Old Leica M

S

StevenS

Active Member
Registered
I use Leica M lenses for the obvious reasons that they have superb optics, they are very small and light, they are manual focus, they can be used on several camera systems (Leica, Voightlander, Fuji and Sony in my house) they will last a lifetime and your children will be delighted to inherit them. I seem to have acquired 35, 50, 90 and 135 versions, plus the excellent Zeiss 21. The limit is 135mm as that is the longest focal length that it is practically possible to manually focus. It is also the limit in terms of being able to eliminate shake hand-held in medium to poor light. I also have a 180mm R-fit.

The 180 is exclusively for use on a Sony a7r, using focus peaking mostly. The 90 and 135 also work brilliantly on the Sony.

The 21, 35 and 50 are current versions purchased new. I've had the 90 for some years and purchased the 135 last week. I was testing it today. The 90 and 135 are "Tele-" lenses, designating a lens shorter than its focal length. I attach an image to indicate the size, with a normal size camera behind (a Leica Q). The 90mm is all-metal and weighs 225g. Canon make 90mm and 100mm lenses, which both weigh almost 600g.

I attach a few images taken with the 135mm/f4 today at Frieze. The optics are remarkably good.

The 90mm was purchased for £300 on ebay from the son of the original owner who bought it new in 1984 (so 32 years old). I paid £250 to get it recallibrated and cleaned (it was forward focusing).
The 135mm was made in 1966 (so 50 years old) and cost £249 delivered from a dealer.
The 180mm cost £800. It was made in 1991 (so 25 years old), but had just been rebuilt with a new front element, work costing almost £400, so it is like new. It is an apochromatic 'APO' lens (Leica's first ever), so is incredibly sharp and accurate.

These longer lenses are very popular on Sony, hardly surprising compared to the cost of Sony FE lenses. They offer tremendous practicality and value for money in addition to incredible performance. DSC01076.jpgL1011747.jpgL1011772.jpgL1011765.jpg
 
I personally do not think Leica lens are much if any better than say Nikon, Canon,, Olympus or Pentax, yes they are built very well but you pay an over priced premium for them, if they work on a Digital camera as you say then they probably are a good buy compared to the Sony lens, having said that Sony lens will have A/F better coatings. This a personal thing but I bought a Leica M3 a while back and soon got rid, the images were no better than my Pentax SMC 50mm that cost me £25 mint, not easy cameras to work with, the limitation in close focus is sometimes prohibitively annoying, so I paid £700 for a 50mm close focus lens, more messing about taking goggles on and off etc, I also hate the idea that I do not see through the lens to establish flare or spot on composition, DOF, all in all a superbly built camera and lens, over priced like all Leica gear and just as good can be bought for less money.
 
Last edited:
I judge lenses not just by what is in focus by what is out of focus and how does this appear to your eye, because lets face it a lot of images comprise of the OOF area.
I own a small Leica D-Lux type 109 which as everyone knows is a collaboration with Leica and Panasonic, however the lens is all i could ask for in terns of sharpness, contrast etc.
I am a Nikon user because i became locked into their system many years ago which wasn't a bad thing. I recently bought some older mint condition Olympus OM lenses to use with an OM4Ti/OM2n and they have impressed me so much that it pains me to pay so much for lenses from any system because there is no need if you are mainly a landscape or stills photographer.
I look at it this way, Panasonic,Canon Sony Fuji "Et al" manufacture so many things from televisions telephone systems etc, etc.....But what do Nikon make......exactly cameras and lenses.
Some food for thought,
Regards,
Alan
 
I have used many cameras and many more combinations of lenses over the years and have finally settled on two makes, Nikon and Minolta.

With the Nikon, I use purely Nikon lenses for the film side (20/35, 28/105 and 70/300, all are the AFD versions). For the digital side I added a Sigma (17/70) plus I use all the Nikons I have for film. I have never found Sigma or for that matter any after market lenses as good as Nikons. These are used with a F6, F601, D300s and a D90

I always have had an affinity for Minolta however. The last ranges of the Minolta MD lenses were very well made with the 24/35, 28/85 and 70/210 (all manual focus coupled to a SRT 101B and an XE1) being as good as any when they were in their prime. Any of these lenses will produce a clean, crisp, 12x16 image which is the largest I have facilities to make in either B&W or colour.

I actually chose Minolta by default. I have ridden motorcycles since 1964, travelling all over the Continent, UK and parts of the middle east. I actually thought if I came off the bike and was using Minolta, they would be cheaper to replace than the Nikon I was using at the time! I fortunately never did, but stuck with Minolta as a 2nd line right until now.
 
The issue is size. Leica R are superb and cheaper, but bigger. I have the 60 macro and 180 APO, they cost about £350 to £400 each.
Any Leica M with any lens up to 135mm fits in my coat pocket, flap down, accessible but dry. The incomparable Leica Q goes in the other pocket.
I'm off to Iceland next week and for film am taking a medium format Bronica Zenza ETRS. Cost me £240 and is mint, but I wouldn't want to carry it around for half an hour. No room for my M7.
I would suggest the Leica MonochromM is simply the best consumer camera for b&w, as it is not RGB, whether with old or new Leica, Zeiss or selected. voightlander.
 
Leica M lenses like the 21mm, 35mm, 50mm, 90mm, and 135mm are superb for their optics, compact size, and versatility across systems. The 90mm and 135mm excel for telephoto work, especially on Sony cameras with focus peaking. The 180mm R-fit (APO) is a standout for its sharpness and value compared to modern Sony FE lenses. These lenses, often vintage, offer incredible performance and longevity at a fraction of the cost of new equivalents. They’re a practical, high-quality investment for both current use and future generations.
 
No irrelevant link so might be legit. Hey EtherArts, would you care to comment?

I wonder what Alan Turing would have made of all this?
 
Anywhere in the post John.

Additionally, this contributor has submitted 3 other posts that seem relevant to the threads where they were posted, also without click-bait links. I still think it could be legit. Difficult to tell.
 
Last edited:
StevenS said:
The issue is size. Leica R are superb and cheaper, but bigger. I have the 60 macro and 180 APO, they cost about £350 to £400 each.
Any Leica M with any lens up to 135mm fits in my coat pocket, flap down, accessible but dry. The incomparable Leica Q goes in the other pocket.
I'm off to Iceland next week and for film am taking a medium format Bronica Zenza ETRS. Cost me £240 and is mint, but I wouldn't want to carry it around for half an hour. No room for my M7.
I would suggest the Leica MonochromM is simply the best consumer camera for b&w, as it is not RGB, whether with old or new Leica, Zeiss or selected. voightlander.
Click to expand...
But like any other lens by Nikon, Canon, Pentax et al, they will be susceptible to attracting fungus. Adding to my pose previous to this I have found by default that the long discontinued Tamron Adaptal 2 lenses for film are or can be as good as Nikon's own. In fact the 35/135 on my F2a is almost as good as the AFS 24/120 Nikon on my digital or F6.
 
Glenn said:
Anywhere in the post John.

Additionally, this contributor has submitted 3 other posts that seem relevant to the threads where they were posted, also without click-bait links. I still think it could be legit. Difficult to tell.
Click to expand...
Try searching google using the persons user name. It is a commercial company in America.

I have a Lot of experience with 'Mickey Mouse' post on forums and one where I am administrator in the past 18 months since we created ne software, I and another admin between us have dealt with in excess of 1800 attempts at spam or other attempts. Non have got through. I am always conscious that they are not always after publishing rubbish information, but they can be information gatherers so any leak as to an identity will be harvested like digging for gold. I trust no one on line unless I can verify who they are. A seemingly innocent post can be an opening for more information! We have not stopped them but we have tightened up registration now, so itis much easier to spot one from a mile off.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top