Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,875   Posts: 1,520,222   Online: 1210
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM
    Posts
    577
    Images
    18
    Why buy an expensive body and put cheap lenses on it? The lens takes the picture, not the body. Buy a cheap body and put expensive lenses on it, you'll get better pictures. I've seen this over and over. People buy a top end SLR body and put cheap consumer lenses on it; people buy a high end stereo receiver and hook up a cheap set of speakers and then wonder why it doesn't sound great.

    I feel if you want to shoot Russian lenses, buy a Russian camera. I have nice FED 3b for my J-12 and J-9.

    Just my 2 cents.
    Last edited by r-brian; 03-23-2005 at 04:30 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    15
    I can get a leica cl for about 200€. I have also decided not to buy russian lenses although some of them are a really bargain. Some of the russians seems to suffer some incompatible with leicas.

    I'm now considering these lenses:

    VOIGTLANDER 35MM F2.5 CLASSIC SKOPAR
    Leitz Leica Summaron 35/3.5 (bit too slow)
    Canon 50mm F:1.5 (too fast in wide open for cl, but I'm planing to buy a "real" leica or bessa r3 in future if I fall in love with these Rf cameras.)
    LEICA LEITZ SUMMICRON C 40MM (obvious choice, but bit dull. Also I have understood that there aren't many rangefinders with a frameline for 40mm so this would limit the use of this lens when I get more bodys. (there lives a small collector inside me even I buy cameras to use them.))

    Any comments? I'm specially interested in the skopar because they seem to be relatively cheap and I would like to have a 35mm. I haven't realy found any information about this one so I would be glad if some one could comment this one. I could perhaps buy both the canon and the skopar.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Louisiana, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,325
    My first choice would be the 40mm Leitz or Rokkor. Second choice would be the Voigtlander 35/2.5. Actually, it's a toss up among these lenses and I would just find whichever is the best deal.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni H.
    I can get a leica cl for about 200€. I have also decided not to buy russian lenses although some of them are a really bargain. Some of the russians seems to suffer some incompatible with leicas.

    I'm now considering these lenses:

    VOIGTLANDER 35MM F2.5 CLASSIC SKOPAR
    Leitz Leica Summaron 35/3.5 (bit too slow)
    Canon 50mm F:1.5 (too fast in wide open for cl, but I'm planing to buy a "real" leica or bessa r3 in future if I fall in love with these Rf cameras.)
    LEICA LEITZ SUMMICRON C 40MM (obvious choice, but bit dull. Also I have understood that there aren't many rangefinders with a frameline for 40mm so this would limit the use of this lens when I get more bodys. (there lives a small collector inside me even I buy cameras to use them.))

    Any comments? I'm specially interested in the skopar because they seem to be relatively cheap and I would like to have a 35mm. I haven't realy found any information about this one so I would be glad if some one could comment this one. I could perhaps buy both the canon and the skopar.
    Here's my experience with the CL. I love them and they do not attract attention from potential thieves.
    I have a Rokkor 40mm which is superb, but it has a tiny spot of fungus on an edge. Cannot be easily cleaned because the two front elements are spun together.
    Meter cells in both mine started to die so I would have that checked before buying. Up to a few months ago meter cells were available.
    Most collapsible lenses will foul the meter arm.
    If I wanted a 40mm I would seriously consider the new Voigtlander 40 f1.5

    Mark
    Mark Layne
    Nova Scotia
    and Barbados

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    15
    Huh. This is getting damn difficult. Before I was sure that the body would be the leica cl but I just realaised that I can buy a new bessa R1 with the 35mm skopar at the price of a cl with same lens. Which one would you choose?

    CL
    + It's Leica
    + Small
    + Better build (?)
    + M mount
    + more silent than the bessa
    + Looks better IMHO
    - They are getting quite old.
    - Risk of getting a dead meter/shutter etc.
    - Viewfinder

    Bessa
    + New
    + Better metering?
    + Much better viewfinder (?)
    - Not as well build
    - "Only" m39 mount

  6. #16
    Flotsam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    S.E. New York State
    Posts
    3,221
    Images
    13
    There have been one or two CL vs. Voigtlander threads here in the past.
    Obviously no solid conclusions butyou might find the various opinions interesting and helpful.
    That is called grain. It is supposed to be there.
    =Neal W.=

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Louisiana, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,325
    How 'bout a Bessa R2? I've never owned one (or even held one) but they are reported to be better made than the original R. It has an M-series lens mount, too.

    I think both the R and R2 have been discontinued but may still be available new from some dealers.

    The original 35/2.5 Color Skopar classic lens was made in a Leica thread mount so you should budget a thread to M-series adapter if you get that lens with an M-mount body.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    15
    I have decided to go with the cl. The cheap look and the plastic parts of the r scared me away and theres just something about the cl that fascinates me. There aren't also any proof how durable the R is because it's so new camera. R could be more easier to shoot but it just doesen't have that something.

    Have someone used 35mm lens in cl. I have heard that the the outer lines in cl's viewfinder are aproximately 35mm. How hard it is to compose the picture with 35mm lens. The 40mm f:1.4 Nokton someone suggested seem's to have quite ugly bokeh so I'm considering the 35/1.7 Ultron. Karen Nakamura seem's to use 35mm in his cl.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    15
    Got one!

    After losing numerous auctions in ebay I finally won one. You can find the auction from here

    I allmost bought a m2 in one stage, but I'm glad I didn'd because I would have any money left to buy lenses. :rolleyes: But I have to get one of those M's in someday because I realy fell in love with the m2 when I tried it in one local shop.

    I ended up getting the cl with the orginal 40mm, so no more trouble at choosing a lens. I think it was the best solution.

    I also ordered a new skin for it from the aki asahi. It is going to look so good!

  10. #20
    Flotsam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    S.E. New York State
    Posts
    3,221
    Images
    13
    That is great, I'm sure that you'll enjoy it.

    I have a small, light fanny pack in which I carry my CL, 40 and 90mm lenses, a Gossen Digisix light meter, a small flash, filters, a tabletop tripod, cable release, extra film and a few small essentials. I can just grab that pack when I'm going out the door and I never have an excuse for not having a camera with me. And this with absolutely no compromise in picture quality over carrying my bigger, bulkier systems.
    That is called grain. It is supposed to be there.
    =Neal W.=

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin