Zeiss Icon vs R3A/R2A

[hmb]

I am ready to get a rangefinder set up but trying to decide btwn these two cameras. Does anyone have strong opinions or maybe know something I have missed in regards to getting the Bessa and using the saved money for better glass?
I would like AE option and the ability to get a lens at least as wide as the 35mm. This makes me think I should opt for the R2a rather than the R3a although the 1:1 would be very nice as I shoot RF with both eyes open. Would I be sacrificing quality by using a wider than 40mm on the R3A or is it just a matter of getting used to?

Also, speed and high ISO films are important to me so is there any reason why I should instead consider more $$ for the Leica? I would assume I would just be shooting 3200 (limit on these two cameras) film and then pushing in development so wouldn't be worth the upgrade.

What I plan on is this first camera eventually becoming my backup/2nd lens camera and I of course do not want an inferior product but would think spending the money on lenses would be my best move.

I have used the Leica M6ttl and M7 and loved them but think after lots of research, my desire is to return to shooting rangefinders, not shooting Leica's.

I would prefer the Voigtlander so my real question is R2/R3?

I shoot live bands so want both 35mm or wider as well as a 75mm or 90mm.

Thank you so much!

[Loris Medici]

Both R3A and R4A; use the R3A for longer lenses and the R4A for wide lenses. You'll be still below Leica and Zeiss Ikon prices, no?

[Snapper]

I would go for the R2a - you get brightlines for 35mm lenses, but it depends on if you want to use a 40mm or not as the R3a has 40mm lines. You don't get a lot of choice (any) when it comes to 40mm lenses however.

I've used the R2a for the last 4 years at least and never found a problem with it. Spend less on the body and get yourself a nice Zeiss 35mm f/2 Biogon instead. People will tell you about the 'feel' of the Voigtlander being not as good as an Ikon or M7, but they do exactly the same thing. The Leica/Zeiss may be quieter, the rangefinder base might be a bit longer, but essentially the spec is the same (although doesn't the M7 only go up to 1/1000s shutter speed and the R2a/Ikon up to 1/2000s, so that may affect you if you are using iso3200 film. I sometimes find myself wanting that extra stop when trying to shoot at f/2.)

Everytime I find myself lusting after an M7, I take a big reality check, then go out and buy a new lens instead.

It depends on your budget, and whether you want to be seduced by the M7/Ikon. Or have more (and better quality) lenses.

Having never even touched an M7 or Ikon myself, people may have different views on splashing the extra cash on a body.

[Lee L]

You don't get a lot of choice (any) when it comes to 40mm lenses however.

If you're willing to look at used as well:

Leica 40mm Summicron-C
M-Rokkor 40mm f:2
C/V Nokton 40mm f:1.4 single coated
C/V Nokton 40mm f:1.4 multi coated

All very fine lenses.

And regardless of which body you get, auxiliary finders are available for the lenses, so if 1:1 in the body finder is attractive to you, go for it if you find hot shoe finders acceptable for wider lenses. With the R2A, you only get 35mm frames wider than 40mm compared to the R3A. Anything wider than 35mm and you need an auxiliary finder with either body.

Lee

[arealitystudios]

For my part, I own an R3A and I am very happy with it. Like one of the previous posts above, I have dreamed about owning an M7 or MP but when I look at the price of the body alone I force myself to have a reality check and think about the lenses I can buy with that money instead.

The R3A has a much better build quality than I expected when I first purchased it. It miles in front of the quality you get from budget D-SLR’s from the likes of Canon and Nikon these days. It’s solid and doesn’t feel “cheap”. I actually put the build quality on par with my old Minolta SRT-101 (though not nearly as heavy).

It’s no Leica, but its good enough for me and it is an enjoyable experience to photograph with it.

[nsouto]

I shoot live bands so want both 35mm or wider as well as a 75mm or 90mm.

The Zeiss will do 28, 35, 50/75 and 85/90 (inside/outside of frame edge), all in one camera.
On the other hand, two second hand Bessas will probably cost as much or less than one new ZM, so there...

[raizans]

the zeiss ikon doesn't have 75mm framelines.

zeiss makes a 85/2, but it costs $3350. the leica 90mm summicron pre-asph is comparatively cheap at only $800-1000. both leica 75mm lenses are much more expensive.

the voigtlander 75/2.5 and 90/3.5 might not be fast enough, and if you got an r3a, you will run into focusing problems closeup and wide open with faster teles.

i recommend buying a zeiss ikon, a 90mm summicron pre-asph, and a 35mm nokton classic.

[hmb]

this has been very helpful. thank you all for confusing me further :-).

Loris, that seems to make the most sense. the R3 and the R4, especially so I won't be changing lenses in midst of shooting.

Now why would I have problems with focusing on the R3a close up and wide open with fast tele's? compared to which other combo?

My feeling, after looking into the Zeiss ikon is that I might as well purchase a Leica for the price.

thanks!

[John Koehrer]

There've been some very good M2/3's at Rff,

[cmo]

For a very simple reason I would choose the Zeiss Ikon: it has a much better rangefinder. In crazy light conditions that makes a difference. That would be my second choice, I still prefer my M6. You get used M6 cameras for reasonable prices, too...