That's what I was thinking, I do like the rewind since my experience started with a Nikon F in '69. I went on to larger format from there, and, haven't really used 35 in a long time...digital in my job for several yrs, but it is kinda boring...bought a G2 and love it, but am still wanting what I have never had or used: a Leica! Loving the G2, but......
Originally Posted by Rol_Lei Nut
I haven't had the M2, but I have or have had the M3, M4, M6, M7, and the MP. Of these cameras, the M4 is my favourite (but maybe partly because it was black). Built the same as the M3 with 35 lines, self timer still, and quick loading and rewind.
Use Leica lens with Leica camera , They are built for each other. I could never loved Zeiss lenses .
6 years ago I had to make a similar choice. I went for an M4-P (1983 made) and 35mm Summicron (1971 made). You can get old Leitz lenses for very good prices and they are damn good lenses. Check out the Leica lens section at www.kenrockwell.com. if you go for the 8-element model made between 1958-1969 you can't go wrong.
Good choice. I don't think you can get a better lens, of any brand, than the Zeiss 35mm f2 lens.
Between an M2 and M4, I would pick the M2. The M2 has three stand-alone framelines, which is sweet and simple. And it's probably the best priced Leica. I also prefer its old fashioned rewind, personally.
That said, you can't go wrong with the M4 either.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Just curious, which Zeiss lenses don't you like and why?
Originally Posted by Mustafa Umut Sarac
There are a few I don't like especially, but am wondering if they're the same...
M6, SL, SL2, R5, P6x7, SL3003, SL35-E, F, F2, FM, FE-2, Varex IIa
Rol Lei Nut ,
I am collecting magazines and annals wide spread to last 60 years and I bought all my 5 Leicas with selecting from them. I did not ask anyone , get any opinion and did whatever I liked.
First of all , zeiss lenses seemed to me too much different from Leica generic Nikons , Leicas and all other big format lenses. I found zeiss lenses have colors I dont like and the skins are too much flat.
I have two sonnars now , used kiev sonnar , planar copies also and every little bit light change effect the photograph too much. If you go 2 stop darker , shadows remain black but highlights dies also , there is no glow.
Leica lenses have glow and texture and their spherical correction makes every woman more organic , zeiss deletes the details I guess.
And look for the tests of modern distagon to modern leica , more flare , less color , blacker reds , shorter degrades and harsher look.
But I think triotar is another story and I find it excellent on Rolleicord.
I find the Zeiss 35f2 ZM to be a very fine lens. For a general 35mm, it would be difficult to find anything better. Personally, I'm very much appreciate the nuances in various lenses. That's why I have twelve 50mm lenses and six 35mm lenses. My favourite 35mm lenses is the current 35f2 Summicron-M ASPH and the classic 35f2.8 Summaron-M for different reasons.
"Oui, non, oui, non, OUI!" - Henri Cartier-Bresson
Fernando Gomes Semedo (aka Nando) - flickr
Hard to recommend a M without knowing your budget. I use a M2-r, M3 and M4 a lot. All 3 are superb to use for different reasons. As you mention a preference for a 35 lens, I'd stick with either the M2 or M4. If you have the money for a late serial no. M4 (125XXXX or later), and can afford to have the M2/3 levers put on it, I'd go that route. If not, get the M2. It is the pinnacle of design simplicity; nothing more needed, nothing to get in the way.
"A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within." W. Durant
I've got a mint '86 M4p with a new Biogon f2/35mm. And found that it is a great entry combo to start off with the M-series when you are on a budget. The set did cost me in the summer of '10 €1650,-. No small potatoes for my budget.
....took the red pill, and just buckled up....