Just did an interesting test: shot half a roll of some test material with the R2A with the bessa 40 mm f1.4 (at f1.4) 2 - and then rewound the film, stuck it in Matt's m6 with the Leica 35 f1.4 , did ten more shots of the same test material, then put the bessa 40mm on the Leica and shot the same stuff with it. All one roll. Same processing. Tmax 400 / tmax developer.
The subjective feel of the two cameras is different. Of course Matt had a winder and a hand grip; but besides that the focusing knob was a bit bigger, and the lens was smoother to focus (though that might just be because the 40mm is new and still stiff); but it also seemed like it was a touch easier to focus with the M6 - though I'm not exactly sure why.
But with the right accesories - I'm sure that I would be very happy with the R2A (though as Markus notes, I should look at the R3A as well). It's mostly the lens quality I'm interested in comparing right now.
****
Honestly - as Matt suspected, I couldn't really see a difference in resolving power between the Leica and the Voigtlander lens - wide open. In fact, the biggest difference in real life is probably how good your focus is when shooting wide open. There were some shots from the Leica lens that looked tack sharp, and some from the Bessa that looked right on. When either was focused properly - there is no difference.
I did two prints, one with each lens of the same subject from the same place. Both lenses go beyond what the grain of the film can manage. The Leica lens print was more contrasty - but that's about it.
So it's a keeper.
