Leica M2 lens choice on a budget

wibbly

wibbly

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5,167
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
Having bought a couple of Olympus film cameras over the past 12 months I've got a bit of gas for a Leica M2, but the one thing holding me back a bit is budget for a lens.

Dipping my toes into the Leica pool I don't particularly want to spend a lot on a 35mm lens unless I know it's really for me. I'm looking for suggestions of lenses I could consider that are affordable (read cheap), that would get me going.

Any good suggestions for starters?
 
Something like this with ltm to m adapter.

122197871300

eBay listing number
 
Wouldn't a Jupiter 8 with an adapter do the job, they normally go for £30/40
 
There is an awful lot of b*ll*x talked about Leica in my opinion. They do make stunningly good cameras and lenses but they are definitely not, for example, 5x better than Voigtlander but I do tend to agree with Steve. If you really want a Leica then you need to use Leica glass or you're not getting any benefit.
So, save up for a long time for a Leica kit or save up for less time and go Voigtlander. Either way you will be getting some excellent camera equipment. :)
 
I wouldn't spoil the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar. Save up for a Leitz lens. I've got a FED2 with an Industar 10 lens and of all my lenses, it's the only one that I can say is utter crap. I know some people like Soviet lenses but my example's optics are terrible.
 
NickT said:
I wouldn't spoil the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar. Save up for a Leitz lens. I've got a FED2 with an Industar 10 lens and of all my lenses, it's the only one that I can say is utter crap. I know some people like Soviet lenses but my example's optics are terrible.
Click to expand...

To balance the argument (slightly!), I've recently picked up a Fed 1 with Industar 61LD. After I stripped/cleaned/CLA'd both the body and lens I've been impressed with the quality of the results for something that cost less than I could buy a red dot for, let alone a Leica body. I used a friends' M2 with collapsible 50 for a while when I first started shooting film and the body was definitely much smoother than the Fed with a quieter shutter but I'm not sure I could bring myself to part with that amount of cash when the results weren't night and day different.
 
It depends if you plan to match your M2 with lenses from the same era or buy modern lenses. If you can afford new lenses, then yes, the Leica ones are the best. On the other hand the LTM lenses that were made for the Canon 7 etc. perform almost at well as the Leitz optics of the same era, and the Nikon optics were arguably even better than Leitz in those days. They don't stand up against a new Leica lens if you shoot test charts, but do against the 1950/60s optics. You can pick up something like a Canon 50mm f1.4 for a quarter of the cost of the equivalent Summilux.

The old M cameras are a joy in themselves, regardless of what's attached to the front.
 
Andysnap said:
There is an awful lot of b*ll*x talked about Leica in my opinion. They do make stunningly good cameras and lenses but they are definitely not, for example, 5x better than Voigtlander but I do tend to agree with Steve. If you really want a Leica then you need to use Leica glass or you're not getting any benefit.
So, save up for a long time for a Leica kit or save up for less time and go Voigtlander. Either way you will be getting some excellent camera equipment. :)
Click to expand...

There certainly is a LOT of b*ll*x generated by Leica owners. Ditto Hasselblad, but to a much lesser extent. I put it down to having to justify the huge expense to themselves: "My lens IS WORTH £3000", "My lens IS WORTH £3000", "My lens IS WORTH £3000". Say it enough times and you start to believe it. :LOL:
 
I have no experience with Leica or Hasselblad but I do know that most (or almost all) of the 'quality' we see in photographs is from good technique, not some magic that Leitz or Zeiss have that Nikon, Canon, Minolta or others do not. I've had some superb optics at my disposal over the years, some with legendary reputations (like the Nikkor 105mm f2.5 for instance), and I've produced plenty of bad photographs from them :LOL:.

However the whole point of owning one of these mythical cameras is, I suppose, in the knowledge that you're using the very best equipment of its kind, and enjoying the fantastic engineering that has gone into them. In that context, I'd be going the whole hog too, matching the 'right' lenses and bodies, to be honest.
 
stevelmx5 said:
To balance the argument (slightly!), I've recently picked up a Fed 1 with Industar 61LD. After I stripped/cleaned/CLA'd both the body and lens I've been impressed with the quality of the results for something that cost less than I could buy a red dot for, let alone a Leica body. I used a friends' M2 with collapsible 50 for a while when I first started shooting film and the body was definitely much smoother than the Fed with a quieter shutter but I'm not sure I could bring myself to part with that amount of cash when the results weren't night and day different.
Click to expand...

I admit some Russian lenses are good but you never know what you're going to get.

This is from my collapsible Industar 10

[URL=http://s984.photobucket.com/user/NickBT1/media/Comparison.jpg.html][/URL]

The shot on the right is either a Canon FD or a Zuiko.That was my usual test shot vantage point and all the other shots from Canon, Yashica, Zuiko and Nikon looked much the same. Only the Industar looked that fuzzy!
 
stevelmx5 said:
To balance the argument (slightly!), I've recently picked up a Fed 1 with Industar 61LD. After I stripped/cleaned/CLA'd both the body and lens I've been impressed with the quality of the results for something that cost less than I could buy a red dot for, let alone a Leica body. I used a friends' M2 with collapsible 50 for a while when I first started shooting film and the body was definitely much smoother than the Fed with a quieter shutter but I'm not sure I could bring myself to part with that amount of cash when the results weren't night and day different.
Click to expand...

Indeed Steve...while it's nice to own a quality camera and lens, if you go onto a lens forum there are so many great shots from lenses other than even old Zeiss lenses and while it's expensive to get our negs drum scanned to show difference in resolution etc these guys don't mess around with digi cameras pixel peeping and for distortion. And if you are going to crush your film jpg file down to 1000px to post here then even a £8 zoom can look as good as an expensive lens.
Anyway I always say if you have the money get what you like (y) but let's face it...a VG MF camera would knock spots off any 35mm camera with Leica or Zeiss lens for image quality for large blowups.
 
TheGreatSoprendo said:
I
However the whole point of owning one of these mythical cameras is, I suppose, in the knowledge that you're using the very best equipment of its kind, and enjoying the fantastic engineering that has gone into them. In that context, I'd be going the whole hog too, matching the 'right' lenses and bodies, to be honest.
Click to expand...

I get the appeal of knowing that its not the camera letting you down but tbh I'm happy with Sekor lenses on RB67 in that respect or for that matter the Zuiko's and the OM's.
 
excalibur2 said:
Indeed Steve...while it's nice to own a quality camera and lens, if you go onto a lens forum there are so many great shots from lenses other than even old Zeiss lenses and while it's expensive to get our negs drum scanned to show difference in resolution etc these guys don't mess around with digi cameras pixel peeping and for distortion. And if you are going to crush your film jpg file down to 1000px to post here then even a £8 zoom can look as good as an expensive lens.
Anyway I always say if you have the money get what you like (y) but let's face it...a VG MF camera would knock spots off any 35mm camera with Leica or Zeiss lens for image quality for large blowups.
Click to expand...

I suspect even a fairly cheap MF camera would give a Leica a run for its money on pure IQ.
 
NickT said:
I admit some Russian lenses are good but you never know what you're going to get.

This is from my collapsible Industar 10



The shot on the right is either a Canon FD or a Zuiko.That was my usual test shot vantage point and all the other shots from Canon, Yashica, Zuiko and Nikon looked much the same. Only the Industar looked that fuzzy!
Click to expand...

I agree that it's a bit of a lucky dip, and what put me off buying the soviet kit when I first asked about them a while back. I was just putting an alternative view across when budget is a consideration. I did really enjoy shooting the M2 for its' engineering and it's clearly a very solid camera but personally, I don't shoot enough 35mm to justify the cost of a Leitz glass, especially when I'd rather shoot 120 to get a larger negative area.
 
Just to give an example of the results from my Industar. This was cheap Agfa Vista, handheld at 1/25th f2.8 inside a gallery so not ideal conditions!

Ignore the colours (and the muck all over it!), I scanned this with my A6000/50mm macro lens with the negative flat on a piece of opaque acrylic and fired a flashgun behind it because I just wanted to check the rangefinder was aligned.

IMG_1479205421.098319.jpg

Crop done on my phone then a screenshot

IMG_1479205433.094678.jpg

For the cheapest of the cheap rangefinder I'm surprised by the sharpness. With a proper scan and better film I think it would be as sharp as any other 35mm I've shot.

Edit - Those images look terrible from my phone but you get the idea!
 
Last edited:
That Industar 61 looks a lot better. I've got one too and it is a great improvement. Unfortunately it's not collapsible like the 10, so it's not so easy to stuff in a coat pocket. Also my 10 has a nice genuine Leica lens cap to go with it. Rangefinders with cloth shutters just have to be carried with a lens cap on in the summer time. For the Industar 61 I had to make one from the cap to a tin of curry powder!
 
Just read on another forum "There is a persistent, but unconfirmed, rumor on the 'net that the Minolta 50/2 is basically a Leica Summicron, and a result of the two companies' shared technology agreement." h'mm
I know the Minolta 35-70mm f3.5 is the same as the Leica one..... so who knows if true.
 
excalibur2 said:
let's face it...a VG MF camera would knock spots off any 35mm camera with Leica or Zeiss lens for image quality for large blowups.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Even low cost medium format cameras, such as a Bronica ETRS which you can pick up for £200 in mint condition, will wipe the floor with the best Leica 35mm lens.
 
This was my Leica dabble. An original Leica I that had been back to the factory to be converted to a II with an Elmar 50mm. Beautifully made but a bit of a pain to use.

Leica-II by Andy, on Flickr

And this is what I want, what I really, really want

Voigtlander by Andy, on Flickr
 
Thanks for the replies chaps. I know it's not easy to shop Leica on a budget, but it helps with SWMBO if cost of body and more suitable lens can be 'ammortised' over a couple of months or so :D
 
Well I missed the boat not getting the Konica RF Hexar a few years ago for £10 at the bootie, so I'll keep my eye open for the Bessa o_O ;)
 
When I first bought a Leica I got it with a 35mm f2.8 Summaron lens which was very good value.
 
FujiLove said:
Exactly. Even low cost medium format cameras, such as a Bronica ETRS which you can pick up for £200 in mint condition, will wipe the floor with the best Leica 35mm lens.
Click to expand...

..bigger is better ;) I once read an article about a top 35mm Zeiss lens that could resolve 100-120 lines\mm on a special B\W film h'mm I don't think the human eye can resolve that much :eek:....and a few years ago an advertised 35mm B\W film if used with an excellent lens, the resulting crops were amazing to see...mind you, the film was probably something like 5 ISO..if I can find the film advert will post, but what I can remember is you have to use their dev with the film.

Well it was Gigabyte film similar to Agfa Copex Rapid, but looking up reviews and one said they couldn't see much difference in resoltion compared to Tech pan. I don't do B\W but anyone using this https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Agfa+Copex+materia&client=firefox-b-ab&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwju75-O-6rQAhVJvRoKHbgRAMcQsAQIIw&biw=1920&bih=979
If not why not?
 
Last edited:
As the OP has requested advice for budget glass, it's fairly clear that funds don't allow him to fork out on top notch lenses.

I fully agree to put the best glass on whatever camera body that you can afford!!!

Financial situation doesn't have to stop the fun of using some very classy kit, anybody that believes otherwise is, imo, nothing but a snob
So.......


RaglanSurf said:
Wouldn't a Jupiter 8 with an adapter do the job, they normally go for £30/40
Click to expand...

If funds are really tight I'd go for ^^ this^^ ....I have a couple of Jupiter lenses and tbh they're not bad for what they cost.

It will at least get you out shooting with the body until a possible time comes up at a later date where you can upgrade to better glass wether that be Voigtlander, Leitz or whatever

After all, Fujilove puts it in a nutshell!



FujiLove said:
The old M cameras are a joy in themselves, regardless of what's attached to the front.
Click to expand...



and you may well find you have the technique that TheGreatSoprendo mentions and come away with some brilliant quality results!

TheGreatSoprendo said:
most (or almost all) of the 'quality' we see in photographs is from good technique, .
Click to expand...
 
^^^^

I think that this concisely sums up the options. :agree:
 
Get a used Voigtlander 35mm Color-Skopar or 50mm Color-Skopar. Can't go wrong with either.

I do like my older (version 2/rigid) 50mm Summicron though, it's a good mix of high resolution/medium contrast that works amazingly well with black and white. Canon/Nikon's LTM stuff is 90% of the way there too, so have a look.
 
LCE in Bristol seem to have a few secondhand Voigtlander LTM lenses at the moment.

Peter Loy's website can be good for Canon LTM lenses.
 
This maybe a daft question but could you use Olympus Zuiko lenses on an M2 Leica with an adaptor?
 
You need a rangefinder lens with a cam that links the focus to the rangefinder mechanism, AFAIK. Maybe it would work if you forget the rangefinder and just do zone focusing, or estimate the distance and set it on the lens (which is what many of us had to do, back in the day!).
 
wibbly said:
This maybe a daft question but could you use Olympus Zuiko lenses on an M2 Leica with an adaptor?
Click to expand...

Gosh. Didn't know there was an adapter

321807047475

eBay listing
 
I guess it's like fitting a 28mm lens to a rangefinder that only has 50mm framelines. You'd have to use a separate viewfinder to see the field of view and then scale/hyperfocal focus. Certainly cheaper than buying the relevant 28mm M/L39 lens?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top