Re: More newby questions

[dmorton@cix.compulink.co.uk (David Morton)]

In-Reply-To: <v01540b00ae6fe721a0c3@[128.210.95.61]>
> First off, never apologize for asking questions,  I am betting that 
> almost
> everyone on this list has asked similar questions at least once in their
> careers.

Thanks, I was hoping they weren't *too* dumb.

However I just happened to be in Russell Square today visiting a client, 
and so I called in at the Classic Leica place nearby. Terribly nice chap 
(I think he's the owner) who patiently explained all the differences 
between the models, so now I know I'm looking for a Black Dial IIIf.

I also spent 5 pounds on a reprint of the user manual for the c/f/g 
series, which has clarified a lot of things.

Unlike some shops he didn't seem to turn his nose up when I said I was 
looking for a 'user', and they even had a very inexpensive IIIc (about 
UKP130, I think, but I didn't bother to look at it).

Their prices didn't seem out of this World either, UKP295 for a very nice 
IIIfBD, 149 for a coated 90mm f4 Elmar, 119/149 for a coated 50mm f3.5 
Elmar and 39 for a universal finder. They didn't have any user 35mm f3.5 
Elmars in at the moment.

Do the UK members of this list think those sound reasonable? I was 
frankly surprised they weren't higher, given the location (about the most 
expensive part of London).

I also tried a 135mm Hektor, and was interested. It's pretty bulky of 
course, which might be a problem. Do people here who have them find they 
use them very much?
 
> I think that your choices of lenses is pretty good, especially of you 
> are
> on a budget.  I would for sure avoid the Summar.  Interesting lens, but 
> few
> would trust it for any pictures that can't be readily retaken, 
> especially
> below 5.6-8.  Try and find a 35mm or 90mm Elmar over 600,000 to assure 
> that
> it is coated. Though I like my uncoated Elmars, coated ones are just 
> easier
> to use because they are less likely to flare.  Check your Sumitar for
> separation and cleaning marks--it is prone to both.

Having thought about it, I think I'll go for the slower 50mm (3.5 Elmar), 
because I don't really think I'll use the low light ability of the faster 
(and heavier) Summitar on a Leica.

I've got (or am getting) some fast lenses for my Nikon kit (am I allowed 
to say that here?) if I need them, and I suspect the 'style' of the IIIf 
will tend to incline me away from available light 'grab shots' (hate that 
phrase, but can't think of a better one).

And of course I could still use the f3.5 for travelling light, even if I 
subsequently spent the money on an f2.
 
> As for finders, do not discount vintage Leitz finders like the VISOR or
> VIDOM or the others whose code words slip my mind.  They work and they 
> are
> cheap.  Other of your colleagues on the list have recently suggested 
> that
> the Canon finders are also good, and often cheaper.  Single focal length
> finders are nice, but often considerably more expensive.

I tried out a universal finder, don't know the code number, which had 
interchangable masks selected by a dial. The longest focal length was a 
bit like squinting down a pipe, but the others seemed fine.

> I am heartened to see that someone is ignoring all of the bells and
> whistles of the R* (you fill in the number) and starting out with screw
> mount equipment to use, not collect.

I've never been wildly impressed by the Leica SLRs, which is odd because 
I'm a luddite when it comes to choosing Nikon kit: I won't have anything 
other than F series (I have an F, an F2 and an F3), and MF lenses, so 
they *should* be right up my street, but I just don't like them.
  
> They are quirky, often slow (OK,
> slower) to use, but they are also fun.  Nothing is as satisfying as 
> showing
> a sparkling print taken with a 40+ year old camera that puts the prints 
> of
> the latest plastic widgetflex to shame, or is at least their equal.  Of
> course you know, this first Leica is kind of like a free shot of
> heroin--soon you will be hooked for life.

The man in the shop warned me about that :-)