Leica M2 vs CL vs IIIf

[Rokkor]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi

after recently having shot a black and white film with my Olympus rangefinder, I am considering looking into a Leica analogue model. First I thought about the Leica IIIf and now I am also thinking about an M2 or further away a CL. Purpose would be good quality alternative film camera with 35mm. Owning a Q I do not have Leica lenses so far. Only minolta Rokkor vintage glass.

 

Curious to hear your thoughts and experiences. What would you consider good prices for each of the models?

thanks a lot.

Edited September 29, 2020 by Rokkor

[Advertisement]

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

[raizans]

Look at completed items on eBay for the going rates.

I have an MP, and I still want a CL, II, M5, etc. They're all nice, and they could all work for you. I don't know enough about your needs to really make recommendations.

But for now, I would say choose the CL if you want a meter and are ok with 40/50/90 framelines.

Choose the M2 if you are ok w/o a built-in meter and want 35/50/90 framelines.

And choose the IIIF if you are ok w/o a built-in meter and mainly use 50mm. If you are ok with accessory viewfinders for other focal lengths, then it should be fine. Your lens options will be mostly vintage, but some modern lenses are available.

If you know your purpose in getting a film camera:

IIIF if you want something for fun.

CL if you want a compact, convenient everyday carry.

M2 if you want a tool for purposeful photo outings.

[mediumformula]

I have an MP and a IIIf.  I love the IIIf.  You should be able to get a decent one for around $250.  For approximately another $250 you can pick up a 50mm Elmar.  It creates a very compact film camera set up.  The IIIf is great if you intend on only shooting 50mm lenses - which is how I prefer to shoot.  I thought about getting an M2/3 to have a vintage complement for my MP but settled on the IIIf because I wanted a shooting experience significantly different than another M - and the IIIf offers this and it's much less expensive.

[Matlock]

Remember that if you choose the IIIf you are limited to screw mount lenses, however, if you choose the M2 or CL you can use both M mount and screw lenses. I have all three (well a IIf rather than a IIIf) and they are all great cameras.

[Rokkor]

vor 1 Minute schrieb Matlock:

Remember that if you choose the IIIf you are limited to screw mount lenses, however, if you choose the M2 or CL you can use both M mount and screw lenses. I have all three (well a IIf rather than a IIIf) and they are all great cameras.

Thank you. In that sense the M2 seems very versatile. For the iiif I understand you need a different viewfinder if you would like to go for 35mm. The CL seems relatively affordable if you plan to go 40mm.

[Rokkor]

vor einer Stunde schrieb mediumformula:

I have an MP and a IIIf.  I love the IIIf.  You should be able to get a decent one for around $250.  For approximately another $250 you can pick up a 50mm Elmar.  It creates a very compact film camera set up.  The IIIf is great if you intend on only shooting 50mm lenses - which is how I prefer to shoot.  I thought about getting an M2/3 to have a vintage complement for my MP but settled on the IIIf because I wanted a shooting experience significantly different than another M - and the IIIf offers this and it's much less expensive.

Thank you. That sounds reasonable to have something different. I usually prefer 35mm. So a good point to consider.

[Matlock]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 minute ago, Rokkor said:

Thank you. In that sense the M2 seems very versatile. For the iiif I understand you need a different viewfinder if you would like to go for 35mm. The CL seems relatively affordable if you plan to go 40mm.

I really like my M2 and it gets quite a lot of use, certainly more than the IIf. The CL is really pocketable so has that advantage.

[250swb]

For a better early experience an M type would be best. Yes, yes I know the LTM are great cameras and people love their CL's, but an M of some sort offers far more versatility and choice of lenses. I say an M 'of some sort' because an M4-P is even more versatile and easier to use than an M2, and a better condition M4-P could be had for the price of an average M2.

[Rokkor]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb raizans:

Look at completed items on eBay for the going rates.

I have an MP, and I still want a CL, II, M5, etc. They're all nice, and they could all work for you. I don't know enough about your needs to really make recommendations.

But for now, I would say choose the CL if you want a meter and are ok with 40/50/90 framelines.

Choose the M2 if you are ok w/o a built-in meter and want 35/50/90 framelines.

And choose the IIIF if you are ok w/o a built-in meter and mainly use 50mm. If you are ok with accessory viewfinders for other focal lengths, then it should be fine. Your lens options will be mostly vintage, but some modern lenses are available.

If you know your purpose in getting a film camera:

IIIF if you want something for fun.

CL if you want a compact, convenient everyday carry.

M2 if you want a tool for purposeful photo outings.

Thank you those are good considerations. For now I am not too sure how enthusiastic I would be shooting film. I liked the output of my 35RC do much that I am considering getting a bit more into it complementing my Q and Fuji X setup. I do travel, street, people and casual photography. Once and then some architecture, landscape and macro. But mostly what I think is called cinematic street photography. So all seem to work and the most interesting would be a iiif and also the m2 and somehow less the CL from an aesthetics standpoint.

[Rokkor]

vor 5 Minuten schrieb 250swb:

For a better early experience an M type would be best. Yes, yes I know the LTM are great cameras and people love their CL's, but an M of some sort offers far more versatility and choice of lenses. I say an M 'of some sort' because an M4-P is even more versatile and easier to use than an M2, and a better condition M4-P could be had for the price of an average M2.

Good points and thanks. The m2 might be a compromise then. The m4-p is technically good it just does not draw my attention too much from a design perspective.

[Rokkor]

vor 7 Minuten schrieb Matlock:

I really like my M2 and it gets quite a lot of use, certainly more than the IIf. The CL is really pocketable so has that advantage.

And why do you use the m more? More convenience? With only one viewfinder?

[250swb]

1 minute ago, Rokkor said:

Good points and thanks. The m2 might be a compromise then. The m4-p is technically good it just does not draw my attention too much from a design perspective.

I think what you must mean is 'from an aesthetic perspective'? Well this may be true but most photographers only tend to see the back of their camera a lot of the time. But you could equally call the CL an ugly little brick but you are attracted to that? I tell you what, Christmas is coming, get an M4-P and wrap some tinsel around it, that should brighten it up for you.

[Rokkor]

vor 8 Minuten schrieb 250swb:

I think what you must mean is 'from an aesthetic perspective'? Well this may be true but most photographers only tend to see the back of their camera a lot of the time. But you could equally call the CL an ugly little brick but you are attracted to that? I tell you what, Christmas is coming, get an M4-P and wrap some tinsel around it, that should brighten it up for you.

Haha! 😅 Rationally you are totally right. And yes I meant the aesthetics not the technical design. And the CL indeed was more of a consideration because it is really affordable and I would not spend too much money. Still looks ok, but as said the Barnack Leicas have something to them design wise.

Edited September 30, 2020 by Rokkor

[250swb]

3 minutes ago, Rokkor said:

Haha! 😅 Rationally you are totally right. And yes I meant the aesthetics not the technical design. And the CL indeed was more of a consideration because it is really affordable and I would not spend too much money. Still looks ok, but as said the Barnack Leicas have something to them design wise.

The Barnack Leica's are beautiful cameras, but as you said you'd already been shooting with your Olympus I guess most people are thinking about practical cameras to start you off right. A Barnack LTM is generally speaking something people come to later, kind of like buying the mantelpiece first and then get an ornament to put on it. 

[Rokkor]

vor 1 Minute schrieb 250swb:

The Barnack Leica's are beautiful cameras, but as you said you'd already been shooting with your Olympus I guess most people are thinking about practical cameras to start you off right. A Barnack LTM is generally speaking something people come to later, kind of like buying the mantelpiece first and then get an ornament to put on it. 

Yes I see your point. Price wise the Barnacks are also attractive which adds to it maybe. For the Olympus 35RC I paid 40 bucks. Hard to beat in value.

[Matlock]

1 hour ago, Rokkor said:

And why do you use the m more? More convenience? With only one viewfinder?

It is just that I like M cameras more (for film my most used is my M7 and digital my M10-D and M10-R). However there is something about the M2 which I can't quite put my finger on.

[Rokkor]

vor 21 Minuten schrieb Matlock:

It is just that I like M cameras more (for film my most used is my M7 and digital my M10-D and M10-R). However there is something about the M2 which I can't quite put my finger on.

Mmh. Interesting. Maybe just that vintage vibe. I see also an advantage for the M2 to maybe start with a screw mount 35mm lens and later add an M lens and at one point a digital M body to that lens.

[Matlock]

4 minutes ago, Rokkor said:

Mmh. Interesting. Maybe just that vintage vibe. I see also an advantage for the M2 to maybe start with a screw mount 35mm lens and later add an M lens and at one point a digital M body to that lens.

If you want a slightly more "modern" M then the M4-P is hard to beat, as 250swb has stated. One of the great advantages of the M series (film and digital) is the ability to use lenses dating back to 1925, not many other camera systems allow that.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[250swb]

1 hour ago, Rokkor said:

Yes I see your point. Price wise the Barnacks are also attractive which adds to it maybe. For the Olympus 35RC I paid 40 bucks. Hard to beat in value.

The Olympus 35RC is one of my favourite cameras ever and a lens that is hard to beat for a compact. I always have one with me as a backup/notebook camera if I'm using large format and often prefer it over a Leica M as a walk around camera. If the ultimate dream was an LTM buy the Voigtlander LTM lenses for your M2 (or whatever) and use them with an adapter, they are all very good and not second rate at all, just slower. But the M2 is getting very old now so shopping for a good one gets more and more fraught. They don't need constant servicing but ideally you want to buy one that has had a recent service or comes with a warranty. These are the hidden expenses. To be clear I'd choose the M2 over any M3 or an M4, but it wouldn't be my first choice if I had to start all over again. That said they do look good......

Edited September 30, 2020 by 250swb

[Mute-on]

I know I’ve said this before (more than once, in fact) ... the M2 with a 35mm lens is Leica M nirvana, in my opinion