Well, except for macro and maybe long exposure stuff. I was curious if you guys could point me in the right direction. I'm open to any and all advise on this.

I'm thinking about getting a used M8 and 28-35-50 or 16-18-21 as my everyday travel camera and an M3 for film. It just seems like the perfect city camera, small and fewer eyes looking at be while I make the shot. I think if I'm patient I could end up doing that for maybe less than 8k.

The M8 isn't too great at high ISOs, so I'd avoid the slow Tri-Elmars and just get a good 28/2 or 35mm. A 28/50 combination would serve you well with and without the 1.3x crop. The M3 doesn't have framelines wider than 50mm, so you might want to go with an M6 or even a Zeiss Ikon or Bessa (if you want aperture-priority AE without the M7 prices).

If I had 8k to spend:
Used M8 (3k)
Used Zeiss Ikon (<1k)
35/2 ASPH (1.5k?)
50/1.4 (2k?)
Voigtlander 28/2 (~$500)

I currently don't feel I can afford an M8, but when I can I have a 28mm Elmarit pre-asph and a 50mm Summicron, so I agree with the above 28/50 combo.

Its possible to get by with the 35mm Summicron Asph as the only lens if one really wanted to shot M8. Put the rest of the money in the bank.

Interesting, I know I'd never go past 640 with the setup but that's good to know. Just stick with the primes.

My favorite lens on the M8 is/was the 35lux. It was wonderful to use wide-open to eliminate any concerns about high ISO noise. It worked well for me because I like a thinner DOF and the crop made it comparable to a 50mm lens on a full-frame camera.

35/1.2 Voigtlander. That's all that needs to be said.

I think it's a great idea. It's an excellent camera and with firmware 2.00, it's a good time to jump in. 28, 35, 50 is a nice combo. 24/35 or 28/50 are also nice.

Also don't listen to the trash stating it can't make a decent high iso image. They don't know how to expose a photo and have likely never seen the high iso print.

ISO1600 wrote:
35/1.2 Voigtlander. That's all that needs to be said.

I used to have this one for my Epson, and although I liked it, it was a huge piece of metal and glass for this kind of small street shooter set up. If I was getting any lens for a new RF now, it would be the new V 35 1.4. Tiny, large ap, supposedly quite nice. Cheap as well (comparatively).

that 35 looks simply huge to me. I think when I get back from Colombia and get the 5dII I'll put my 1dIII and most of my canon glass up for sale or trade for a nice m8 setup.

the 35/1.4 Cosina is great also, but it's not the epically awesome 1.2

Great camera, I'm using Summicron-C 40mm and very happy with this combo, I modified it to bring 35 frame and added ir/cut filter to the original hood, actually, that's all I need.

The bokeh on the CV 35/1.4 is quite ugly... nothing very nice to say about it... except for the price and I suppose sharpness.

I struggled when picking a lens for my M6, but settled on the Leica 35/2.5 Summarit, got it for a song & dance new (1599 AUD) and haven't looked back. 1 & 2/3 stops is nothing to sneeze at though so if low light is on your agenda maybe the compromise in bokeh is worth the savings and low light capability.

I take the M6 with me during the day when I'm just walking around or hanging out with friends, doesn't need uber low light performance. If I'm going for a serious street shoot or to shoot a band I'll take my DSLR for high iso large aperture shooting.

I currently own an M8.2 and a couple of Leica Summicron lenses. The images, to my eye, are no better than those generated by my Leica D LUX4 which is also 10mp. The M is a well built camera, but operation is anything but quick, manual focus via a little tiny rangefinder is not quick, and you'll need an additional UV/IR filter since the Leica sensor does not have an IR filter incorporated. My little Nikon D90 shoots circles around the M8.2 in every respect, I'd advise careful consideration before spending money on a Leica M8, the D-LUX4 has more features, operates faster and would save you many thousands of dollars.
My two cents...

bdickers wrote:
I currently own an M8.2 and a couple of Leica Summicron lenses. The images, to my eye, are no better than those generated by my Leica D LUX4 which is also 10mp. The M is a well built camera, but operation is anything but quick, manual focus via a little tiny rangefinder is not quick, and you'll need an additional UV/IR filter since the Leica sensor does not have an IR filter incorporated. My little Nikon D90 shoots circles around the M8.2 in every respect, I'd advise careful consideration before spending money on a Leica M8, the D-LUX4 has more features, operates faster and would save you many thousands of dollars.
My two cents...

With all due respect, I would suggest that tha tis through a lack of practise. The M8 is tricky to master because it is not fully automated but it is a rangefinder. I have a 5D, 5D Mk2 and M8 and used the M8 and 5D Mk2 for the last 3 weeks in Mexico. I still prefer the M8. The files out of it are beautiful.

With regards to low light, high iso's etc, don't forget that you can buy yourself an extra 2 stops or so as you can hand hold down to 1/15 or even 1/8 second. No idea why but ti works for me. Also, take a look at some fo the Voigtlander lenses as dirt cheap but highly regarded lenses.

I would suggest checking out Reid Reviews, the best 35 bucks you'll spend to join and Sean is a regular and knowledgeable contributor to the Leica M8 forum http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/

The 35/1.2 is big and heavy, the Summicron 28/2 is beautiful but expensive. With $8k to spend total, I would still be tempted to buy the 28/2 and then a couple of CV lenses such as their 12/5.6 for panoramic shots, 25/4 but it is a bit close and the Summicron 40/2 is just a great focal length as well. The CV 75 is a beuatiful lens as well. As you can tell, I've never had much use for 50mm on the M8.

Also, take a look at Cameraquest for a full rundown of all the CV lenses that Stephen Gandy sells. He is a very knowledgeable salesman.

Lack of practice...perhaps, I've only been shooting for 30 years or so. In my humble opinion, the M8 is little more than a very well built over-priced homage to the past; fun to play with for a bit, but I wouldn't want try to earn a living with one. I imagine I could still buy a car that starts with a crank to haul the M8 around in... but why?

ISO1600 wrote:
the 35/1.4 Cosina is great also, but it's not the epically awesome 1.2


I used to have the 35 1.2 on my Epson R-D1 and itwas just too big. Pretty much like an SLR prime. I would go with the new VL 35 1.4 if I was to get another rangefinder.

bdickers wrote:
I currently own an M8.2 and a couple of Leica Summicron lenses. The images, to my eye, are no better than those generated by my Leica D LUX4 which is also 10mp.

Use RAW files, not jpg.

Oh, how I lust after a digital M6 with beautiful files and decent low-light performance. I'm afraid I can't cough up for the M8 for what I'd get. Maybe on the next release (and no crop!).

justruss wrote:
Oh, how I lust after a digital M6 with beautiful files and decent low-light performance. I'm afraid I can't cough up for the M8 for what I'd get. Maybe on the next release (and no crop!).

+1 M8 is still too pricey for me. Guess I'll be shooting film with my M2 for awhile.

The little Color-Skopar 35/2.5 should work for street photography and is supposed to be very pleasing all the way around... cheap too. (I really like my 50 on film).

The 35mm focal length on the M8 works out to about a 45mm EFOV, which just doesn't "feel" right to me (too wide for a 50 equivalent). The 28, on the other hand, makes a near perfect 35mm replacement.

Before you purchase any wide angle lens not made by Leica, *make sure* to do your research regarding the M8's IR filter / lens coding requirements. The only way to obtain proper color balance from an M8 is to use a filter, and the non-linear cyan cast caused by the filter needs to be corrected. If your lens mount is coded to match a specific Leica lens, then the in-camera corrections can be applied with (usually) decent results. There are software solutions but I find it too tedious to try to do this in post.

If you can afford it, Leica lenses are the easiest to use and will give the most neutral color balance when filtered and corrected in-camera.

The 28-35-50 is discontinued and nearly impossible to find at a decent price, so I'd also suggest primes, and Voigtlander or possibly Zeiss if cost is an issue.

A lot of people justify Leica based on the optics and pay astronomical prices for Leica lenses, but using a rangefinder camera (as opposed to an SLR) is a huge change in working style, and I would definitely suggest starting with less expensive glass to see if this way of shooting fits you or not.

Here is a good article that may be of interest: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/why-40mm.html

the M8(.2 also) is not a small or light camera, so all you guys whining about the 35/1.2 need to shut up.

If you want a sneaky rangefinder camera, the M8 is not it haha. Besides, what is the point in sneaking around in the bright light needed for the crappy sensor in that heap of junk, anyways?

Grab an Ikon, M6, or M7, and a bunch of Neopan.

One can be subjected to a lot of abuse for telling the truth about the M8. I trust that those who don't rate the M8 are as entitled to express their opinions and offer advice to a fellow FM'er:

I agree with bdickers: a Nikon D90 is a far better choice.

If you want to use Leica glass, a Canon 450D is a far better image maker. Stick a Leica R 28 f2.8 on it if you like that flat dreamy look, or a Zeiss 21 if you like 3D. Needless to say, a 450D gets spectacular results with a huge range of lenses including most Leica R, Contax, Zeiss ZF/ZE, Nikkors, and the not to be sniffed at gems from Canon such as the 24 f1.4 mk2, 50 f1.2, and 70-200 f4 IS. It even does a great job with a cheap Canon 24 f2.8. Don't be fooled, above 640 iso, M8 performance looks horrible compared to more up-to-date cameras. The M8's sensor is old, and you can use an SLR almost entirely like you use a rangefinder, whereas the reverse isn't true. Pretty much any current Nikon or Canon will give better pictures, with far less hassle, for a fraction of the money.