I am getting very close to making the plunge into the world of Leica. I have decided to get an M6 TTL, but I don’t know if a .72, or a .85 would suite me best (I don't wear eyeglasses). Is the .85 for longer lenses only, or will the increased focusing accuracy benefit some of the smaller lenses as well? Does anybody prefer a .85 body with a 35 lens? I haven’t decided on the lens(es) yet. I will probably start with a 50, or 35, and then add a 90 once I have spent a bit of time with the first lens. Thanks for any advice.

-- Cedar Grice (cgrice@gladstone.uoregon.edu), March 17, 2002

Answers

IMO only:

If your only lenses were going to be to 50 and the 90, I think the .85 body makes a lot of sense. If you add the 35 into the equation as a threesome of 35/50/90 or a pairing of 35/90, I think the .72 is the better choice. The reason I say this, is because for me the 35 framelines fall right at the edge of the .85 finder, and one of the advantages I use the M for is the ability to see what is happening beyond the frame... I also think seeing outside the frame intuitively helps during composition; I can instantly see what difference a little move here or a little move there will make to the overall composition.

:-),

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), March 17, 2002.

What Jack said. If you plan on a 35mm lens, The .72 is ideal. I think the 0.85 finder should be thought of as a special-purpose body for the more critical lenses, like the 50 f/1, 75 f/1.4, and, I suppose, 135mm lenses.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), March 17, 2002.

I think you should consider the .72, and the Leica Viewfinder Magnifier. This will give the most flexibllity. The .72 has framelines for 28mm to 135mm, the most of any viewfinder. The Viewfinder Magnifier will turn the .72 into a .9 viewfinder.

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), March 17, 2002.

Like Bob said...

I wear glasses, I've tried the .85 body, I could certainly live with its 35 frame (slightly easier to see than the 28 frame on the .72). But the .72 is even MORE comfortable, and will handle 90 f/2-2.8.

The .85 will not appreciably help focus lenses 35 and wider - .72 accuracy is already overkill for wides even at f/1.4.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), March 17, 2002.

I agree that the 0.72 offer you the most flexibility. I myself have 2 0.72 bodies, one with and one without the 1.25 magnifier I use the one without primarily for the wider lenses up to 35mm, the the one with the magnifier for the 50 1.4, Noctilux and the 90 2.0 I also used to have an M3 and the 0.72+Magnifier is about the same in terms of the magnification effect. One thing you need to note though - using the magnifier slightly dims the view - I am not bothered by it but you need to see for yourself

-- Gregory Goh (gregorygoh@hotmail.com), March 17, 2002.

I own the M6 TTL .85 and use three lenses: 28mm, 50m and the 90mm. The stated disadvantage to using the .85 body with a 28mm (or wider) M lens is that you lose the 28mm frame lines, which is true. However, I believe that with the .85 and the 28mm lens, the "missing" 28 frame lines actually fall right about at the edge of the viewfinder. I'm not sure that adding a $400 viewfinder accesory would be all that helpful, but I may eventually investigate how the true 28mm view compares to my estimated field of view, via judging by the rangefinder window's coverage. For me, the .85 is an easier focusing aid for the standard and longer lenses, as opposed to the .72, but I'm sure you'll be happy with either choice. Good luck.

-- Steve Brantley (superglidesport@mindspring.com), March 17, 2002.

My suggestion is the .58/.6 finder for wide angle lenses. I am using Hexar RF which has .6 finder and I like to use with 50/35/21 lenses. There will be less lens hood blocking in the view finder and the little more outside the framelines seem to help my composition. Also my 90 lens on RF is still quite doable.

-- kenny chiu (gokudo31@hotmail.com), March 17, 2002.

WHAT JACK SAID - I second. Since you don't wear glasses, if your priority is taking pictures with a "Normal" or "Telephoto" lens, then you will probable prefer the .85 magnification. The 35mm works great with the .85. From my experience using both a .72 and a .85, I can more accurately focus ALL my lenses with the .85 view finder. I am 52 years old, and prefer the greater eye relief of the .72.

You can't go wrong with either one - Leica gives you options to add a wide angle viewfinder to the top of your .85, if some day you own a wider angle lens than a 35mm. If you deside to go with the .72, when you get your 90mm or 135mm add the new 1.25 magnifier to increase the image size for more accurate focusing. These are the kinds of things that make investing in a Leica "M" system so rewarding.

-- Frank Ricatto (luttmann@nerc.com), March 17, 2002.

I also like the 28mm but its lens hood covers the entire lower corner of the viewfinder regardless of finder magnification. The solution that works best for me is to use a Bessa-T and 28mm finder as a dedicated body for the 28mm. It is a very light combination and the other body can be the .85x for the 50mm and 90mm.

-- ray tai (jeslam88@hotmail.com), March 17, 2002.

I spent considerable time at my local Leica dealer viewing, focusing, and re-focusing both .72 and .85 models and ended up purchasing the 0.85. The magnification seemed to make the difference. I purchased the 50mm Summilx with plans to to add a 75mm or 90mm.

Obviously, the 35mm is the smallest lens that shows VF framelines, but IMHO, still useable. By the way, I wear glasses and at least in the showroom, I didn't find it difficult to compose a shot. (I use the technique of centering for focus and then re-composing.) Again, the magnification was improved over the 0.72.

Best wishes on your decision.

--Mark Waidelich

-- Mark A. Waidelich (mark_waidelich@hotmail.com), March 18, 2002.

To Steve B: You need to get out more, brother. I have a Viewfinder Magnifier 1.25x on order for $189. Adverage price seems to be @ $220. Where are you getting $400 from?

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), March 18, 2002.