Re: Which Leica? HELP !

[Carl Sander Socolow <csocolow@microserve.net>]

Clicio Barroso wrote:

> 18 Aug 97
>
> Hello, all
>
> I'm a newcomer to this list, so forgive me about the dumb questions.
> Even being a professional photographer for more than 20 years, this
> is the first time I have a real desire to own a Leica. I want it to
> be hanging around my neck *always*, so it must be light, quick and
> easy to grab. Of course a nice photometer system is welcome, and so
> are basic lenses (wide angle, 'normal" and a small tele lens). And
> I'm *not* talking about a reflex camera, of course.
> All responses will be welcome.
> 1-) which body?
> 2-) wich lenses?
> 3-) do I need any other accessories?
>
>

Danger! Danger! Danger! Will Robinson. You might want to reconsider;
quit while you're ahead.Anyway, my preferences are an M2 and an M3,
either both or one or the other. I use an MR4 meter in the accessory
shoe so that I don't have to have the camera at my eye to meter but can
do so discreetly from my chest position and setting the camera based on
the appropriately metered middle gray.
I use the M3 for my 50 and 90 mm lenses because the viewfinder is closer
to life size and the focusing is more critical with the longer lenses. I
use the M2 with my 35mm lens because the viewfinder incorporates the 35
frameline which the M3 does not. I prefer both these older bodies, which
I bought in great condition used, because the viewfinders are not
cluttered with gazillions of framelines and flashing LEDs. And they're
built like tanks.
As for lenses, again I've been very pleased with the used lenses I've
bought. a 90 tele-elmarit, a 50 mm summilux and a new style 35 mm
summicron: f 2.8, 1.4 and 2.0 respectively. If you really want to spend
a fortune consider buying new such as the 35 summilux aspheric or 35
summicron aspheric. And so on and so on. See, it never ends.

Carl