[Leica] Screw mount in the modern world

["Peter A. Klein" <pklein@2alpha.net>]

Hi, all.  I'm new to the list (digest).  I've been a Leica user since about
1970. Looking for a little advice on how to upgrade my stuff without going
totally broke in the process.  Here's my photo-history:

1969-76:  After a brief fling with a Canon SLR, which I didn't care for, a
camera store owner turned my on to Leica. I had an M-2, 50mm f/2 Dual Range
Summicron and 90mm f/2.8 Tele-Elmarit, and this is my standard for image
quality.  I stupidly sold this outfit after college when I was
socio-economically deprived--a decision I've regretted ever since.

In the early 80s, I later tried a couple of SLRs, but never liked them, and
I prefer rangefinder focusing.  But the collecting orgy had already driven
M Leicas out of my reach.  So I ended up with what I call my "1950
Eisenstadt outfit", which I still have:

Leica IIIf red dial, no self-timer
Immarect finder (SQUINTY, and that's not a Wetzlar acronym!)
35mm f/3.5 Summaron
50mm f/1.4 Nikkor
90mm f/4 Elmar

All 3 lenses are in good shape 1950s-vintage user lenses (postwar, coated).
 They work smoothly.  The 35 Summaron is getting cloudy inside.  The 90
Elmar seems particularly sharp despite some hairline scratches.  The 50/1.4
Nikkor is a great lens, albeit heavy.  All 3 lenses have some oil on the
diaphragm blades, but no binding so far.

The IIIf is also in good shape, but the RF is getting dim and the shutter
seems to lose adjustment every year (right now it's got an accelleration
problem, and one side of the picture ends up darker than the other).  I'm
beginning to think that the IIIf is not worth maintaining as a shooter camera.

Aside--I also have an Olympus OM SLR with a few lenses.  Which I like, but
it's not an available-light people-picture taker like the Leicas are.  But
then again, neither is a IIIf any more, especially for a glasses wearer.

Up to now, I have believed that even my old LTM lenses were at least as
good as, maybe a little better than, all but the best SLR lenses.
Certainly they take good Kodachromes.  But they are getting a bit long in
the tooth.  I still have a lust for an "M," but they are still hideously
expensive.

So what do I do?  Are these lenses worth giving a CLA so they can be
maintained as shooter lenses?  I've been thinking of a number of alternatives:

1. Get a Voigtlander Bessa R, CLA the lenses and continue to use them.
Maybe replace the 35 Summaron with the Voiglander 35/1.7, which even Erwin
Puts admits is almost as good as a pre-aspherical 35/2 Summicron.

2. Do the same thing as #1, but get a shooter M with some cosmetic defect
that brings the price down to mid-three rather than 4 digits .  Get
non-Leitz M adapters for the screw-mount lenses.

3. Forget RF cameras, store my Leica stuff to help fund my retirement, and
continue to shoot with my OM stuff.

I'd like to hear what others on the list might do in my place.  What does a
CLA of old lenses like mine cost? And is it worth doing, or have I reached
a point of diminishing returns where the money would be better spent on
newer lenses.

Other relevant info:  I wear glasses, so an M-3 is not such a good option.
I've always been much better at rangefinder focusing than SLR focusing.  I
tend toward two kinds of photos--existing-light decisive moment people
pictures, and more conventional documentation of the natural beauty around
me.  I used to take B&W for people and Kodachrome for nature.  These days I
mostly take color prints, but that could change.

Thanks,

- --- Peter
/\:     ________     __     =========     ,  ,  ,  ,   ,  ,  |'  ,      ,
 / b   |  |  |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |  |  |   |  |   |  |  ~|' |
/ b b ,| ,| ,| ,|  ,| ,|  '  ,|   | ,|   |__|__|__|   |__|   |  |   |  |
                                ~'                            =========