I am trying really hard to make the right rangefinder choice given my budget and expectations. I've fallen in love with my silly little Olympus SP35, but it's just not cutting the mustard optically. I've asked a few questions around here, and what seems the best camera for me is the Minolta CLE, if I can find (and then afford) one.

I've noticed the 90mm is an f4 (!) lens, which is OK most of the time, but not always with my style of shooting. SO:

Can I use other Leica lenses for this camera? or just the ones made specifically for it? Silly question, but I just don't know...

-- shawn (shawngibson_prophoto@yahoo.com), September 20, 2000

Answers

I use a 90mm f2.8 Leica lens on mine. It works great for almost all types of shots, but I have to be very careful using it wide open near the minimum focus, as the rangefinder base is a tad short for 100% accuracy in those conditions.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), September 20, 2000.

Shawn,

This is a general photography section... you should go to the actual Leica section for more info. There are several users of CL / CLEs, and they should be able to help.

go to:

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=Leica%20Photography

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), September 20, 2000.

Instead of the CLE, spend a few more bucks on the real thing; a leica M3. The M3 will have a wider base on the range finder for more accurate focus with those f2 lenses you crave and will be a better choice for the 90mm (and 50mm) lenses since it's viewfinder is made for lenses 50mm , 90mm and 135mm.

With cameras like the m4 and later, made to accomodate 35mm and longer lenses or the m4-p, made to accomodate 28mm and longer, the 90mm lens frame lines are very small in the viewfinder, the 135mm lines are even smaller.

If my primary interest was the 90mm, I would go for the M3 -- of all those cameras, it has the best and biggest finder, especially for longer lenses. If you never use wide lenses, you won't miss the wide frame finder. If you seldom use them, you can use an accessory finder.

-- george sandersack (sandersack@angelfire.com), September 20, 2000.

>>The M3 will have a wider base on the range finder for more accurate focus with those f2 lenses you crave and will be a better choice for the 90mm (and 50mm)

Thanks everyone. Lotsa help. I have noticed the prices are all over the place for both of these. An M3 is not much more than a CLE generally, it seems, but could someone who has been 'doing Leica' for a while gimme a ballpark on what is a 'correct' price, and also what to look for as far as possible problems.

Thanks again.

-- shawn (shawngibson_prophoto@yahoo.com), September 20, 2000.

George is correct of course, as the M3 is still the king of telephoto rangefinder photography. The M3 is a very different camera than the CLE however, and nowhere near as lightweight and easy to use. I have used both, and the CLE is a much better travel camera and basically is similar to what you had (the Olympus) but with better optics and the ability to change lenses. By the way, the new Voigtlander lenses work nice on the CLE. I just tested the 15mm out on mine and it is something to have a lens that wide that is so tiny you could have a hard time finding it in your bag.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), September 20, 2000.

Shawn, with the M3, the biggest factor is going to be condition, both cosmetically and the functional aspects as well. A lot of the cameras I looked had had foggy finders, and were in bad need of a general overhaul. They may be the best camera that was ever made, but time does a number on fine equipment. Seems like $1000 should get a nice M3 "double stroke", maybe even with a 50mm lens on e-bay, as long as there are some scratches on the body and it isn't a mint camera. Figure about $200 for an overhaul-most cameras are going to need one unless they had one in the past 10 years. Leica made some clip on meters, and I find the battery powered ones to be useful, although other Leica users don't like them, calling them bulky and camera scratchers. Using an old M3 with no meter is a whole different experience from today's modern cameras, so make sure you get a chance to handle some cameras at a show or a shop that sells quality used equipment to see if it fits your style. I like mine, but don't use it as much as some of my other cameras.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), September 20, 2000.

Thanks again, Andrew

>>the M3 is still the king of telephoto rangefinder photography

...then this is the camera for me...!!! All I have wanted, all this time, is a camera I can hand hold in low light with a telescopic lens around the 85-90mm mark. I've owned the Contax S2 SLR, which was a great camera, but I kept getting blurry pics. I rarely get blurry pics with the silly Olympus, and I've finally realized I 'need' a rangefinder.

I will go M3 hunting tonight, and hopefully will purchase within the next month or so. I want to make an informed decision, so if someone can tell me (other than the foggy viewfinder), what in particulart to look for, I'd greatly appreciate it.

ps what's the 'double-stroke' thing? gosh I'm a beginner...

-- shawn (shawngibson_prophoto@yahoo.com), September 20, 2000.

silly end-of-the-day qualifier: of course, the beers-to-blur ratio applies equally to mirrors and rangefinders in my experience :-(

-- shawn (shawngibson_prophoto@yahoo.com), September 20, 2000.

Shawn,

the M3 is a great camera... I agree with Andrew in that not everyone can bond with RF cameras, so try some extended hands-on to see if you like them.

If looking for an M3, check these items:

1. Look at the shutter curtain in both the cocked and fired position against a bright light source. Look for pin holes.

2. Make sure the removable take-up spool is in the camera... I bought one once without one... stupid on my part.

3. A lot of books recommend that you stay with a serial number past the 850XXX range. The M3 was produced for a long time, and there were several weaknesses at first that were remedied after that point... things like glass pressure plate that facilitated static discharge, a weak rewind knob, lack of frame preview lever, and strap lugs in different position.

4. After about 900XXX the film advance was changed from a two stroke to a one stroke advance. That is just like it sounds... two short arcs vs. one longer one to advance the film. Many users prefer the two stroke, claiming speed. All of my M3s were two strokes and were no problem at all. Some two strokes were modified to one stoke, so serial numbers may not indicate type... try it.

5. Cycle the shutter at all speeds several times. The less used speeds, usually the very slow ones, sometimes go out faster than the higher speeds. At 1/15th of a second, there should be a distinct two sound action. All of my books say this test is a good one to check the shutter. As Andrew says, a tune up is almost a sure thing. I was shocked at the difference in my camera when Leica tuned it up... it looked and sounded like a different camera... well worth the cost.

Go to this site, and scroll down to the Leica section. There is information on every model, how to buy, which lenses to get based on performance / cost.

http://www.cameraquest.com/classics.htm

Good luck. Any other questions... go to the Leica Q/A site posted earlier... You'll get more info than you can digest.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), September 20, 2000.

I use an M3. I also have a 90/2 Summicron, which is the combination I guess you want. The M3 is a great camera. The 90/2 is a great lens. Are they a great low-light combination? Not really.

The 90/2 Summicron is enormous. Mine has its own tripod mount. It weighs about as much as the M3. Combine the enormous lens with a light body and you seem to get a lot of shake at slow speeds. Add to this the fact that it's not very sharp at f/2, and benefits greatly from stopping down to f/2.8, and you have a very odd situation... I found that my F3 with an 85/1.8 was just as effective a low-light camera as the M3 & the 90/2.

Don't get me wrong: I love my M3, but I'd think carefully before you drop that kind of money into one for low-light short tele use.

-- John O'Connell (boywonderiloveyou@hotmail.com), September 20, 2000.

The fairly compact 90mm f2.8 Elmarit IS very sharp wide open, and very useable as such on the M3. the Leica 50mm f2.0 is also useable with good results at f2.0 and 2.8, and I have taken some lovely inside shots hand held with both of those combos. Haven't had quite as good of luck with my SLR's with the mirror slapping around in there. The M3 is easier to focus in low light them my slr's-the finder almost seems brighter than real life when they have been well cleaned inside.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), September 20, 2000.

Thanks guys. John, I had an F3 for this type of work, and, like Andrew, I found the mirror a problem. I'm not worried so much about weight (had an F4 and a Pentax 67, which both were--I'm sure--much heavier than the M3/90 f2 combo...?).

Also, low-light is only part of my work. I want, really, one camera that works for all my work. An M3 with the 90 and a 50 of some type, I am hopeful will do what I want.

I've gone through a lot of cameras in the last few years (a lot...ugh...), looking for the right one. I've avoided Leica for the obvious price and what seemed in the past L's limitations. But I think I've been fooling myself, and for some unconscious reason (a great reason, I believe), the Leica optics/rangefinder thing feels like the right move. But so did every other camera.

I'm walking into it very slowly, though. I would LIKE to someday own a camera for more than a few months...geesh! And a rangefinder (based on my new experience with the Olympus, which I absolutely love to handle/work with); coupled to Zeiss-or-equal optics (such as the S2 I owned and loved, optically), seems the synthesis of all this monkeying around. I.e., Leica lenses at least, in an M-mount body.

The M3, based on what was said above (i.e., the viewfinder for 90mm work), seems the best combo for me.

But let's just hope it's not another chimera, especially with the walk-out price!!!

Thanks again everyone. shawn

-- shawn (shawngibson_prophoto@yahoo.com), September 21, 2000.

I'm having an incredibly hard time finding any Canadian prices on the M3, the CLE, the 90mm f2/2.8, and the Voightlander 75mm f2.5 in Canadian markets (the last, I think I have to buy new at BH), both on the web and over the phone at Henry's, Vistek, Broadway/Alt, etc.). Could someone direct me somewhere before I shoot myself (with an Olympus...of course). :-) shawn

-- shawn (shawngibson_prophoto@yahoo.com), September 21, 2000.

Shawn,

I don'tknow Canada, but I have always received good service from Tamarkin Co. They have stores in both New York and Connecticut in the US... but they are on-line and can get anything. The do a good job at getting back via e-mail answering any questions you might have.

I bought two Leicas and a lens from them and was fully satisfied. They also offer a full line of books. Buying a 40 dollar book can pay for itself several times over when new to Leica. A little education can keep you from being cheated... learn a little of the "language" and you won't "smell" green to a less than honerable dealer. Go to:

http://www.tamarkin.com/

Good Luck.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), September 21, 2000.

I just posted this on photo.net but since you specifically asked:

www.robertwhite.co.uk

His prices are a good deal below US prices on the Cos/Voigt stuff. I'll soon be upgrading my 50/2 Summicron (chrome, rigid, avoid) to a 50/1.5 Nokton -- 225 GBP / ~$316!

There is currently no Canadian distributor for "Voigtlander" according to the LUG (chrome, rigid, avoid).

-- John O'Connell (boywonderiloveyou@hotmail.com), September 21, 2000.

I have both the CLE and an M2. I consider the M2 a general purpose camera, and I suppose the CLE could be used the same way (but I don't). I use the CLE as a "street" camera to shoot people candids. It's light and inconspicuous. I put a strap into the tripod socket, and wear it around my wrist, walking with my hand behind me. The 50mm lens is set a f/8, which gives me a depth of field of six to fifteen feet when set at 10 feet. When I see something worthwhile, I bring the camera to my eye and shoot without focusing. I have used the Nikon 85mm f2.0 lens (in a Leica screw mount with a bayonet adapter) and have found the short rangefinder base not to be a problem with this lens wide open. I have also used the Canon 50mm f/1.2 wide open without a focusing problem. Some years ago, an English magazine did an article testing which lenses can be safely used on a CLE. If you're interested, drop me an e-mail and i'll try to find it.

-- photog (mia-neil@juno.com), September 25, 2000.

Not again, Shawn.The Leica situation in TO is ridiculous:over-priced, often marginally functional sucker bait sold as holy relics.Just check out the shrine-like Leica display in the back of Alt.The Voigtlander/Cosina system just might be the ticket, provided you're reasonably flush and willing to deal with U.S. vendors.I've never seen an M3 in TO that didn't exhibit some of the problems described above, or that didn't carry an unrealistic price tag. I'm simply saying that the "cult" is too pricey and impractical for strapped but serious photographers after a rangefinder system.

-- liam (cg.watson@sympatico.ca), September 25, 2000.

I know, Alt is yucki for this right now. But 8Elm has "Leica M4-P good $1200". I haven't seen it yet, but I'm gonna go and check it out (a futile exercise till November, but it will get me looking). As you can probably tell, I'm new to the rangefinder game altogether; been honing-in on what I want--'need'?--via helpful advice on the net. It's gonna take me about 6weeks to come up with the money anyways, so the more advice the better. I have no problem going through US for a Voightlander, but if I can find an M3 or an M4-P for $2000CDN or less, I'm gonna go that way. I've decided to go for the 75mm Voightlander as my starting lens, so I'm buying Am. for that anyways (till I can get the Summi-whatit 75mm f1.4...in 2005c.e.!).

ps YES, i AM getting tired of all these purchases--that's one of the reasons--theoretically--I'm going Leica. If SHE don't cut it, then I'm gonna start building pictures out of popsicle sticks...and give up.

-- shawn (shawngibson_prophoto@yahoo.com), September 25, 2000.

Shawn - Eventually (hopefully before you go bankrupt) you'll come to realize that it's not the camera that counts but who's behind it. If you're not happy with your work now, a Leica won't make it any better.

Are you sure your SP isn't sharp enough? My cheapo Canonet will resolve over 70 lp/mm at f1.7, 90 lp/mm at f2.8 and 100+ lp/mm at f5.6. That's a $50 camera. Getting it focused properly at f1.7 an on close subjects is a little tricky but I don't know a Leica would be that much better! Depth of field at 1m for a 40mm f1.7 lens is only +/- 2.5cm.

Switching from system to system to system is a good way to make sure you never learn how to use any of them properly.

-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), September 25, 2000.

Thanks Bob.

>>If you're not happy with your work now, a Leica won't make it any better...Are you sure your SP isn't sharp enough.

Dead sure. If I could bolt my Zeiss onto it (the O.), I'd never buy another camera. If I could have made my S2 shoot like the Oly., I never would have bought another camera.

I am happy with my photographs, don't get me wrong [I'm shooting less, but my pictures are getting 'better' it seems :-)]. But I know the Nirvana Camera exists somewhere, and I want to use something that is an extension of my eye. The Oly. is like an extension of my eye with cataracts. The S2 was an extension with Coke bottle glasses.

I was at 8Elm Photo last night, looking at all the Leica gear they had. They had a CL there, which was in bad shape, but compared to all the other L's, it really seemed to fit me. Good new, it's cheaper than most Ms/CLEs and is all mechanical but for the meter...I'm just worried about getting the bayonette adaptor and throwing a Vgtlndr. 75mm lens on it, the only lens I really want right now...

-- shawn (shawngibson_prophoto@yahoo.com), September 27, 2000.

Bob, Stephen Grandy just told me the same thing re: the SP. Seems I got a bummer optically. Maybe I'll replace it. But that still leaves me in the same place, since the SP is standard-wide fixed and I need a tele-rangefinder 'main' camera that I can play with lenses on, unless I can get a Minilux with the 75mm 1.4 bolted on for less than twelve dollars :-)

a joke of course...

-- shawn (shawngibson_prophoto@yahoo.com), September 28, 2000.