Topic: Advice on Voigtlaender Bessa R/R2

[nepumug]

I like to get myself a 35mm rangefinder Camera and I had an eye on the Bessa models for quite some time. There seem to be some users around here so maybe you can give me an advice.
Is there anyone using the Bessa R2 with a M bayonett to M39 screw mount adapter?

I know there are more effordable M39 lenses for me, but I like to have the option for a M bayonett.
Or is it maybe better to go with the Bessa R and its screw Mount only?

Thanks!

[SLVR]

Never played with any voigtlander RF's before. I was looking at getting an R2A as my first RF as well. I found that earlier Leica M's were almost similar in price. With the Voigtlanders being new or almost new and a lightmeter built in. Its a tough choice. I ended up going for an M2 and I'm not looking at the latter. The camera was CLA'd and was ready to go. Best thing is if I go to sell it later I'll likely get a good amount of money for it if not what I paid for it. Not sure about depreciation of voigtlanders.

Just something to think about. Leica isn't as far off as many may think.

[nepumug]

Thanks TinTin!

I forgot to mention I'm buying Second Hand/used (at a fair or Camera shop).
From what I have seen so far there is still a big difference in pricing.

[Francois]

From what I heard other members say, the voigtlanders feel more plasticky and are a bit noisier than the silent Leicas.

[jojonas~]

even if they're more plasticky than the all metal leicas, I've fondled Lund's voigtlander and I completely adore how good it feels in the hand! the viewfinder is great too~

sry, can't help with the M-M39 converter question

[Ezzie]

I had the RD-1 digi rangefinder, built on a Bessa. To be honest, there was nothing plasticky about it. Well built, in fact more so than many a camera of yore. However there may be two issues. Paint job is not the best, wears off on corners. But the body is a dull gunmetall grey, so it "brasses" quite nicely really. And the rangefinder (on RD-1's at least) could get knocked out of alignment. Though very easy to fix. Mine I tuned when I got it, and never again.

Nice camera, good heft, and very good viewfinder. Parallax corrected framelines. If I didn't already have a Leica M, I would be getting one, one with a large magnification finder for wide angles.

[nepumug]

Thanks everyone!

What I really like about the Camera is its viewfinder.
I had the Camera in my hands before to see how it feels for me.
So for me this is not about vs. Leica or how its build generally.
For me it's really just the Lens mount question.

[This-is-damion]

I have an R3a with the 50mm Nokton 1.4 (single coated) and the 21mm F4 

My feelings are mixed  - i always think other cameras give me sharper pictures (my eyes are a bit out though.. could do with either glasses or a diopter thing i guess....)    but if i look back through my flickr stream there is a lot of stuff I like.

I think for the price and getting what i wanted - reliable RF with different lenses it kind of hits the spot.  There is some very good glass available that is out of my price range so ive stuck with what i can afford and it works for me


 

[Late Developer]

They're great pieces of kit but they are built to a price. They don't feel or operate like a Leica or Zeiss Ikon but neither do they cost as much.

Choose the one that has the right bright lines for the lenses you intend to use as they vary quite a lot. Some are wide to standard, others are standard to tele.

The good news is that the film loading is less of a faff than Leica and, if you have any, they will take Leica lenses (or any with LTM / adapter or Leica bayonet.

[Francois]

I know the m39-Leica M adapters work. They're relatively simple things so no fuss there. You just have to select the correct one for your lens' focal length.

[SLVR]

There's a camera show coming up in september. I'll be on the hunt for a LTM to M adapter. My summar is near mint optically with the exception of the inside paint missing from flaking off. No cleaning marks to be seen! I would love to take it out on my M2. My IIIa's rangefinder needs to get replaced/resilvered. Its not nearly as bright as it should be.

[John]

Hi Nepumug,
A few weeks ago I bought a Silver Bessa R from a local shop. The camera is part plastic but it doesn't feel tacky. It doesn't feel any worse than a modern DSLR. It feels well made and the viewfinder is superb. The shutter isn't loud, but it's not Leica quiet. But even a Leica makes a noise, they are not silent. I wanted the screw mount version over the M mount as I have many screw mount lenses - the adapters are not cheap. I'd recommend a Bessa R, and honestly it's fine and a joy to use.

A word on the viewfinder. If your eyesight needs one, diopters can be purchased for the Bessas as they use they same eyepiece as modern Nikons.

The Soviet lenses I have all focus correctly, but the Jupiter 12 doesn't fit.

[nepumug]

Thanks again to all!

Francois: do you mean the M39 to Leica M or the Leica M to M39 mount adapter?

John: Thanks for sharing your experience. Your impression about the camera confirms mine.
I noticed the prices for those adapters vary widely. Right now I'm thinking there might be no difference
if I go for the Bessa R, as there is a M39 to Leica M adapter too (if I understood correctly what I was reading on the web).

[Francois]

I'm talking M39 lens on Leica M camera.

[SLVR]

looked at an adapter at a local store today. $89!? 

[Aksel]

looked at an adapter at a local store today. $89!? 

On ebay you can have them for $10 and all the ones I have used works perfectley.
 
I have had and sold R, T, R2a/R3a/R4a - if I where to chose again I'd go for the R2m, nice 35mm frames, M-mount and manual shutter. The older L39 versions limits the lens choises and feels less solid in hand, though it all boils down to budget. Make sure the rubber on the shutter curtains (bad explanatin,sorry) are working as they should, a cuple of mine failed and did not fold correctley leading to light leaks.

[John]

Right now I'm thinking there might be no difference
if I go for the Bessa R, as there is a M39 to Leica M adapter too (if I understood correctly what I was reading on the web).

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I understand the M39 to be the SLR mount used by the Soviets on the first Zenits. It shares the same thread, but that's where the similarity ends. The L39 is the Leica Screw Mount. An M39 may adapt to a M mount but won't couple to the rangefinder as it is an SLR lens. An M mount lens cannot adapt to a L39 screw mount body. I have enough screw mount lenses both Voigtlander and Soviet not to worry about loosing M mount capability. M mount lenses can be very expensive in comparison with older screw mounts, plus I like old lenses so a Bessa R was my choice.

I hope that helps in your decision making. I've done tests of Soviet 50mm L39 lenses, if you want I can let you know my experiences if you are tempted to buy one.

[Ezzie]

L39, LSM, LTM. All names for the Leica 39mm screw mount. Have also seen it been designated as M39. Which is as John says a bit confusing. Whatever, when getting an m-adapter - make sure it is the correct type. They are focal length particular. There is a tab on the adapter to bring up the correct frame lines (at least when used on a Leica)

[Late Developer]

L39, LSM, LTM. All names for the Leica 39mm screw mount. Have also seen it been designated as M39. Which is as John says a bit confusing. Whatever, when getting an m-adapter - make sure it is the correct type. They are focal length particular. There is a tab on the adapter to bring up the correct frame lines (at least when used on a Leica)

Spot-on, Ezzie.

I had one on a Canon 35mm / f2.8 and another on a Leica 90mm / f4 to go with my 28mm Elmarit-M and 50mm Summicron-M. Great set of lenses and I really enjoyed the M6TTL when I had it. However, 35mm = SLR for me, these days.

[Francois]

M39 never was an SLR lens (unlike M42).

Also, from what I read, the soviet lenses won't be as sharp as the Leitz lenses not because the glass is inferior but because the registration distance is slightly different. To get them to focus properly, you have to get them "re-flanged".

[02Pilot]

Actually there were M39 SLR lenses; the early Zenits used them.

The lens registration issue is real, but it is not much of a factor in practical terms when using normal and wide lenses; wide open and close up you might encounter a slight discrepancy with a fast 50, but that's about it. Any of the tele lenses will be more problematic, as shallower depth-of-field makes focusing more critical. Shimming Soviet lenses is pretty well-documented and can be done relatively easily.

M39 never was an SLR lens (unlike M42).

Also, from what I read, the soviet lenses won't be as sharp as the Leitz lenses not because the glass is inferior but because the registration distance is slightly different. To get them to focus properly, you have to get them "re-flanged".

[John]

M39 never was an SLR lens (unlike M42).

Also, from what I read, the soviet lenses won't be as sharp as the Leitz lenses not because the glass is inferior but because the registration distance is slightly different. To get them to focus properly, you have to get them "re-flanged".

Early Zenit SLRs did use the M39 mount. Here :-

http://fedka.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=625&osCsid=2832e1266c79bcb75032c15cc1d2a00b

So do most enlarger lenses. This causes massive confusion, and unless you know what you are buying you could end up with a lens that is perfectly decent but utterly useless on the wrong camera body.

As regards Soviet lenses, from my experience :-

I own 4 Soviet 50mm rangefinder lenses and tested them at 1 metre and infinity. For 1 metre, this is easy enough to do, set the camera on a tripod at set it 1 metre from the focal plane to a wall. Focus and find out how far out the reading on the lens may be. I also followed this up with real world tests. I've found my Industar 22 (Elmar f3.5 type) is bang on. The others, the Jupiter 8, Industar 26 and 61 are very very slightly out. The Industars are f2.8 so really will not make much difference. The Jupiter 8 being an f2 could be a problem, and the Jupiter 3 (which I don't own) at f1.5 will probably be a problem.

I've been lucky with Soviet lenses as they've all been good, but the quality control was known to be non existent. The best all round lens is the Industar 61. The best made and my personal favourite is the Industar 22. I use old Pentax and Nikon lenses and the Soviet glass isn't quite up to that standard but they are no slouches. They all will give perfectly decent quality images and if you do get a good one they are a bargain.

[Nigel]

On ebay you can have them for $10 and all the ones I have used works perfectley.

Askel - would you remember what brand they are? I've always been meaning to give the M39-M mount adapters ago, but because of the, much heralded registration differences on the Soviet lenses I don't want to pay out £50 for an adapter if the lenses are no good. I've got both a Jupiter 8 and an Industar 61 lenses.

Regarding the Voigtlander R bodies I think they're really underrated (possibly by Leica owners  ), I had an R3a. My only gripe was with the viewfinder, because it's 1:1 I couldn't see the 40mm framelines clearly. But otherwise I was very happy with it. I'd certainly buy the R2 - i think that has the 0.72 magnification viewer.

[nepumug]

The lens issue really is confusing. When I was talking about M39 i meant the older Leica screw mount which was replaced by the Leica M bayonett mount.
I'm still not sure about the adapter question: Am I right there is a M39 screw mount  to Leica M bayonett adapter as well as a Leica M bayonett to M39 screw mount?
 

What irritates me is that the soviet lenes might be off focus? Why is that? Is this related to using an adapter?

[Nigel]

The lens issue really is confusing. When I was talking about M39 i meant the older Leica screw mount which was replaced by the Leica M bayonett mount.
I'm still not sure about the adapter question: Am I right there is a M39 screw mount  to Leica M bayonett adapter as well as a Leica M bayonett to M39 screw mount?
 
What irritates me is that the soviet lenes might be off focus? Why is that? Is this related to using an adapter?

You can get an adaptor (the best are generally considered to be manufactured by Voigtlander) to use M39 lenses in M mount bodies, not the other way around.

http://www.cameraquest.com/adaptltm.htm

With regard to the focus, apparently the difference between the Soviet lenses and Leica is the difference between the rear face of the lens and the focus cam (I'm making these terms up so may not be technically accurate.) There's a really good article online I read about this but I can't find it now. From memory the difference is fractions of a mm but sufficient to throw the focus off.

[nepumug]

You can get an adaptor (the best are generally considered to be manufactured by Voigtlander) to use M39 lenses in M mount bodies, not the other way around.

http://www.cameraquest.com/adaptltm.htm

Thanks for the link!

[02Pilot]

Here's the best article I've found on the Leica Thread Mount/Soviet copy lens issue: http://www.dantestella.com/technical/compat.html

[Aksel]

On ebay you can have them for $10 and all the ones I have used works perfectley.

Askel - would you remember what brand they are? I've always been meaning to give the M39-M mount adapters ago, but because of the, much heralded registration differences on the Soviet lenses I don't want to pay out £50 for an adapter if the lenses are no good. I've got both a Jupiter 8 and an Industar 61 lenses.

Only got one non Leica or Voigt at the moment, using it on my J12 - it`s spot on on the M4.
No name, only tells the frame lines. Had a look at my ebay account but they only let me see my recent buying history. I have generally just bought the cheapest ones from sellers with feed back of above 99.5%. Never had any trouble on film. A friend had problems with my J-3 on his M9, but it was fine on my M4. So sorry, no help to be had from me 

[nepumug]

Have not bought a camera by now. Went to a camera fair, but there where none of the Bessas.
Had a look at an M2 and M4, but the viewfinder is not as good as on the Bessa in my opinion.
The M2s really are not that expensive I discovered, but sold for more than what they are worth most of the time.

 

[Francois]

Don't forget that the Bessa has a big finder that's at least 50 years more recent than the M2...

[SLVR]

But the M2 doubles as a bludgeoning device. Nothing wrong with the M2's finder. Other than the smaller viewing aperture thing. Which can be replaced with an M4 version.

[nepumug]

One more question for the Bessa users:
Which M39/LTM lenses should I avoid?
I read somewhere, that some of the russian lenses won't
fit the Bessa, because the rear element touches the focal plane shutter.

And one more: Any experiences in using a 85mm lens with the Bessas 90mm frame?

Thanks!

[Urban Hafner]

The only lens you have to be careful about as far as I know is the Jupiter-12. Best case it will just block the meter. And worst case it will touch the shutter.

But all russian lenses have the problem that they are based on Zeiss design (and not Leica) and therefore have slightly different focal length. So using them on Leicas (or rather all non-russian rangefinders) will mean that they are not focusing completely right. That's not a problem with standard or wide-angle lenses (though some say it's a problem already with the Jupiter-8 wide open and close-up), but the longer the focal length gets the more of a problem it will be. I haven't tried the Jupiter-9 myself so I can't say how bad that is, but it's something you should research.

[LT]

I've owned and used CV Bessa L, T, R2, and R3A. I barely used and sold all of them within 2 years of buying. Make of that what you will.

[SLVR]

^welcome back leon

[nepumug]

Thanks Urban for these hints!
Did some research meanwhile and read the Dante Stella articel a second time.
Now I got myself a nice Bessa R body and
found a (freshly) CLA'd Jupiter 3, both very much within my budget 
Looking forward to shoot with it.

[Urban Hafner]

Congratulations! Still looking for one myself for a good price. May I ask how much you paid for the body?

[moominsean]

I had a Bessa R4A, sold it last year because I hardly ever use it. Looking back at the photos from it, though, I think it was the best 35mm camera I've ever had! Preferred it over the Leica. I had a voigtlander 21mm lens (and borrowed skorj's 21mm lens at one point).

I just hardly ever shoot 35mm...

[John]

Thanks Urban for these hints!
Did some research meanwhile and read the Dante Stella articel a second time.
Now I got myself a nice Bessa R body and
found a (freshly) CLA'd Jupiter 3, both very much within my budget 
Looking forward to shoot with it.

You must be pleased with your purchase. Wishing you many happy hours shooting with it. I'm looking forward to seeing some of the results.

[nepumug]

First rolls are developed so I want to share some "snaps".
I am very pleased with my results, though I want to do a lot more
portraits with this lens. The out of focus areas are so beautiful in my
eyes.

[Nigel]

Great work, it's all looking very sharp so far. I still haven't got the adaptor for my Jupiter 8, I must give that a go.