So I'm thinking the cheapest starter M setup would be the rokkor or leica 40 f2 and a user CL or M2/M3. I'd really like to go with a 2 or 3 but want to know what the drawbacks might be when combined with the 40. Using the 35 frame with the M2 would seem pretty easy, how is it using the 50 frame on the M3 with the 40? How cheap can you get a user/ugly M2/3 (that works)? Or is a CL a better choice with this lens (I love the 40 setting on my 35-70 f4)? What's a budget CL going for these days?

thanks

-- Mark (acerview76eus@yahoo.com), March 25, 2002

Answers

Mark,

The thing about buying user M's is that they probably need a $300 CLA. I got an Exc. (bright marks, no dents; I added one by myself, though) that was CLA'd last year. So, I payed <$200 plus the CLA bill, which I have. The wax seal is marked "92", which is DAG.

As for a lens, I bought a black 50 'cron no focus tab for $290; perfect glass, minimal normal wear on the rings.

So, a new kit for $900.

-- chris chen (chrischen@msn.com), March 25, 2002.

I use a 40mm M-Rokkor w/my M3 all the time--the 40mm view is approximately the same as entire view provided by the M3 finder (including the area outside the 50mm frameline).

-- Chris Chen (Washington, DC) (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), March 25, 2002.

But DC Bro', My 'cron is almost as cheap as the Rokkor.

-- chris chen (chrischen@msn.com), March 25, 2002.

Well, Mark's question was specifically about using the 40mm w/an M3, no? 1st of all, Mark may prefer the 40mm view over the 50mm or he might like the fact that it's a small, low-profile lens. 2nd, I don't know what version of the 50 'cron you snagged for $290, but even assuming that Mark could find 1 that cheap, it wouldn't *necessarily* perform better than an M-Rokkor (which actually run about $250-275 in excellent condition). In fact, Minolta badge aside, the multi-coated CLE-version of the M-Rokkor is probably a better performer than a 1950s-era 50 'cron. BTW, it's great to hear that you found a user M body for < $200, but I don't think it's exactly easy to find a body @ that low of a price, either.

------------

But DC Bro', My 'cron is almost as cheap as the Rokkor.

-- Chris Chen (DC) (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), March 25, 2002.

i doubt one can "snag" good condition Summicrons at that price. maybe cosider the Voigtlander 35mmf1.9.i think it would out perform the Rokkor.also maybe a M2.M3 are getting old.Mine is now 35 years old.NOT for sale!it reqd a major service-new blinds,shutter roller,cams and viewfinder masks and the mirror-prism thing of rngfdr. the repair price had me on oxygen and Prozac!Less than NEW but not less than a used camera....There is no camera lika a leica and some of the mystery is in the lenses.So maybe a REAL Leica lens way to go! Less is more!Rather one good Leica lens then a bag of OK optics. So think carefully.Try out M2 or M3 and compare lenses...

-- jason gold (leeu72@hotmail.com), March 25, 2002.

I'm beginning to feel like a cheerleader for the 40 Rokkor from the CLE, but the lens really is exceptional and should get a "best buy" star next to it as far as M lenses go. It gives the current aspherical 35 f2.0 a good run at a tiny fraction of the price. Keep your eye out for a CLE outfit with this lens-they do come up from time to time in the $850 to $900 range. I wasn't exactly bowled over with my experience with a few CL's. The meters seem to never work on any of them unless $300 has been dumped into them recently.

The 40 works great on a M3-its very compact and covers an angle of view nearly identical to the whole M3 finder. You can even tape off the finder line illumination window if you like. M3's are very old now and finding the right camera can be a chore.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), March 25, 2002.

Hi, I use the 40mm summicron on my m6 ttl and have experienced no focusing problems. The 40mm field seems to correspond to the 35mm lines quite well. As to quality, mine has some scratches on the rear element and still produces a magnificent image. I would recommend the lens to anyone interested. Peter

-- Peter McDonough (31416@attbi.com), March 25, 2002.

I fully agree w/Andrew about the 40/2 M-Rokkor. It's definitely a best buy & would fetch 2 or 3 times more if it was called a Summicron & made in Germany. However, I wouldn't necessarily compare it w/the current 35/2 ASPH (particularly re: sharpness @ f/2, although the boke is nice) but rather w/the often-idolized & collected older (i.e., '50s & 60s) Leitz/Leica 35s & 50s that are usually way overpriced, IMHO. Don't get me wrong, I love the look of old glass (heck, I have a DR, the Canon & Nikkor 50/1.4s, & a 1/2 dozen 50mm Sonnars for my Contaxes), but a well-designed, multi-coated optic from the 1980s like the 40/2 M-Rokkor has plenty of practical advantages on flare-control alone.

-- Chris Chen (Wash., DC) (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), March 25, 2002.

Chris Chen,

What's the deal with....

-- ChrisChen(DC) (chris@ChenDC.com), March 25, 2002.

I had a CL: compact, economical but lacks the M feel. Try one and an M before buying if possible. Yes, the CL will be cheaper but should that be the only criterion? Minolta's CLE (see previous post, also cameraquest.com) has a good write-up, though the one I was looking at has now gone. As far as "cheaper" lens options go, don't forget the Voigtlaender lenses and cameras - good reviews, 'specially the lenses, but of course they are not Leicas.

-- David Killick (dalex@inet.net.nz), March 26, 2002.

I also was looking for a cheap entry level M and found the M2 to be perfect: I got one with some scratches and a small dent with a 35/2.8 Summaron as a package for a little less than $600. The body was CLA'd 2 years before, so for this money you may get a decent camera. I've never seen a Leica M body for less than $380 in Germany regardless of the condition. Leica CL prices seem to move up - right now you pay about the same for M2's and CL's. Given this price level, I'd stick to the M2. M3's are generally a bit more expensive than M2's, about $150 by todays prices in the same condition (mint ones much more).

The 40 Summicrons seem to be hard to get - I've been looking for a cheap one for months, but have not found one yet for a price lower than an older 50 summicron. The inner side of the 35mm framelines should cover the 40mm angle quite well.

I currently don't see another option for the body; Bessa's just don't have the resale value and feel. And the Hexar RF is still high priced in the used market. It is different with the lenses: There are some nice choices: The 50 Hexanon can be found for about $250, a 35 Summaron is also quite cheap (and a Leica lens) for about $200 and the Voigtlaender lenses seem to fetch the same price used regardless of the lens (35 Ultron, 50 Nokton, 75 Heliar). This is also the price for a used 40 Summicron (maybe a bit more). Another option would be a russian 50mm LTM lens to start with, the Jupiter-8 lenses can be found for $20, add an adaptor for $40 and you have a (low build quality, but acceptable in optical terms if you find a good example) starter lens for a Leica M.

So altogether I'd look for a recently CLA'd M2 plus any of the above lenses, rather get an adaptor and a russian lens first and later swap it with a Voightlaender lens later, if I want to stay cheap and put the rest of the money into the body: For $500 it should be no big problem to find a good working combination of body and lens. To have a better lens, you have to add another $150 I guess.

-- Kai Blanke (kai.blanke@iname.com), March 26, 2002.

40mm Rokkor I use very often, not on my Leica CL but on the Bessa- T. :) Nice marriage for the outfit I believe.

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), March 26, 2002.