Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/05/29

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

Subject: [Leica] Re: 90 mm lenses and flar and the CL
From: douglas.sharp at gmx.de (Douglas Sharp)
Date: Sun May 29 10:58:45 2005
References: <ce.6978187c.2fcb5ab0@aol.com>

The rear (camera side) of the barrel on my M-Rokkor 90 is different too, 
a fat ridged ring. I had read this somewhere before that the lenses were
the same construction, thanks for the confirmation.
Douglas

Summicron1@aol.com wrote:

> the minolta CLE and CL versions perform similarly?
> 
> this is nor surprising because they are one and the same -- made in 
> Deutschland by E. Leitz, both of them, the CLE version was just rebranded, 
> different 
> front ring meant lower price, too -- check the rear cam constrctions.
> 
> ctrentelman
> In a message dated 5/29/05 10:56:52 AM, lug-request@leica-users.org writes:
> 
> 
> 
>>The Elmar-C 4/90mm for the CL is nice and light, a good performer but f4
>>is not exactly fast, I've compared this lens with it's Minolta
>>counterpart for the CLE and there's no recognisable difference(to me).
>>These 2 are apparently not supposed to focus as accurately as pure "M"
>>lenses when attached to a Leica M camera.
>>cheers
>>Douglas
>>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> 
> 

In reply to: Message from Summicron1 at aol.com (Summicron1@aol.com) ([Leica] Re: 90 mm lenses and flar and the CL)