Should I buy an M8 and Leica Lenses over an M9 and cheaper Lensess?

[MikeMyers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have to confess that I do not understand the logic of putting a $7k camera behind a $500 lens.

 

 

Different people see things very differently. For me, the M8 and M9 are simply a digital version of the M2 and M3 cameras I used to enjoy so much. Unfortunately, one has to spend many thousands of dollars to buy one, but that's the price of admission nowadays.

 

I'll use whatever lenses do what I need, and the Voigtlander lenses do exactly that. I couldn't care less what the brand name is on the lenses, any more than I care what the brand name is on anything else I use. To me, that's irrelevant. I do care very much for how much something will cost me. If I can get the same results with a $300 lens as I could with a $3000 lens, there's no choice in my mind.

 

For those with unlimited budgets, or those who take pride in what they're using, or for those who have different requirements than me, I can certainly see them ignoring the less expensive alternatives.

 

I'm certainly not using the Leica to "show off"; in the eyes of most people I meet, I'm using "my grandfather's camera". One put it even simpler - after seeing me with my Nikon gear before, when I came by with my M8 his word were "What are you doing with that Mickey Mouse camera???"

 

I do know what I want to do, and I'm limited by how much I can spend. If I want a digital Leica, the price is many thousands of $$$. If I want new lenses to compliment my collection of dusty Leica lenses from 50 years ago, the Voigtlander lenses have become my first choice. My next purchase will be their 12mm lens.

 

It's not a matter of logic; it's a matter of what choice is best for each individual.

[johnalex141r]

I'll use whatever lenses do what I need, and the Voigtlander lenses do exactly that. I couldn't care less what the brand name is on the lenses, any more than I care what the brand name is on anything else I use. ..

 

Mike - while 4 of my 6 lenses are CV lenses; I'll admit that my experience with their faster lenses was not great. So, if you want the 50/1.4 or 28/2, IMHO, Leica is superior.

 

Other than that, my CV 15, 25, 50/(2.5) and 90 are fantastic.

 

I wished that I had not sold my CV35/2.5 - if I ever want that length/speed, the CV is the one to get again.

 

JohnS.

[proenca]

hi mate,

 

I'm sorry but I'll join Glen and the others : its all about the glass.

 

Cameras come and go but glass stays.

 

M9 is a wonderfull camera but isnt fault free ; M8 had its problems when it came out ( tell me about it, I was an early adopter ) but Leica iron them out, or at least most of them.

 

And while the M9 seemed the "THING", the truth is quite a few hundreds of M9 upgraders put a halt on their decision - simply put, the M9 is very nice but the M8 can hold up VERY WELL against it.

 

Like the second poster said, the M9 noise advantage is nice to have but NOT the end of all means. Its a full stop. Not few stops. A M8 + 50 1.4 you can take the same picture ( noise wise, stop wise ) quality than a M9 + 50 2.8 .

 

To be honest, I regret sellling a few lenses today. I never ever regreted selling a body - well just one, a Leica MP which I "cured" recently by aquiring another one.

 

If I was you, I would get a M8 + a couple of Leica lenses.

 

Its true that CV and even Zeiss glass are great and can in some focal lenghts, match the Leica glass.

 

But and there is always a but, the Leica lens are good in one thing that neither CV or Zeiss lens can match : holding their prices.

 

I've used a few Leica lens and I never lost any money on them. you buy them used, hold them for a few months ( and even years ) and them sell them for almost the same fee or very very similar.

 

You can get a Mint M8 + couple Mint Leica lens for a price of a M9.

 

And a couple of years, the couple Leica Lens will still be a killer lens.

 

The M9 ? will be the old thing that the M10 has replaced.

 

For example, and looking at UK prices, a M9 is 4000 pounds ish...

 

A M8 ( 1250 ) plus a 24 or 21 Elmarit ( 1250 ) plus a 50 lux pre-asph( 700 ) and a 90 cron ( 600-800 ) is for the same price a killer combo for the same price or bit more ...

 

In the end, lets not forget : your money, your call.

[leicavkk]

I just went through similar issues. However, my choice was a third one that isn't mentioned here - M8 + quality non leica glass. Sure, non leica glass may lose some value, but your talking hundreds, not thousands. Also, as I looked at ebay, there are old Leica glass that have lost their value. For example the older versions of current Asph models seem to be selling closer to 1000 and I'm guessing they cost as much as the current version when they first came out. So if you buy quality glass, don't just bet on resale - get it because you want to keep it forever. On the other hand - I suggest subscribing to reidreviews.com, going through his reviews for the various glass and deciding what suits you. I ended up with an M8 and a Zeiss f/2 50mm to start with. Someone mentioned the CV 28/3.5 - I've that on order as well. The Zeiss cost me 500$ on ebay from someone that had bought it a few months ago and never used it. Ok, I'm still waiting for my M8 ( it arrives tomorrow ), but I'm sure I'll be happy with the combo for a while. Do I want Leica glass? Sure. Is it worth it for me to spend thousands more when there is other glass that professionals are saying are great? No. I will likely over time get Leica glass at certain focal lengths ( like 90, 75, 21 etc ) and maybe eventually when I'm rich ( riiiight ) replace my entire lineup with Leica, just for the snob factor ( and image quality of course ).