Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/12/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The CLE has a slightly longer rangefinder base than the CL and is therefore theoretically more accurate. Also, CLE has an Automatic exposure feature that the CL does not have and the CLE also has provision for TTL flash metering. Almost all the M lens fit except tyhe 35mm Summicron and Summilux (dont know about other 35mms) Some older 28mm will not meter correctly and the 21mm will not meter at all because the rear the sensing cell embeded into the bottem of the CLE cannot read the curtain because the rear element of the lens is in the way. Also the older 90mm f.2. Summicron is so fat that the viewing screen is blocked. The 135mm f.4 and f.4.5 lens fit and can focus (sort of) but I've never been comfortable about its accuracy with such a lond focal lenght. I have never tried any lens with bug-eyes so I do not know how they would work. I have not used the Rokkor lens so I really cannot comment on them. I sus[ect they are pretty good. I did compare the 28mm Rokkor with a 28 mm Elmarit (second generation) and felt that the Leica lens had greater contrast (or if you prefer, less flat). The CLE is such a neat package that I frequently take it on trips rather than the M6. I recognize that the G1 is a more recent camera and has superb optics but my experience with it was rather dicey particurlarly in close-focusing situations. This is a left hand way of saying that the CLE, for me, is the better platform than the G1. The CLE is the camer Leitz should have made. Just one man's opinion but I hope this helps. Ed> > > >