick up a sbooi, and you'll have a better viewfinder than any M. -John

-- John Fleetwood (johnfleetwood@hotmail.com), June 28, 2001.

Just reading this postings encourages me to use my 50/3.5, but I have a question, how important is to use a shade with this lens?

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), June 28, 2001.

Dear R, I've never had an obvious problem with flair with my less- than-clean 1950 coated elmar.

-- John Fleetwood (johnfleetwood@hotmail.com), June 28, 2001.

I too have a coated Elmar that is flawless and find that it is fairly 'flare-free', much less so than the 90. i don't bother with a shade, though at time if I'm shooting into the sun I'll use my hand to shade the lens as best I can.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), June 28, 2001.

Please, no "flair" jokes! -John

-- John Fleetwood (johnfleetwood@hotmail.com), June 28, 2001.

So far I have not had any flare with the Elmar. Mine is also very clean and coated. There are only 4 pieces of glass in there plus a tiny front element, so if the glass is clean, I don't see flare being a serious problem. I have a Valoo hood now, and will use it if shooting outside in bright lighting simply because it makes changing the aperture easier. Since nobody mentioned it, I think a Bessa R with a 50mm Elmar would be a very cool compact screw mount shooter. Light weight, easy to load, ttl meter, fairly cheap as well. Anyone shooting that combination?

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), June 28, 2001.

Thanks guys, looks like the IIIC is definitely the best value at about a quarter of the price of a IIIG. The IIIG looks brilliant but then it would have to be a choice of that v the M3. Bob: no more bargain IIIGs around? I suppose your Alfa was a good price too. Must admit the "mint" wartime IIIC looks tempting - "an investment" I am told, but probably overpriced. Leica prices don't seem to necessarily relate to useability! I also read the early postwar IIICs weren't so good. True? As for lenses, I wonder how the Summitar stacks up against the Elmar? Does it perform with flair or flare?

-- David Killick (Dalex@inet.net.nz), June 29, 2001.

David, since I got my elmar, I haven't used my summitar much. The summitar is sharper and more contrasty at the wider apertures, but I like the elmar's smaller size and weight, and the "painterly" quality it renders at wide apertures. My summitar is a coated 1950 model, and is flare resistant. I've never used that strange collapsable hood with it. It's a very nice lens, and usually inexpensive for a Leica.

-- John Fleetwood (johnfleetwood@hotmail.com), July 01, 2001.

I don't have any empirical reasons why I like the IIIg so much, but I have given up using my M3 and sold my M6, and just got a second IIIg body. I have the 28/5.6 and the 50/2.8. June the 18 I was up in Ketchikan using the 2.8 to document a trip to a road construction site. Very rewarding photo opportunity and very satisfying slides, even in a driving rain. The diminuitive size of the IIIg is important to me, and those two lenses make the camera even MORE unobtrusive. I have a little gossen scout light meter that works great with the Kodachrome 200 I always shoot, so instead of point and shoot quality, I can bring real photos home. I have some old Leicaflexes which are fantastic, but when you put one on you are TOTALLY in the picture taking business. Even with the M and any lens but a 35/2 and a hood, you have this projection emanating from your chest. Probably not as big a deal as I'm making out, but with the LTM you get a for real camera with a good shutter and a for real lens with a good aperture and focus mechanism in a very small package. Quite easy to make that argument for an M with the collapsible lens, or the Voights, so a lot of my feeling is bound to be just personal taste. Be that as it may, my own personal whiz wheel points straight at that IIIg and my slides, for the moment anyway, are bearing that out. I used to feel the same about my IIIf's: great fun and great results, since I'm not in the test pattern shooting business and KC 200 is sorta grainy anyway, but That viewfinder on the g is SO great. Well, blah, blah,blah, I know. I use these things a lot more than I talk, I promise, and both the f and the g model just beg to be used.

-- Fred Cale (calefe@mfr.usmc.mil), July 23, 2001.

A postwar IIIc and coated 50mm f3.5 Elmar hands-down winner on price/performance.

-- Joe Buechler (jbuechler@toad.net), July 28, 2001.

I have a IIIf BD and even though I really like the Leica screwmounts, I can't help but recommend the Canon 7 instead. It's a good enough screwmount to compete even with the Leica M's for useability. The only problem is that it's even a tiny bit larger than the M's.

If that's not an option, the IIIc or IIIf BD with a 50 brightline finder and one of the mentioned 50 lenses isn't too awkward a package.

-- David W. Griffin (carbon_dragon@yahoo.com), September 12, 2001.

I use an M2 with the 90mm elmar f4 and it is a lovely"performer" with most films, especially with the range of c41 b/w films,it is noticable for its tonal gradation that the modern optic seems to have forgone.Would love to own a IIIG but have to admit film loading a problem. tony moore

-- anthony roy moore (armoore@beeb.net), May 18, 2002.

Hi Dave, I have been using several variants of LTM equipment since 1993 or so I have had 3)different IIIc's I've owned 4)FED 5c's 2)Zorkii 1's a Zorkii 4 a IIIf BD and many different lenses for these cameras. My answer to you would be try out either a FED 1 or Zorkii 1 with the Industar 22 (which is a copy of the Elmar 50/3.5)this is a very inexpensive taste of what LTM cameras are all about.

I like my Zorkii 1 and use it a great deal and get results that are very pleasing. While it is true that Soviet cameras have quality issues they are widley avaiable and any one who can repair a thread mount Leica can work on these as well.

If you like the feel of these cameras and want to spend the extra money to have the Leica name on the top plate go for it, remember having fun is the important thing in a hobby!

-- Joe Nobles (noblesj@bellatlantic.net), June 21, 2002.

I regularly use two circa 1946 Leica 111c cameras, both with 50 mm Summitar f2 lenses. To me, they are the best and I would never give them up. I also use a 135mm Hektor f4.5 and a 90mm Elmar f4 with terrific results.

-- Gary R. Morrison (grm_1956@hotmail.com), January 05, 2003.