Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/04/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>>>> To All on the Lug, >>>>=20 >>>> I recently had an opportunity to test a fairly old M3(59), a newer=20 >>>> M2(67), and a 1987 M6 for rangefinder accuracy with nine different = M=20 >>>> lenses. All bodies in ex++ to mint condition without any dents. Why = did=20 >>>> I do this? Lately, I've been noticing that certain lenses made a = better=20 >>>> print than others. Since I usually apply hyperfocal or zone focus, = I=20 >>>> just figured I was being too critical and used the next larger = stop. >>>> A test target that I used for focussing was marked off at 3, 6, 10, = 12,=20 >>>> and 15 feet. Distances mainly selected because of the markings on = the=20 >>>> lens barrels. The lenses ranged from 21/3.4 to 135/4. Since all = lenses=20 >>>> seemed to focus at infinity, I stopped at 15' (besides, my room = wasn't=20 >>>> big enough). >>>> I used the same Leitz tripod at eyelevel (same as the target = height) for=20 >>>> every camera/lens combination and also plumbed the film plane to = each=20 >>>> distance mark on the ground. >>>> To my surprise, only the M3 showed a consistent correlation between = the=20 >>>> measured and the noted lens barrel distance *for every lens*. Also = >>>> interesting was the fact that the lenses which made a nicer print=20 >>>> happened to be the ones that matched to a particular body (if = anyone=20 >>>> would like specific data, just ask).=20 >>>> Question: Since most of what I own was purchased used, does one = have to=20 have the rangefinder roller assembly and lens(es) slope>>>> rarara = checked out for every new >>>> addition? Thanks in advance for your = comments. >>>>=20 >>>> Jorge Fernandez >>>> US Embassy, Madrid >>>>=20