LTM users, its time to stand up and be counted!

[buranca]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Beautiful example! Looks new!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Enotslliw]

If

with a 21 Super Angulon 4 most of the time,

Summaron 35 3.5 less

and Summicron 50 collapsible least.

 

This is a very small combination to carry...Digisix meter adds little.

[braza2013]

Thanks to Gus Lazzari of TLC Camera Repair for restoring my iiif. It is my fourth Leica, and one that I will keep forever.

 

[philipus]

Sorry, this might be a dumb question - does the LTM version of the pre-asph Summilux 50mm work on Barnack bodies? Would one need a viewfinder or some other accessory?

 

cheers

Philip

Edited August 29, 2011 by philipus

[earleygallery]

Any Leica Thread Mount lens will work on a Barnack, that's what they're made for. The built in viewfinders are 50mm.

[philipus]

Thank you very much James. This intrigues me. I'm looking into which interesting Barnack camera I should get.

 

cheers

philip

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For a good user I would suggest a lllc or lllf. They offer a good balance between useability (full range of shutter speeds) and cost. The Summilux may seem a bit large on the Barnack body however, but if you have the lens you may as well have a LTM body to go with it!

[TomB_tx]

Agreed - IIIc and IIIf are nice cameras. My IIIc is from '48, and has flaking chrome as do many of the post-war years. Since IIIf is an early 50s model the plating is much better on these. I have both, along with a Standard. Large diameter lenses do intrude into the viewfinder, so I stick with 50 Elmar and Summitar, or 35 Summaron on these. I tried a Nokton 50 1.5 on the IIIc, and even the rear body of the lens blocks some of the finder! (Nice lens on the M9 though.)

[wlaidlaw]

I would question how often nowadays we use the lower speeds. For that reason, I would recommend a IIF (easy to find and not too expensive) or IIG (rare and may have better appreciation potential). The lower speeds on the III models often are inaccurate unless you get a CLA by a really competent technician and the simpler shutters on the II models are generally more reliable. I would rather have a mint IIF than an average IIIF for the same cost.

 

That said, I still lust after a really nice IIIG, the ultimate LTM Leica.

 

Wilson

[earleygallery]

I use slow speeds on my lllf. The lllg is nice but it was a stepping stone to the M and that much bigger than the earlier cameras. For a user it's also significantly more expensive.

[someonenameddavid]

some of us dream of iiif rd st-s

 

David

[greenhillm]

I acquired a 111b with Summar lens from eBay about a year ago.

I obtain surprisingly good images with this combination.

I use colour negative film, commercially processed and digitised for convenient

storing of the images on my computer.

I enjoy assessing exposure with my old Weston V lightmeter and the discipline of transferring this data to the camera. Then focusing, moving eye to viewfinder window and finally depressing the shutter button.

I'm obliged to think prior to making each exposure.

This is in contrast to my M6ttl where the information is in the viewfinder.

My Digilux 2 I tend to mainly leave on automatic. A splendid camera.

I, sadly, no longer possess colour processing equipment - gave it away when we downsized to

an apartment. BAD move!

[wlaidlaw]

I use slow speeds on my lllf. The lllg is nice but it was a stepping stone to the M and that much bigger than the earlier cameras. For a user it's also significantly more expensive.

 

James,

 

I use the slow speeds on my M's, where even the M4 I regard as a worker but rarely on my classic cameras, which are more for fun. I cannot recall the last time I used below 1/25 on Contax IIA or Rolleiflex 3.5E, which are the classics I use most along with the IIF. Obviously 1/25 is as low as my IIF will go. I was thinking of cost/benefit for the average user. Whether it was better to get a nicer IIF than you could buy a IIIF or IIIF-ST-S for the same money

 

I think one additional point to make is that it is worth getting the RD model of whichever model you choose, to make electronic flash synchronisation easier. It is getting more and more difficult and expensive to get bulbs and they are getting old. I was using bulbs/film last Thursday for a "St Tropez 1955" shoot. Three of the Press #25 bulbs did not fire and one burnt through the plastic coating.

 

Wilson

[hektor]

Sorry, this might be a dumb question - does the LTM version of the pre-asph Summilux 50mm work on Barnack bodies? Would one need a viewfinder or some other accessory?

 

cheers

Philip

 

Dear Philip,

The only Summilux 1:1.4/50 that will work on the LTM bodies is the 1959-1961 screw-thread (schraubgewinde) version. All the Summilux 50mm lenses made thereafter were bayonet mount. The 1959-1961 (Version I) screw-thread Summilux 50mm is a rare lens and made expensive by collectors.

Have fun.

Hektor

[wlaidlaw]

Dear Philip,

The only Summilux 1:1.4/50 that will work on the LTM bodies is the 1959-1961 screw-thread (schraubgewinde) version. All the Summilux 50mm lenses made thereafter were bayonet mount. The 1959-1961 (Version I) screw-thread Summilux 50mm is a rare lens and made expensive by collectors.

Have fun.

Hektor

 

Did not Leica in 1999, issue limited edition 35/2, 50/2 Summicrons and the 50/1.4 Summilux in LTM. I think these were sold principally in Japan. I would guess they are "collectors" and pretty expensive now.

 

Wilson

[hektor]

Thank you very much James. This intrigues me. I'm looking into which interesting Barnack camera I should get.

 

cheers

philip

 

Dear Philip,

One of the joys of the LTM cameras is their size. Using a Summilux on these delightful little instruments would diminish that quality.

I have five LTM cameras (1926-1951) and use the following lenses on the different versions:

Elmar f = 5 cm 1:3.5

Hektor f = 5 cm 1:2.5

Summar (rigid) f = 5 cm 1:2

Nikkor-S.C 1:1.4 f = 5cm

Elmar f = 5 cm 1:2.8

If I had to choose one lens it would be the 5cm Elmar f/2.8 or the collapible Summicron for ease of aperture adjustment (I need reading glasses these days!)

Sincerely,

Hektor

[hektor]

Did not Leica in 1999, issue limited edition 35/2, 50/2 Summicrons and the 50/1.4 Summilux in LTM. I think these were sold principally in Japan. I would guess they are "collectors" and pretty expensive now.

 

Wilson

 

Dear Wilson,

That is a possibility, but as suggested in my post, putting a Summilux on an LTM camera is like fitting SUV wheels and tyres to a 1959 Mini!

Furthermore, LTM cameras are not really used for available light photography, and with the shorter based rangefinder the accurate focusing at f/1.4 could be inaccurate.

I use a Nikkor-S.C 1:1.4 f = 5cm on a Laica IIIa as did David Douglas Duncan in Korea. It is not a big lens and the results are excellent. The characteristics are different from Leica lenses, as the Nikkor is a copy of the Zeiss Sonnar. Nevertheless at f/1.4 it is good, if one is not expecting Summilux-M ASPH quality.

Kind regards,

Hektor

[hektor]

Oh forgot to add I have a 1936 111A with a 1951 Summitar 50mm lens. Camera works great and the only problem I have using it, is that it doesn't like modern film cassettes, so I just darkroom load the old brass 35mm Leitz cassettes and it's fine with those.

 

Dear Paul,

I had my IIIa serviced by Malcolm Taylor in the West Country and it uses commercial cassettes without problems, as in fact do all my LTMs. The 1926 Leica I had to be adjusted by Ottmar Michaely.

Have fun,

Hektor

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[wlaidlaw]

Hektor,

 

I agree with what you say about the rangefinders on LTM cameras. I was doing a photoshoot on Thursday and had been asked to use period cameras. My shipment of black and white film got lost in the post (inevitably it arrived on Friday morning) so I took all three of the user 35mm film cameras I had with me in France, my IIF, Contax IIA and M4, as well as a Rolleiflex for 120 film. Focusing was not too easy as we were in trees at noon in very bright dappled sunlight.

 

It reminded me how poor in modern terms, the LTM's rangefinder is. I had in the end, to Blu-Tak a small yellow filter over the RF window to make it more visible. The next best was the Contax IIA, with much more visible RF window and its very accurate, if finger ripping focusing wheel. Finally the M4 - what a different world. Lovely bright VF and RF that an 8 year old could use. The M3 must have been a revelation in 1957.

 

Wilson

[gyoung]

No propblem with standard cassettes in my 1938 III either.

 

And in answer to the focussing accuracy remark above, the rangefinder in the LTM cameras is short base, but is magnified, I'm not sure what the figures are but I have never heard of problems with focus on them with f/1.5 50 and 85mm lenses, unlike the constant back or front focus debates on the M cameras, particularly digital.

 

Gerry