35mm Voigtlander lens on M3

[Nigel Craig]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I’m considering buying a single stroke M3 but plan to get a new Voigtlander lens rather than  vintage Leica. I prefer 35mm to 50 (Nockton 35/1.4 mk2). I understand M3 has frame lines for 35 but Ken Rockwell says 35 needs a mask over the viewfinder/rangefinder and M3 is better suited to 50mm

?

[Product Details]

Complete Overview 35mm Leica M-Mount Lenses

35 mm F1.2 Nokton (Amazon | B&H) - 35 mm F1.4 Nokton II MC (Amazon | B&H) - 35 mm F1.5 Nokton (Amazon | B&H) - 35 mm F2.0 APO Lanthar (Amazon | B&H) - 35 mm F2.0 Ultron (Amazon) - 35 mm F2.0 Ultron II (Amazon | B&H) - 35 mm F2.5 Color Skopar P-Type (Amazon | B&H)

[nitroplait]

Just now, Nigel Craig said:

I understand M3 has frame lines for 35 but Ken Rockwell says 35 needs a mask over the viewfinder/rangefinder and M3 is better suited to 50mm

?

No frame lines for 35mm on the M3.

If 35mm is your favorite focal length I would advise you to buy a camera with 35mm frame lines - you will be happier in the long run.

[Nigel Craig]

I think I can live with a 50mm to have an M3 but short term I want use my 50/2 collapsible Elmar screw mount; which adaptor do I need?

[nitroplait]

29 minutes ago, Nigel Craig said:

I think I can live with a 50mm to have an M3 but short term I want use my 50/2 collapsible Elmar screw mount; which adaptor do I need?

I don't think there is such a thing as an Elmar 50/2  - but for a screw mount lens you just buy a LTM to M adapter for the focal length you wish to adapt to the lens - in this case a 50mm. There are many out there new and used, Leica and third party: here is an inexpensive example with which I have experience:

https://urth.co/products/m39-lens-mount-to-leica-m-camera-mount-35-135mm-frame-lines?_pos=1&_psq=50-75&_ss=e&_v=1.0

[pippy]

48 minutes ago, Nigel Craig said:

I think I can live with a 50mm to have an M3 but short term I want use my 50/2 collapsible Elmar screw mount; which adaptor do I need?

If you would prefer to use a 35mm then wouldn't it be far more sensible to buy an M2 instead of an M3? It has framelines for 35mm / 50mm / 90mm lenses.

Alternatively - if your heart is set on an M3 for personal reasons - the scene which is, erm, seen in the entire viewfinder of an M3 roughly equates to that which a 35 lens will capture.

Philip.

[TomB_tx]

When I bought a Leica M in 1968 the M3 was still available new for the same price as the new M4. The dealer let me compare finders with 35, 50 & 90 lenses, and I much preferred the M4, as 90 was still very usable, and I expected to use 35 a lot. (Actually bought a 90 first for use with the M4.) These days I have M2, M3, M4, M5 & M6, and the M3 is my least favorite, as the finder always shows the heavy 50mm frame lines no matter what lens is used (along with a 90 or 135 frame for those lenses). In use I find nothing more special about the M3, but if you always wanted one, go for it, or you'll still get one eventually!

[Nigel Craig]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, nitroplait said:

I don't think there is such a thing as an Elmar 50/2  - but for a screw mount lens you just buy a LTM to M adapter for the focal length you wish to adapt to the lens - in this case a 50mm. There are many out there new and used, Leica and third party: here is an inexpensive example with which I have experience:

https://urth.co/products/m39-lens-mount-to-leica-m-camera-mount-35-135mm-frame-lines?_pos=1&_psq=50-75&_ss=e&_v=1.0

Sorry, I meant 50/2.8, 1958 vintage

Edited June 30, 2022 by Nigel Craig

[spydrxx]

Having owned an M2, M4 and M6, and passing up on the M3 - because for most of my years I've been primarily a 35mm shooter, I'd suggest you go for an M2 rather than an M3. Yes, the M3 viewfinder is easier to use with 50mm lenses, but the M2 viewfinder works better for most people who use a 35mm a lot. Nothing precludes using a 50 on it and IMHO focusing will be equally precise. As far as adapters - there are literally hundreds out there ranging from Chinese manufactured ones to OEM Leica ones. I use both, but if I can get a good deal on an original Leica one, I prefer that...not because of the name, but because of the adherance to tighter tolerances. Just a thought to share with you...if you are possibly considering a screwmount lens of any focal length with an infinity button, make sure the ltm->m adapter has a cutout for it, unless you want to trim one with a Dremel tool.

[Anbaric]

3 hours ago, Nigel Craig said:

I’m considering buying a single stroke M3 but plan to get a new Voigtlander lens rather than  vintage Leica. I prefer 35mm to 50 (Nockton 35/1.4 mk2). I understand M3 has frame lines for 35 but Ken Rockwell says 35 needs a mask over the viewfinder/rangefinder and M3 is better suited to 50mm

?

At the time, Leitz made a special 35mm lens with optical 'goggles' that converted the 50mm framelines into 35mm framelines. These goggles are permanently attached to the lens and can't be used with anything else. Leitz soon gave up on this cumbersome arrangement, including true 35mm framelines in the M2 and making standard 35mm lenses to match them. This is how the M system has worked ever since. If a 'non-goggled' 35mm lens is your preference, an M3 is about the worst choice. The best you can do is to approximate 35mm coverage using the whole viewfinder, or mount an accessory viewfinder like you might use on your IIIa. I would take Ken Rockwell's opinions with a pinch of salt, though it is true that some dedicated 50mm shooters (or those who have a second Leica for anything wider) prefer the M3 because of the higher magnification of the viewfinder. But an M2 is perfectly fine for 50mm, especially for photographers who prefer to have a bit more space around the 50mm framelines so they can see what is going on outside the frame, which can help when anticipating the next shot. The M2 is by no means a lesser quality camera, and the only significant disadvantages of the lever rewind version are the external film counter you have to reset manually, and the lack of 135mm framelines. And of course you have lots of options with later Leicas with a wider range of framlines and auto-resetting film counters.

[earleygallery]

The 'widest' frameline in the M3 is for 50mm, but if you can ignore the (very thick horribly off-putting rounded corner) framelines the whole viewfinder area would be near enough the 35mm field of view.

I have the Voigtlander Skopar 35mm and the 50/2.8 Elmar - both are screw mount but I use them on my M2 with the appropriate adaptors (to bring up the correct frame lines).

The M2 would be a more logical choice for those 2 lenses - I would suggest trying both out if you can find a dealer with examples in stock near you. I've had both and personally much prefer the M2. It's the framelines (in case I hadn't hinted at that).

 

[TomB_tx]

I have the goggled 35 Summicron to use with my M3, and it does shrink the image in the VF so the existing 50mm frame covers the 35mm FOV. It's a well engineered solution to make the VF suitable for 35, but the extra optics seem to reduce the VF contrast and make the image less clear. (Yes, I did have the lens CLA'd, so it's as good as it can be.) The M2 (4. 5, 6 etc) finder is much better for 35 mm lenses.

35 isn't considered very wide any more, so if you want wider the M3 VF can't accommodate it. Leica added 28mm framelines to the M6, but 28 basically covers the full VF window of the .72 finder, so M2 & M4 can just use the whole VF view for a 28. I wore glasses for 64 years, so couldn't really see the whole 28 frame - but after cataract surgery it is very usable. Thus I finally got a 28 lens for my Leicas.

[earleygallery]

I had a goggled Summaron which I used on the M2 for a while, but ultimately sold it because it made for a dim viewfinder as you say, and the weight and balance of the camera just felt wrong. Looked cool though!

[Nigel Craig]

 I admit to buying into a narrative that the M3 is the “one true Leica”, carved from a solid block of unobtainium and all subsequent M models are made of cheaper materials. I had the impression the M2 was made as a budget version of the M3, with plastic or steel gears instead of brass. 

[pippy]

No.

Philip.

[nitroplait]

1 hour ago, Nigel Craig said:

 I admit to buying into a narrative that the M3 is the “one true Leica”, carved from a solid block of unobtainium and all subsequent M models are made of cheaper materials. I had the impression the M2 was made as a budget version of the M3, with plastic or steel gears instead of brass. 

nonsense!

[qqphot]

10 hours ago, nitroplait said:

I don't think there is such a thing as an Elmar 50/2  - but for a screw mount lens you just buy a LTM to M adapter for the focal length you wish to adapt to the lens - in this case a 50mm. There are many out there new and used, Leica and third party: here is an inexpensive example with which I have experience:

https://urth.co/products/m39-lens-mount-to-leica-m-camera-mount-35-135mm-frame-lines?_pos=1&_psq=50-75&_ss=e&_v=1.0

I realize the inexpensive options are more variable, but I've also had pretty good luck with them. However I have an Urth 35-135 adapter whose thickness is off by quite a lot, enough to make a difference, and I ended up replacing it with a Rayqual one.

[qqphot]

If you buy an M2 for use with 35mm lenses, you can add a 1.25x or 1.45x magnifier/diopter (the ones from Match Technical are really quite nice and 1/3 the price of the Leica ones) to the eyepiece for when you're using a 50mm lens, and benefit from the magnified rangefinder patch, and you won't see the 35mm framelines and the 50mm frameline will fill the field of view.

With an M3 you need either to use a 35mm Summaron with goggles (which shrink the viewfinder display and correct the rangefinder patch) or use a regular 35mm lens and a shoe-mount 35mm viewfinder like the SBLOO. This bring up the amusing situation that the SBLOO finder in good shape costs about the same as a Voigtlander 35mm Color-Skopar.

I ended up with an M3 just because I couldn't find an M2 in good condition and didn't want to wait 6 months to get one repaired and serviced. The goggled Summaron isn't a bad lens, but it's not an ideal setup - first, they sell for far too much money, and second, the addition of the goggles degrades the view quite a lot even if the goggles are in very good condition, which they probably aren't.

Edited July 1, 2022 by qqphot

[qqphot]

7 hours ago, TomB_tx said:

I have the goggled 35 Summicron to use with my M3, and it does shrink the image in the VF so the existing 50mm frame covers the 35mm FOV. It's a well engineered solution to make the VF suitable for 35, but the extra optics seem to reduce the VF contrast and make the image less clear. (Yes, I did have the lens CLA'd, so it's as good as it can be.) The M2 (4. 5, 6 etc) finder is much better for 35 mm lenses.

35 isn't considered very wide any more, so if you want wider the M3 VF can't accommodate it. Leica added 28mm framelines to the M6, but 28 basically covers the full VF window of the .72 finder, so M2 & M4 can just use the whole VF view for a 28. I wore glasses for 64 years, so couldn't really see the whole 28 frame - but after cataract surgery it is very usable. Thus I finally got a 28 lens for my Leicas.

I use a goggled Summaron with an M3 and everything you say is true. Somehow despite the view being degraded and sort of lackluster compared to the bare M3 viewfinder, I always end up being dissuaded from selling it in favor of an M2 and a Color-Skopar because it produces really nice results.

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!

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[250swb]

The M3 is cursed in two ways, the first is the mythology surrounding it, and the second that it doesn't have 35mm framelines. But an M2 is just as smooth to use, and with a 35mm framelines you get your accessory shoe back to use a meter, or a viewfinder for maybe a 21 or 28mm lens. So the M2 expands more easily into the areas normally associated with the M system, a standard lens being either a 35 or a 50, a tele portrait option with the 90, and for the wide end where exact framing isn't normally required you can add a viewfinder. 

[Matlock]

52 minutes ago, 250swb said:

The M3 is cursed in two ways, the first is the mythology surrounding it, and the second that it doesn't have 35mm framelines. But an M2 is just as smooth to use, and with a 35mm framelines you get your accessory shoe back to use a meter, or a viewfinder for maybe a 21 or 28mm lens. So the M2 expands more easily into the areas normally associated with the M system, a standard lens being either a 35 or a 50, a tele portrait option with the 90, and for the wide end where exact framing isn't normally required you can add a viewfinder. 

Exactly, and we now have the added problems of increasing numbers of shutter faults especially with the D/S M3s. I have been told by two repairers that my D/S M3 is unrepairable (but I haven't given up yet).  The mythology point is well made, a great camera but no better than later models and the viewfinder is not to everyone's taste. The problem with forums such as ours is that a particular camera can become a "Holy Grail" when, in fact, it is just a "quite good model".