Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/04/24

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Weight of Chrome v. Black Lenses
From: Steve Beyer <steve@beyerphoto.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 22:53:31 -0400

Hi John,
    You really need to play with each at the same time.  The optical formula
is the same but I think you will find the chrome lenses focus even more
smoothly than the already lustful black Leica lenses.  The weight difference
comes from the difference in the material used to Leica the lens barrels.
The extra weight on the Chrome lenses comes from the fact that they are made
out of chrome plated brass.  Other than the feel the lenses are exactly the
same.  As far as your choice for the all around walking lens, I would make
the choice myself since this combo makes a super small powerful package to
tote around.  The other option could be the 50 2.0.  I like this lens....
its not much bigger and it has a built in lens shade which is very handy.
Then again... I think I hear the Tri-Elmar calling my name. :-)


Steve

> From: John Coan <jcoan@alumni.duke.edu>
> Reply-To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 22:01:44 -0400
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: [Leica] Weight of Chrome v. Black Lenses
> 
> 
> I am a new list member and have a pretty stupid question -- Can someone help?
> 
> I'm looking at the Leica web site regarding Summicron-M 35/2 asph  lenses.
> The
> chrome model weighs a hundred grams more than the black one.  I thought this
> might
> be a fluke, but on the other focal lengths the same trend occurs.
> 
> I have a used M6 on order and need a lens... the camera body is a chrome one
> with
> black rewind, shutter speed, and wind lever -- so it's "two-tone" already.  I
> can
> use either color and not be tacky.  So, I would prefer the lighter weight.
> But....
> why would a chrome lens add so much weight anyway?  Intellectual curiosity I
> suppose.
> 
> Any comments regarding my choice of the 35/2.0 for a first all around "walking
> around" lens?
> 
>