Leica M2 vs CL vs IIIf

[plaidshirts]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, Rokkor said:

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

If 35mm is your main focal length, the m2 will be your best fit. I have an old screw mount Elmar 35/3.5 on my m2 now - a wonderfully compact combo. 

[Advertisement]

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

[Rokkor]

vor 1 Minute schrieb plaidshirts:

If 35mm is your main focal length, the m2 will be your best fit. I have an old screw mount Elmar 35/3.5 on my m2 now - a wonderfully compact combo. 

Good to know that this would work.

[TomB_tx]

I have all 3 models - IIIf, CL, M2 (&M3,4,5,6) and indeed all 3 have their own charms. I used the IIIf with a 35mm Summaron in ~1970 while in the army: a pocketable, solid combination. I didn't use an accessory 35mm finder, just judged the view based on the 50 finder. The IIIf finder is rather a peep-hole view, while the CL & M2 finders are much more inviting - especially if you wear glasses (as I do). 

The CL & its 40 Summicron was my cycling and backpack travel camera in the 1980s - lighter weight than the others, wonderful meter. Still get great results with it. You could easily judge a 35mm FOV from the 40 framelines in the finder, but the 40 Summicron (or Rokkor) is also a great, small lens. The CL may not be quite as durable as the others.

The M2 is indeed a joy, and ideal for a 35mm lens. The M4 was my first Leica in 1968 (when I could have bought either a new M2 or M3) and I actually still prefer the aesthetics of it to the earlier models, and find the pivoting advance lever more comfortable..

You can't go wrong with any of these choices, and as your first Leica it will probably be your favorite - as the M4 is mine for that reason.

[raizans]

9 hours ago, Rokkor said:

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.

Thanks for the added explanation! I would normally recommend the M6 for the 35mm framelines and built-in meter, but for you I recommend staying with the Olympus and adding an unmetered camera to your kit. This gives you a low-stakes opportunity to learn more about when you use film, practice sunny 16, use handheld meters, and scale focus. That’s what I would recommend before choosing between an M2 and IIIF. In the meantime, the Leica CL is a good build-quality upgrade for the Oly.

Edited September 30, 2020 by raizans

[Rokkor]

vor 14 Minuten schrieb raizans:

Thanks for the added explanation! I would normally recommend the M6 for the 35mm framelines and built-in meter, but for you I recommend staying with the Olympus and adding an unmetered camera to your kit. This gives you a low-stakes opportunity to learn more about when you use film, practice sunny 16, use handheld meters, and scale focus. That’s what I would recommend before choosing between an M2 and IIIF. In the meantime, the Leica CL is a good build-quality upgrade for the Oly.

Yes the CL sound like a reasonable upgrade to the Olympus. The IIIf is still a lot more different. I realise that I would need an external VF in case I use a 35mm? That might be not so speak anymore. So I am still tempted by the M2 idea as a compromise with a screw mount 35mm as a start. Not so easy to find a reasonably priced M2 in a good condition.

[andrew01]

For your first Leica rangefinder I think an M camera is the best choice.  The Barnack cameras are fun but the viewfinder is like looking through the wrong end of a telescope. Out of your shortlist I would pick the M2.

[Rokkor]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 4 Stunden schrieb TomB_tx:

I have all 3 models - IIIf, CL, M2 (&M3,4,5,6) and indeed all 3 have their own charms. I used the IIIf with a 35mm Summaron in ~1970 while in the army: a pocketable, solid combination. I didn't use an accessory 35mm finder, just judged the view based on the 50 finder. The IIIf finder is rather a peep-hole view, while the CL & M2 finders are much more inviting - especially if you wear glasses (as I do). 

The CL & its 40 Summicron was my cycling and backpack travel camera in the 1980s - lighter weight than the others, wonderful meter. Still get great results with it. You could easily judge a 35mm FOV from the 40 framelines in the finder, but the 40 Summicron (or Rokkor) is also a great, small lens. The CL may not be quite as durable as the others.

The M2 is indeed a joy, and ideal for a 35mm lens. The M4 was my first Leica in 1968 (when I could have bought either a new M2 or M3) and I actually still prefer the aesthetics of it to the earlier models, and find the pivoting advance lever more comfortable..

You can't go wrong with any of these choices, and as your first Leica it will probably be your favorite - as the M4 is mine for that reason.

Thanks for sharing your camera history that builds a connection between those type of cameras. I like the way you describe how they have accompanied you in different stages of your life. I also like the look of the M4 as it still had this clean and simplistic design/ aesthetics. And I can imagine that there is an influence of the first Leica. Mine is the Q - it is digital and also really nice. The summilux 1.7 sets a high bar for alternatives. It is a great lens.

[Rokkor]

vor 4 Minuten schrieb andrew01:

For your first Leica rangefinder I think an M camera is the best choice.  The Barnack cameras are fun but the viewfinder is like looking through the wrong end of a telescope. Out of your shortlist I would pick the M2.

😂 Haha. What a comparison. Yes the m2 sounds reasonable just that I need to see how I can find a good priced lens. If I go the screw mount route of course this would be not very difficult. And to raizans comment : I would feel comfortable applying sunny 16 or using myLightMeter Pro app on the iPhone which works surprisingly well.

[Matlock]

And if you need a meter the Voigtlander VC II is ideal.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[andrew01]

You can mount any Leica screw mount lens on an M camera with an adapter.  Native Leica M mount lenses are crazy prices at the moment.

I use a Zeiss ZM lens on my M3.  It is beautifully made and I am happy with the images it makes.

[Pyrogallol]

I have each of the cameras you are considering. If I could only have one it would be the M2.

One thing to consider with the film CL is that they are possibly more difficult to get serviced, particularly the meter which may not be repairable and it uses the obsolete PX625 battery, alternatives for which are often discussed here.

[Rokkor]

vor 43 Minuten schrieb Matlock:

And if you need a meter the Voigtlander VC II is ideal.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Ha- Even that fits from Voigtländer. How is the 7artisans lens with film M. Do you have a recommendation to find samples on the internet?

[Rokkor]

vor 13 Minuten schrieb Pyrogallol:

I have each of the cameras you are considering. If I could only have one it would be the M2.

One thing to consider with the film CL is that they are possibly more difficult to get serviced, particularly the meter which may not be repairable and it uses the obsolete PX625 battery, alternatives for which are often discussed here.

Yes am- the Olympus 35RC has the same problem as the mercuries 1.35 V are not available anymore. There are Adapters though. Fully manual is of course even better.

the service aspect is important.

Edited September 30, 2020 by Rokkor

[Rokkor]

vor 37 Minuten schrieb andrew01:

You can mount any Leica screw mount lens on an M camera with an adapter.  Native Leica M mount lenses are crazy prices at the moment.

I use a Zeiss ZM lens on my M3.  It is beautifully made and I am happy with the images it makes.

Yes and onto the M2 you can screw then even directly, right?

Will check out ZM 35mm price wise. Seems rather rare to find. The question in general is a bit whether it makes sense to go for a Leica body and then using a different lens. I often adapt Minolta MD glass to my Fuji camera. Those are really great and have a bit the analogue look. Some of my friends thought the photos came out of the Q.😅

the Minolta XD bodies go for 100 bucks. Really surprising. Not Leica though and the no magic and legend feeling to it compared to the M or the IIIf.

[adan]

Just as a factor, are you familiar with the different film-loading mechanisms between Barnack, CL and M?

Barnack - non-opening back. You must slide the film in through the slot across the bottom. And in most cases recut the film leader to an older shape.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaBhFj0Rc2I

M2 - opening access door for visual/touch alignment, but the film still has to slide in from the bottom. (Note: M4 and later Ms don't require (or even allow) removing the take-up spool. They have a special film-grabbing spool that stays in the camera. As do the rare and expensive M2S (US Army version) or M2R (Army surplus/consumer), which "beta-tested" the M4/later system.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5bfFpmrSAM

CL - removable back/bottom, hinged pressure plate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83fClf1YJk8

They all work - for a given meaning of "work." The length of the videos is a hint . But buyer beware.

Additionally, while the CL meters batteries can be worked around, the Cadium-Sulfide (CdS) photoresistors are very, very dated; they do go bad; and a replacement has to exactly match the resistance curves of the originals Leica used or it will be useless. Can't just use any random CdS cell.

Edited September 30, 2020 by adan

[BradS]

As hinted at by Adan above, the iiif requires a lot more fiddling around in actual use. You'd do well to read upon them before deciding.

My first Leica was a very nice Leica iiif with 5cm f/3.5 elmar. It was, at the time, the best Leica I could afford and I made many great photos with it.

They're fantastic tools and can be fun to use but...I've not used the iiif at all since I got my first M body (an M4-P).

So, make sure you understand the whole process of how one interacts with any of these old Barnack cameras before buying one.

[andrew01]

1 hour ago, Rokkor said:

Yes and onto the M2 you can screw then even directly, right?

Will check out ZM 35mm price wise. Seems rather rare to find. The question in general is a bit whether it makes sense to go for a Leica body and then using a different lens. I often adapt Minolta MD glass to my Fuji camera. Those are really great and have a bit the analogue look. Some of my friends thought the photos came out of the Q.😅

the Minolta XD bodies go for 100 bucks. Really surprising. Not Leica though and the no magic and legend feeling to it compared to the M or the IIIf.

The M2 has the M bayonet so you will need an adapter to use an older screw mount lens.

The question about the Leica experience being more about the camera bodies or the lenses is a valid question to ask.  I think the mechanical precision of the cameras is enough of a reason to buy a Leica M body even if you don't use the Leica lenses.  The lenses are beautifully made but in terms of the image quality I am not convinced there is a significant difference to justify the huge prices being asked now.  To experience Leica lenses I use the R system, where the lenses are 1/4 the price of the equivalent M lens.  

[pippy]

Pretty much everyone who has plumped for one of your choices has recommended the M2 and I'd do the same - especially as you favour the 35mm f/l.

My first Leica was a 'Barnack' and, much as I loved that camera, after I bought an M2 I realised what progress had been made in the circa 30 years which separated the 1a and the M series. The CL was a very competent camera indeed but, given the circumstances and all things - practically speaking - considered, I'd actually put that in third place from your suggestions.

FWIW I've recently spent 3 weeks shooting with a 1930 (i.e. pre-rangefinder) Leica model 1 with a 35mm lens fitted and the results - using guesstimate and zone-focus - were fantastic...

But get the M2.

Philip.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Rokkor]

vor 5 Minuten schrieb pippy:

Pretty much everyone who has plumped for one of your choices has recommended the M2 and I'd do the same - especially as you favour the 35mm f/l.

My first Leica was a 'Barnack' and, much as I loved that camera, after I bought an M2 I realised what progress had been made in the circa 30 years which separated the 1a and the M series. The CL was a very competent camera indeed but, given the circumstances and all things - practically speaking - considered, I'd actually put that in third place from your suggestions.

FWIW I've recently spent 3 weeks shooting with a 1930 (i.e. pre-rangefinder) Leica model 1 with a 35mm lens fitted and the results - using guesstimate and zone-focus - were fantastic...

But get the M2.

Philip.

Thanks Philip. Yes it seems so. 😅 I would almost be up for one but not easy to find a lot of M2s currently. If I could get hold of one for a decent price, I would be up for it. Seems a really cool camera.

[Rokkor]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb adan:

Just as a factor, are you familiar with the different film-loading mechanisms between Barnack, CL and M?

Barnack - non-opening back. You must slide the film in through the slot across the bottom. And in most cases recut the film leader to an older shape.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaBhFj0Rc2I

M2 - opening access door for visual/touch alignment, but the film still has to slide in from the bottom. (Note: M4 and later Ms don't require (or even allow) removing the take-up spool. They have a special film-grabbing spool that stays in the camera. As do the rare and expensive M2S (US Army version) or M2R (Army surplus/consumer), which "beta-tested" the M4/later system.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5bfFpmrSAM

CL - removable back/bottom, hinged pressure plate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83fClf1YJk8

They all work - for a given meaning of "work." The length of the videos is a hint . But buyer beware.

Additionally, while the CL meters batteries can be worked around, the Cadium-Sulfide (CdS) photoresistors are very, very dated; they do go bad; and a replacement has to exactly match the resistance curves of the originals Leica used or it will be useless. Can't just use any random CdS cell.

Thanks Andrew. Yes that could be an important thing to consider. The film cutting and getting it into the camera seems a bit tricky with the Barnacks. M2 seems still feasible I guess.