Please tell me: Why do you use third party (Canon, Voit., Zorki, etc.) on a Leica light box/shutter. What is the point, only $$$? I ONLY use Leica for the lenses. Now, I understand using third party light boxes that accept Leica lenses unless they won't focus properly due to film plane/lens flange discrepencies, but why spend the $$$ on a Leica light box and NOT use Leica lenses?

-- Chris Chen (chrischen@msn.com), January 12, 2002

Answers

Anoter thought, the reason to put up with the antiquated technology of an M camera are the lenses.

-- Chris Chen (chrischen@msn.com), January 12, 2002.

Perhaps the question should be why only use Leica lenses?

My decision to use 3rd party lenses is only partly about $$$ (or, in the case of Leica glass, $$ for 3rd party lenses v. $$$$$$ for Leica stuff). The bottom line is that I use 3rd party lenses for the same reasons that many folks use old Leica lenses (although I think many of those are also overpriced because of collectors). The new Leica lenses are usually better, but not always sufficiently so to justify the (significant) increased expense. Besides, the only Leica "light boxes" I use are an M2 & an M3 (both user condition) & their cost pales in comparison to the price of new lenses (e.g., my 35 Summilux ASPH. alone costs almost the same as both of them put together).

However, in addition to their being significantly cheaper, I just happen to like the look of a lot of old, mostly non-Leitz, lenses (e.g., Zeiss 50/1.5 & 85/2 Sonnars for the Zeiss Ikon Contax RFs, the original Nikon RF 105/2.5, the Canon RF 100/2, etc.). If the look provided by 1930s-1960s glass is part of your photographic vision (you're probably not in that camp), then fact is that Leitz/Leica was once only 1 of 4 major RF manufacturers & there are plenty of great lenses out there that don't have the brand "L" name.

-- Chris Chen (a different one) (furcafe@cris.com), January 12, 2002.

"I ONLY use Leica for the lenses." Fair enough.

I (and many others) use rangefinders for a whole lot of other reasons, as well. You probably know the list of RF advantages and disadvantages. The superior quality of Leica lenses (if any) is, for me, just an added benefit. Frankly, even if the lenses were no better than the norm I'd still use Leica-M rangefinders - the lack of mirror shake alone probably doubles the APPARENT quality of any lens.

The price of a Leica-M 15mm lens is infinite, since they don't make one. =8^o

So I use the Voigtlander. The same goes for the 12mm, compact 21, compact 75 f/2.5. You can't get these from Leica at ANY price.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), January 12, 2002.

My brother, I do have lenses with serial nos before 2,000,000,late 50's early 60's and they are keepers, especially the 2 35 Summicrons 8 element and DR. The photos look special.

And, I understand using lenses from other makers which Leica does not make.

My point is: Why not save money on the body and buy from Konica, Voigt., etc. and spend the money on the image producing component - the lens?

Wouldn't it make more sense to spend $500 (or whatever, $$$ figure used for demonstration only) an a body (more accurate shutter, faster sync., etc.) and $1500 on a lens, than the other way around?

-- Chris Chen (chrischen@msn.com), January 12, 2002.

Another thought,

Did anyone notice that Leica compatable lenses tend to cost more than equivalent SLR lenses? Please don't bring up Zeiss, I already know.

Then again, on second thought, ALL rangefinder lenses (Konica, Voigt., Zeiss) tend to cost more than SLR lenses.

I thought rangefinder lenses were EASIER to design because the designers did not have to work around a mirror and add the mechaical linkages to stop down the aperture during exposure. Am I missing something? Is there a rangefinder tax somewhere?

-- Chris Chen (chrischen@msn.com), January 12, 2002.

Sorry, I only think in pieces, and it takes me a while to think things through. The $$$ issue has to do with small production runs.

-- Chris Chen (chrischen@msn.com), January 12, 2002.

Here I go again, talking mostly with myself, or is it thinking out loud.

To my twin: I have a 1:2 Sonnar from the 30's on my Contax II.

Andy: The price of a 15mm Noctilux 1:1 is one divided by zero.

8^O

-- Chris Chen (chrischen@msn.com), January 12, 2002.

To my twin:

Point taken WRT other great lenses.

BUT, don't make assumptions; when one assumes it makes one an a** of U says me.

-- Chris Chen (chrischen@msn.com), January 12, 2002.

"Why not save money on the body and buy from Konica, Voigt., etc. and spend the money on the image producing component - the lens?"

Tried the Konica - wouldn't handle a 90 reliably. If they made the RF with a .85 finder I'd again give it serious thought - but would keep the Leicas for mechanical back-up and longevity.

V'lander bodies won't take M lenses, only screw-mount - except the really weird T - and even that seems to have mounting problems with some lenses (35 f/1.4 e.g.) If I didn't already have the M's I'd consider the V'lander.

"ALL rangefinder lenses (Konica, Voigt., Zeiss) tend to cost more than SLR lenses."

You're right about small production runs. But in addition, RF lenses require a lot of careful machining to get the RF coupling exactly right.

An SLR lens just has to correct at infinity (and some - viz. Nikon 180 ED - don't even bother with that) So long as the SLR focusing screen and film plane are in correct alignment, the lens can be a little sloppy, since you focusing via the image itself instead of a series of precise mechanical linkages.

Plus most RF lenses are still solid chunks of (expensively) machined brass/aluminum - compared to the molded plastic monocoque tubes of modern SLR lenses.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), January 12, 2002.

In an ideal world there will be two cars in every garage and a chicken in every pot. It is not "only $$$" to most people. The joy of using the Leica rangefinder does not come only from the lenses but also the feel of the body and the whisper of the shutter. If I did have the money to buy a body and a lens I would go for the body first and save up for the lens later. I use a Bessa-t as a second body and the feel isn't there. On the other hand some of the third party LTM lenses are damn good. Spend your $$$ the way you like and let other folks decide for themselves.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), January 12, 2002.

There are two Chris Chens? Holy doppelganger Batman!

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), January 12, 2002.

There is no choice if you want a 15mm (ie Voigtlander) super wide, and even if Leica made one can you imagine the price!

Many Leica customers are hugely affluent, for the rest of us Voigtlander offers a superb quality alternative that stands up against all but the very latest ASPH Leica lenses. This is why at $400 my next lens will be a 75mm Voigtlander. As it will be used mainly at F4 - F5.6 for portraits etc the extra few thousand $'s Leica's only alternative would demand is impossible or unnecessary to justify.

In all honesty I use Leica for the M body NOT the glass.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), January 12, 2002.

why spend the $$$ on a Leica light box and NOT use Leica lenses? Chris, the guys who gold plate their Mercedes cars will tell you that the answer is obvious. Because every one looks at the brand name on the camera not the lenses.

Me, I use a VC 35/1.7 because I can't afford a 35/2 ASPH new. Now that I've found a used 35/2 Summicron that fit within my Mastercard limit, one of them has to go.

Why not save money on the body and buy from Konica, Voigt., etc. and spend the money on the image producing component - the lens? Better yet, why not save even more money and still get great bang for the buck using Nikon/Canon/etc SLRs? Because part of the fun of Leica photography is using Leica cameras. Cant get that same feeling with a Bessa R or Hexar.

Slow day in in Krasnodar huh?

-- Fred Sun (redsky3@yahoo.com), January 12, 2002.

Fred,

You caught me, TWICE. Yes it's quite slow in Russia, this being a Saturday. We work six 10 hour days, and when you have to wait for vendor information, the day drags on. >$500 a day compensates somewhat. But hey, money isn't everything. So, I have time to post a few philosophical Leica question in this forum.

I have an M2, M4 (separated/uncrimped curtain) and an M6; see a pattern here? I can't wait for the M8.

The initial question was idle curiosity. I know Leica lenses, especially the older designs, aren't "technically" up to supercomputer designed newer lenses from today. My newest lens is from 1973 (90 TE thin). I, and others who see my photo's like the famous/mythical/urban legend look taken w/Leica lenses. And, I too like the "feel" of the bodies and lenses being a gear head. I tend to be lucky buying used stuff below the value at the time, from individuals and shops:

$400 CDN for 8-element 35, 1992 $500 CDN for CL/40 (Edmonton/Calgary, Great places to buy Leica, Oh Canada) $700 for M4 black enamel, 1990 (sadly stolen) $700 for a 21 SA w/caps and hood etc.

So why would I spend $400 on an ultra ultron?

-- Chris Chen (chrischen@msn.com), January 12, 2002.

Don't be too surprised, Ray. As you probably know, neither Chris nor Chen are uncommon names (there are probably 50 million Chens out there), although I've only run into 2 other Chris Chens during my lifetime. From now on, I'll use the tag Chris Chen (Washington, DC) . . .

"There are two Chris Chens? Holy doppelganger Batman!"

-- Chris Chen (Washington, DC) (furcafe@cris.com), January 12, 2002.

I've gone much farther by getting 1 of those adapters that let's me mount most of my Contax RF lenses on LTM bodies (&, consequently, M bodies via the LTM-M adapters) w/full RF coupling. But I started out using the Contax RFs (& built a pretty complete system), so I've only recently migrated to LTM/Canon RF & Leica M stuff.

"To my twin: I have a 1:2 Sonnar from the 30's on my Contax II."

Whoa! Who the heck are you, my high school Driver's Ed instructor? ;) I guess I misread your original query--now that I've seen your other posts, I think we agree that it doesn't make too much sense to spend a lot of money on a camera & ignore the glass. However, if someone really prefers the Leica bodies for ergonomic or other reasons, that's sounds reasonable to me. Also, even if someone has the choice of getting an old Leica lens, a new Cosina Voigtlander lens that is the same price (or even less) may have better performance characteristics (modern multi-coatings, aspherical elements, etc.) that he/she may find more important than the old-time "look" (especially since not all old Leica lenses are that great) or build quality.

"My brother, I do have lenses with serial nos before 2,000,000,late 50's early 60's and they are keepers, especially the 2 35 Summicrons 8 element and DR. The photos look special." "To my twin: Point taken WRT other great lenses. BUT, don't make assumptions; when one assumes it makes one an a** of U says me."

-- Chris Chen (Washington, DC) (furcafe@cris.com), January 12, 2002.

Currently I'm solvent enough to have all Leica lenses on my M cameras and even a few extras that I am selling off. But in the past I've used Canon and Nikon lenses with the adapters and was usually more than satisfied with the results. I think David Douglas Duncan started it when he equipped his lenses in Korea with the new Nikon lenses adapted to his M Leicas, one stop faster and less expensive. Or maybe it was HCB before him with Zeiss lenses on his Leicas. It is nice to try new things and the results may surprise you at times. If the images work who cares which way you got them. And sometimes you are better off spending less and taking more pictures. Cheers.

-- Don (wgpinc@yahoo.com), January 12, 2002.

The reason, I gather, all those 50s photographers used Nikon and Canon glass on their Leicas was definitely the $. Immediately after WWII, German copyright on Leitz lenses was deemed to be null and void by the triumphant Allies, and the Japanese copied the designs avidly, then sold them cheaply. See "post-war design thievery" on the LUG site, sorry don't have the link offhand. I too like the original, but the Voigtlaender lenses seem very good value. I do feel the name is a beit of a have (Voigtlaender since 1759 or whenever it was.) It's Cosina since 1999 - why not ay so, and be proud of it?

-- David Killick (dalex@inet.net.nz), January 12, 2002.

If the images work who cares which way you got them. And sometimes you are better off spending less and taking more pictures.

Right!

Also, different lenses look different, although, in the end, I think that printing technique has far more influence over end results than the lens used. Some people prefer different lens looks, regardless of the measured characteristics, which don't really have anything to do with how photographs affect us.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), January 12, 2002.

The reason for using non-Leica lenses on my IIIf is that they are better lenses (except for the Summicrons).

-- (bmitch@home.com), January 12, 2002.

Nothing wrong with third party lenses. Even Leica itself has sold a number of third party lenses (eg., Schneider SA 21/4 and 3.4 M, Schneider pc Curtagon and SA, Zeiss Hologon and 15/3.5 Super-Elmar, a number of Minolta and Sigma made R lenses, etc.).

Some third party lenses extend the scope of Leica outside the focal length range offered by Leica (eg., 15/4.5 and 12/5.6 C/V) or allow you to obtain a particular focal length for which you don't want to spend a large amount of money for the Leica version.

I think one of the nice things about Leica M is the backwards compatibility allowing use of Leica and other manufacturers SM lenses dating back to 1931, in addition to the availability of newly designed lenses by other makers.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), January 12, 2002.

Chris, The internet certainly makes the world so much smaller doesn't it? When I started surfing photo forums and subcribing to user groups four years ago you wouldn't believe how many people have e-mailed me since asking whether I was related to Martin Tai.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), January 13, 2002.

All good arguments from photographers, from all abilities, whom have "evolved" and gravitated to what gives them the results that work; sometimes saving enough money to try different equipment.

Adapters introduce mechanical slop in the mountings. This is part of the reason M's load from the bottom; I read leica's dimension/parallelness tolerences from film plane rails to lens flange is 5 micron. Leica said a swing back would reduce rigidity of the body. Think coupe vs. convertible.

-- Chris Chen (chrischen@msn.com), January 13, 2002.

My Leicas come with sunroofs...one (M6) is electrical 8^)>>>

-- Chris Chen (chrischen@msn.com), January 13, 2002.

Eric--good point. Actually using 3rd party lens on Leicas is an old tradition. The most famous 3rd party lenses ever used, I believe, were 50/2 and 85/2 Nikkors on a Leica screw mount or early M-3 by David Doughlas Duncan during the Korea conflict. He bought them in Tokyo and later stunned the world by writing that Japanese lens were as good as German lenses.

Money considerations have always been a factor for me (I'm a used lens hound) but lightness, portability, handling ease and uniquness have also been important. The only time where money was a 100% (or 99.9%) factor was when I got the Voightlander 28/1.9 over the Leica 28/2. But then Tom Abrahamsson conviced me that the 28/1.9 lens hood protruded less than the 28/2. That's the .9% factor, plus the exotic 1.9 vs 2 factor.

I use a VC 15/4.5 and not the rare and ultraexpensive Zeiss 15/8 not simply because of money factors but because it is more versitile. I use a VC 21/4 40% because it is cheaper than the Leica 21/2.8 and 60% because it is infinately lighter. Ditto for my VC 75/2.5. vs the Leica 75/1.4 Ditto for my old Canon 25/3.5 and VC 25/4 vs Leica's 24/ 2.8. Lately I've gone back to using my Minolta 28/3.5 because it is so amazingly light and easy to handle.

Also, believe it or not, 8 ft. inscribed on the dept of field scale is very very very important to me. That is the aisle distance between seats facing each other on Japanese trains. I can dial in 8 ft and shoot from the waist.

Even if I get a new Leica 35/2 Aspherical I won't give up my old Summilux 35/1.4 because of the latter's lightness (180 g.). Would you believe I've ever been using the VC 35/2.5 on my M's?! It is so light and so easy to use--and it is very good.

Imagine if you suddenly got a million dollars which you had to spend in one day. Suppose you could now have your Noctilux 50/1, 75/1.4, 90/2, 21/2.8, 24/2.8, 28/2, 35/1.4 (asph) and, okay, Zeiss 15/8. Would you want to lug all those heavy lens around with you? Would you not want to vary the load with lighter third parties? Even the Zeiss 15/8 vs the VC 15/4.5. Would you not want to faster and more versitile VC 15/4.5 at least some of the time?

Anyway, fellow cheapskates, take comfort in this: Lecia's sharpness is also thanks to the very tight back. But seriously--

My rule is that for one's standard lens--the one lens you absolutely cannot be without--money should be no object. Scimp everything else but get it. Mechanics, feel, optics should be your only concerns. No compromises allowed.

My next major lens purchase will be the 35/2 asph. In terms of feel I prefer it over the 35/1.4 asph. The lower price is only a bonus.

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), January 14, 2002.

I have taken preference to Voitlander lenses over Leica ones because firstly they make lenses of a particular focal length or more compact size that Leica do not (ie 15mm & 21f4). Secondly, I am able to use the same lenses throughout my rangefinder collection. I like using my old IIIf or my Canon 7 rather than let them collect dust on the shelf. The Voightlander lenses can be use on all my rangefinders with screw or M mount. Why pay more for lenses that arent as versitle.

-- Joel Matherson (joel_2000@hotmail.com), January 16, 2002.