Re: [Leica] M-Rokkor story

[Stephen Gandy <Stephen@CameraQuest.com>]

I've re-read the CL tests by Modern and Popular Photography,  neither of them
mention multi coating.  Even though Theo Kisselbach's book "Leica CL" is quite
definite about the CL lenses being "coated," there is no hint of better coating or
coating improvements, nor is there any mention of multi coating.  If Kisselback
doesn't know the CL lenses are multi-coated, its very difficult to believe they are,
regardless of any claims to the contrary.

Stephen Gandy

Stephen Gandy wrote:

> Well Erwin,
>
> I wonder where you got your information.
>
> I have never seen any any official Leica publication saying the original CL
> 40/2's were multicoated.  If you have, what is the source ?
>
> I have a letter from Minolta  confirming that the CLE lenses were multicoated.
> In testing the Minolta CLE,  Modern Photography also said the Minolta lenses
> were multi-coated, while commenting that the earlier 40/2 lenses "appear not to
> be."
>
> A close look at the CLE brochure shows a similar optical design to the original
> CL lenses, but the elements do not appear to be identical. Though similar, the
> shape of the 3rd element is different than the published cross section in the CL
> brochure.
>
> I readily admit I am not an optical expert, but then I regard no one as an
> optical expert who has not worked as a lens designer and/or has a degree or long
> apprenticeship in optical design with a major lens maker.
>
> Stephen Gandy
>
> Erwin Puts wrote:
>
> > The info on the Cameraquest site is not fully correct.
> > The Summicron-C and the Rokkor-C were both multicoated and so there is no
> > difference with the CLE-version. There is no improved optical formula. and I
> > wonder where Cameraquest got the facts for this assertion. Even if some
> > minor changes had been made, it is doubtful if this would have any influence
> > on performance.
> > The Rokkor-C has been made in Japan.
> >
> > Erwin