Leica M2 vs CL vs IIIf

[Rokkor]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have looked at some recommended dealers and currently there seems not too much good M2 availability. Also I called some dealers . One told me that he had 2 M2s that have been on stock for over one year and he sold them within the last 8 weeks. He shared that he buys them for around 250 - 500 Euro and sells for 550-900 Euro after refurbishment. As he is a mechanic he refurbished each one before sale so it is in perfect shape. He could not tell when he will get one again.

For the IIIf it seems the investment with a 50mm lens from a dealer would be around 600-800.

For the M2 Route it sounds like the old M lenses with 35mm (I think Elmars) can be bought relatively cheap. And then I also did some research today on the Biogon ZM which seems a exceptionally great lens. This moves my thinking away a bit that it would need to be Leitz glass. Even though one of the dealers could not see the point getting a Leica body and then taking a different lens, because of course the bodies do not really make the picture. I guess the question would be why not then to take e.g. a Contax RTS with a Zeiss Tessar. I still like the idea that you can use the lens analogue and digital. Even though I am also doing this already with the Fuji X-T1 and those great Minolta Rokkor gems of lenses that outperform some of the Fuji primes and people find the pictures much more interesting.

have a nice weekend everyone and thanks for this nice thread, which in summary recommends the M2, acknowledging the strengths of the IIIf and only slightly of the CL.

[Advertisement]

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

[jmahto]

1 hour ago, Rokkor said:

I have just taken a look at your analogue pictures following your Flickr link. Great pictures especially the landscapes with the M2. 

Thanks. 

There are few with IIIc/f as well in my album.

BTW, I see that you are M240 user as well (me too). But let me warn you that after going to film Leica it may gather dust.

[Rokkor]

vor 27 Minuten schrieb jmahto:

Thanks. 

There are few with IIIc/f as well in my album.

BTW, I see that you are M240 user as well (me too). But let me warn you that after going to film Leica it may gather dust.

Ah I did not discover those. Need to revisit.😉

 

So far I am not an M240 user. From Leica I only use the  Q so far and am very happy with it. I just miss using it  because it Is getting  some dust removal right now. Hope in case I find an M2 I will still use the Q. And to be honest waiting for the Q I extensively used the X-T1 with the Rokkor lenses. Very happy with this combination as well.🙂

[ktmrider2]

My biggest complain against the 3f is the viewfinder which is small and squinty as I posted earlier.  The M3 revolutionized the viewfinder with three built in frame lines.  The M2 only beats the M3 if you prefer 35 FOV over 50 FOV.  And there are no distractions in the M2 or M3 viewfinder.  I find the double frame lines of the M4P and subsequent bodies cluttered.  You can learn to live with clutter but if you don't need the frame lines (I have never owned a 28 or 75 focal length lens) why put up with them.  Metering information is nice but again it is distracting.  In my opinion the best Leica rangefinder for actual shooting is actually the M5 but the viewfinder is a bit busy.  The main reason I keep using a Leica M is the viewfinder so the M2 is my favorite since I prefer a 35 over a 50.

Now I plan on keeping the 3f simple and small which is why it is so much fun.  I have ordered an aux 50 finder which will fit in the hot shoe.  I could not find one made by Leica so I actually ordered a modern version made by Voigtlander.  One of the reasons I purchased the 3f was due to it being manufactured in my birth year and I had never owned a LTM Leica.  And I knew I could return it to Classic Connection if I did not like it.  Sam Shohane has a couple M2's/M3's/M4's on his web site.  He is a great dealer as is Tamarkin here in the US.  I know Red Dot Camera in London is also a great dealership and had an amazing collection of screw mount Leicas when I was in London a few years ago.

And to me the FujiX100F is the digital equivalent of either the 3f or M2 with modern technology in the digital age.  The X100F is small and compact, has a fixed 35 FOV equivalent and a built in flash, great film simulations in jpeg, and can be used fully auto or easily fully manual with all the dials in just the right places.

And concerning the Zeiss 35f2.8 C-Biogon, it may be the sharpest 35 made today and has the famous Zeiss "pop".  I also have a 35f1.2 Nokton for when I need the speed or when I don't mind a big lens.  One of the advantages of non Leitz glass is you can usually buy two or three lenses for less then the cost of a piece of Leica glass.  The same logic applies to my 50mm lenses (one is the latest version of the 50 Summicron but also have a 50f1.2 from Voightlander.  and now the collapsable 50 Summicron on the 3f.  Have a thread on the lens section here asking if its rendering is different enough to justify a LTM adopter for my M2 and MP240.

And I forgot to add that my Leica odyssey actually started with the Leica CL way back in 1974.   I wanted an M5 but could not afford one as I was still a college student.  If memory serves, I traded it for an M3 in 1977 and started down a long road of trying every new Leica when it came out.  I eventually owned a M5 (purchased about three years ago) and it is a beautiful design but it got traded for my latest M2 which is a YeYe Camera for a CLA.  I was going to buy another film M while the M2 was in the shop and ended up with the 3f instead.

Edited October 4, 2020 by ktmrider2

[StephenH]

I thought I was kidding myself when i bought a IIIF, thinking that i wouldn't ever get used to a viewfinder separate from the rangefinder window.  However, I soon began to appreciate how accurately and how easily i can focus the IIIf with its magnified rangefinder---arguably easier than with my M3.  IIIF is a wonderful choice.