From M to LTM

J

jyr

Hello you all,
Some of you may have seen my previous post on collapsible 50 mm.
I currently use an M with a rigid summicron but would like to purchase a collapsible 50 Elmar. I still hesitate between a modern M-2.8 and an 'old' E39-3.5, that some of you have considered (even) sharper and that is obviously much more compact (that is the quality required for a collapsible lens).
Would you like to further comment on the compared qualities of these two lenses? Is the 'red scale' 3.5 improved compared to the older version?
Additionally, I could get a LTM body as second camera. Not for collection but of course for shooting! Therefore I only would consider a camera the shutter of which should be as reliable as that of my M6. But I could do without rangefinder. Therefore, an IC could be a good match. Would anyone comment on this choice? Has the IC from the 50's the improved shutter of the IIIG? What price could be reasonable? How much is a CLA? Thanks in advance,
JY
 
>I still hesitate between a modern M-2.8 and an > 'old' E39-3.5, that some of you have considered (even) sharper and > that is obviously much more compact (that is the quality required for > a collapsible lens).

I am very happy with my present M-2.8 but I was very happy as well with my previous LTM 3.5. Both are excellent. I cannot compare directly, I did not have them at the same time, but I made very sharp pictures with the old 3.5, both b+w and colour slides.

> I could do without rangefinder. Therefore, an IC could be a good > match. Would anyone comment on this choice?

A IC is much rarer than a IIIC and you might find that a III (plain,a,b or c) not only offers rangefinder coupling but can be bought for less. Have a look on ebay to get an idea on prices. A III a or b (pre-war) is often more reliable than a wartime or early post-war IIIc.

I used a IIIb for 15 years without any problem ever before switching to an M3. In some ways I preferred it: smaller, thinner, lighter with the collapsible Elmar and a thin ever-ready case to protect it. I had it in my pocket, like I would now take a small digital Olympus P&S when I do not want to carry the Leica or Nikon gear.

The main disadvantages: you need a bulky accessory finder for using any lens but a 50mm, no flash coupling on early models if you need flash. You can still find small working exposure meters that fit in the accessory shoe. They will not fit in the ever-ready case, though. I got easily used to the separate rangefinder.

>How much is a CLA?

I recently found a link to D. Austin VanC&en. He asks $150
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
I have not tried him. Has anybody had some experience with him?
 
H

hektor

Dear JY,

I have numerous Elmars f/3.5 as well as an early f/2.8 and a very late f/2.8.

From f/4 there is no apparent difference in practical terms. Erwin Puts considers the f/2.8 similar to the contemporary Summicron from f/4.

I use the f/3.5 for is compact size, and the f/2.8 for ease of aperture adjustment when using filters.

My prints are 34cm x 50cm and project slides onto 2m x 2m screen, both of which show differences between lenses and film quite well.

Have fun.

Justin
 
Top