Screwmount Leica alongside and M2greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread |
Hey guys,My Leica gear seems to be getting a lot of regular use now, and it looks like my M2 needs a partner - I need a second body to mount a 21mm lens semi-permanently on, leaving my M2 with its arsenal of 35/50/90 lenses. Since I own a 21/4 SA, which is basically an LTM lens with a factory M adaptor (removable, or course), I'm toying with the idea of getting a user IIIf (or some other III series Leica) to mount it on.
My question concerns shooting ergonomics and going back and forth between an LTM and M camera during shoots. Has anyone used these two cameras at the same time? Is this a workable setup, or am I better off waiting for a user M2/M3 body to come my way?
Appreciate the help, and thanks in advance!
-- Badris (badris@mac.com), March 01, 2002
HiI think there is a difference in that like the Bessa T, there are 2 windows you need to look through - one to focus (and the focus window is tiny comapred to the M series) and one to compose. If you are shooting with an ultrawide with a separate viewfinder you need to do this in any case, but the small focusing window still remains.
Also the film wind-on lever is knob, and unless you get an accessory (or a Leicavit) this is another difference, as is the shutter speed dial, which requires two adjustments for lower speeds
You might want to consider a Bessa T, with similar features and metering, though I have to say the screwmount Leicas are simply beautiful to handle
-- Gregory Goh (gregorygoh@hotmail.com), March 01, 2002.
Badris, the screwmount Leica's are indeed wonderful but as an everyday practical camera you are probably much better off with a new Voigtlander Bessa. Even the basic Bessa L will be a perfect match for the 21 mm lens, although it would probably be a better idea to move up to the Bessa T (especially as you have the M mount 21) so your M lenses can be utilised.Finding a screwmount in reliable working condition can be quite difficult and it will be far more expensive than a new Voigtlander body.
-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), March 01, 2002.
Hi Badis,The Bessa T is an excellent camera but might not work with your lens. I just checked out S. Gandy's Cameraquet and got this information (the following is a block quote):
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What Lenses DON'T fit to a T
Due primarily to the possibility of hitting the Bessa T's outer shutter, these lenses are NOT recommended:
Leica Hologon 15mm F8 Leica Super Angulon 21mm F3.4 Leica Super Angulon 21mm F4 Leica Elmarit 28mm F2.8 (first model) Leica Summicron 35mm F2 (7 elements type, serial #2974251 or later) * 6 or 8 elements type and aspherical type OK Leica Summilux 35mm F1.4 * Aspherical type can be used Leica Dual range Summicron 50mm F2 -- it won't mount properly on the body.
The collapsible 50/2 Summicron fits fine on the T, and is able to collapse fully. The collapsible 50/2.8 Elmar will collapse, but not fully -- so don't push it that extra 3/32" or so. There are many collapsible lenses, and I have not tried all of them on the T, so be careful when collapsing a lens least you damage the shutter or meter.
I would also be very careful mounting any wide angle with deeply set rear elements, such as the 20, 28, or 35mm Russian lenses in Leica screw mount.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), March 01, 2002.
Hello Badris. I would opt for an M2 as a second body. Regards.
-- Sheridan Zantis (albada60@hotmail.com), March 01, 2002.
I don't think most of the differences are critical--as for the finder issue, you're using a 21 with a separate finder, anyway. The LTM cameras are a real pleasure to handle--I prefer my IIIa to my M cameras--but if you intend to do ANY lens switching whatsoever, get an M--juggling adapters and different back caps just is not worth the bother--that's the thing that keeps me from using my IIIa much.
-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), March 01, 2002.
I have a IIIc which I used a lot until I picked up a Canon-P. It is a screwmount but in a lot of ways (size,viewfinder,build) is comparable to a M2/3.It loads and rewinds a lot easier than an M. A nice one can be had for $300. Now the IIIc is my back up.
-- Gerry Widen (gwiden@alliancepartners.org), March 01, 2002.
Thanks for the responses everyone. I ask this because yesterday I managed to play around with a Canon screwmount copy (a IIb I believe), and thought of the idea of using it or a Leica LTM body with my lens. I guess I'll be exploring my optionsfor a while before I commit to anything. Thanks again.
-- Badris (badris@mac.com), March 01, 2002.
If you got a second M2, then you'd have the option of loading your cameras with different films with full lens interchangeability, on occasions where this might be more useful than having a dedicated platform for the 21mm. The same would be true if you got an M6.
-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), March 01, 2002.
I would say get another M2/M3 user body to keep with the same lens mount(LTM lenses with adapter also). But, I do use my IIfRD alot with my 21/f4 Skopar lens. A very small,compact solution to go with a M. I use a M3 and a M6TTL for most of my work, and the IIf w/21f4 fits inbetween the M's in my bag.
-- chris a williams (LeicaChris@worldnet.att.net), March 04, 2002.
Badris. To my knowledge, ALL 21/4.0 SA bayonet mount (M) lenses were built as a screw mount chassis with a factory installed BM adapter. This adapter was attached in a very secure fashion and was never meant to be removed. I don't recommend removing it. You can do that, but it will leave an adhesive residue on the mount that is difficult if not impossible to remove.Other early BM lenses for Leica M were also made with a factory installed screw to BM adapter. These include some early examples of the 35/2.8 Summarons, 35/2.0 Summicrons, and 90/2.0 Summicrons. If you have one of these lenses, I recommend you resist the temptation to remove the adapter and just use the lens on an M camera as it was intended.
-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), March 05, 2002.