Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/05/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The difference is 29.1 minus 25.4 or a whopping 3.7mm. Around 1/7 of an inch. 140 thousandths. A tad over a tenth of an inch. Given the different optical and therefore barrel design, it is curious you question this at all......It is whatever it is. On the subject of cost and M mount, it is about time that Mr. Kobiyashi ( sp?) got over the LTM and moved forward to 1954 and the M mount. Screw the cost difference, he will sell to the same folks that bought the LTM versions.....now the ridiculous ( extra cost) adapter will be gone. ( yes, I know, all those theories about the installed base of LTM customers and how they can not use the M mount lens , but the M folk can use the LTM version with the adapter... I always thought it was ludicrous, and said so....) We are making progress...... and for us film users ( those with old habits that just seem not to go away) it is a brighter world every day we see these "new" product announcements...... Frank Filippone red735i@earthlink.net The M-mount P version shows a total length of 25.4mm compared to the spec'd length for the LTM version of 29.1. Perhaps the LTM version was measured with the shade in place? It doesn't seem logical that the M-mount version would be _shorter_. (?)