Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/12/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hello, sorry for putting the wrong reference line. As you can see above, I have now learned my lesson. One of my currently favourite toys is a Leicaflex SL with 1,4/80, complementing a M2 with the 1,4/35 (non aspherical). I thing it is a commonly shared opinion that a Leica M2, M4 or M6 is best with a 35mm lens. Shorter lenses require accessory finders, longer; fast lenses are bulkier and difficult to focus. From the 35mm lenses the pre-aspherical 1,4/35 is my all-time favourite. For the kind of pictures I am doing, handheld and with fast film, its optical performance is ok and I highly appreciate its compact size, even with the hood attached. However, under some conditions there are flare and reflection when used at full aperture. Stopped down and under bright daylight, there is no problem at all. With negative film, I am confident to guestimate the exposure setting and therefore I do not regret the lack of a TTL meter with my M2. In case of doubt, I still have my SL to work as a spot meter for confirmation. Its meter is not very sensitive, with 400ASA it will show nothing slower than 1/30" and 1/1,4. However, I am good in estimating in dim light but not so good in estimating for cloudy daylight or for shadows in bright daylight. Generally I like the convenience of a second body for the tele lens. I preferred the SL over the SL2, any R or a second M because it was cheap, all mechanical and with its bigger body feels better with the heavy lenses. With exception of the more sensitive meter, the other improvements of the SL2 over the SL do not matter much to me. I even like that the focussing screen has no split image indicator. But the main argument to go for the SL was its low price (DM 400, with a little dent on the side) in comparison to the rather overpriced SL2s I have yet seen (usually not less than DM 1100 in the same condition, up to DM 2000 in "almost new" condition). On various occasions I of course played with all other R bodies in the shop, but I generally did not like the idea to shell in between DM 600 (R3) and DM 2000 (R7) for a used camera body that is, basically, a moderately improved Minolta. With the exception of the lens mount that give access to that beautiful Leica glass (and Leica helicals!!!), Leica R bodies are nothing special in comparison to their Japanese competitors. I would indeed agree with previous proposals on the list that Leica should find a Japanese subcontractor to design and make them, as Leica is doing it with their cheaper zoom lenses. Of course Leica M bodies are still unique, different and justify the substantial price differential. For use with the SL I was lucky to find an early, very reasonably priced 1,4/80 with three cams (Cataloque No. 11880). On the later versions (No. 11881, introduced in 1984), the SL/SL2 cam was omitted and, according to my handbook, cannot be refitted. This focal length is one of the most useful for SLRs and perfect to complement the M2 with the 1,4/35. The fast 1/1,4 is not only good for dim light, but provides a bright finder and easy focussing under any light condition. You can use the whole groundglass area (and not only the rangefinder window or the split image indicator) for focussing which is very convenient for doing portraits. As a combo, the M2/1,4/35 and the SL/1,4/80 offer the best out of the rangefinder and SLR world. Hans-Peter