Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2021/07/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Ah, so it is younger than me, and in much better shape. Thanks very much Jim. That is where I was hoping it would be. Non clinical, nice bokeh. Jeffery > On Jul 17, 2021, at 8:39 PM, Jim Nichols <jhnichols at lighttube.net> > wrote: > > Jeffery, > > Lenses made in 1951 range from 840001 to 950000. > > On 7/17/21 10:04 PM, Jeffery Smith via LUG wrote: >> I have about 7 LTM cameras, and like most of them. I'll check the serial >> number next time I'm in the house (I'm stationed in Mom'a garage). The >> lens I got is remarkably clean, no haze, no fungus, no "cleaning marks >> that don't affect the performance". It is absolutely single coated (if >> even that). It looks unused...the question is why nobody used it. We'll >> see. >> >> I'm pondering which film to use since I want to do at least E.I. 800 >> because the folks at the barbecue are in perpetual motion, and it will be >> under an awning that blocks much of the sun. >> >> >> Okay, my serial number is 874068. And it has an interesting feature than >> was not intentional...the metal body cap also functions as a lens cap. It >> screws into the body, but pushes onto the end of the lens. >> >> Thanks for the information Frank. I hope this is a keeper. >> >> Jeffery >> >>> On Jul 17, 2021, at 7:49 PM, Frank Filippone via LUG <lug at >>> leica-users.org> wrote: >>> >>> I have one that has a serial number below 100,000, which makes it about >>> as old as a Leica lens can be.... ( before 1931.. 90 years old) >>> >>> It is, when mounted with the appropriate adapter and used on an M9, >>> almost as sharp in the center as a 90 Elmarit ( the thin, Modern M one). >>> It is quite soft as you head towards the corners. The Elmarit is not. >>> >>> I tested it against the later reincarnations, a silver 60's model, and >>> did not find a significant difference. >>> >>> It is NOT the clinical look of the 90AA nor the 90 Summarit. >>> >>> I am going to test the 90's I have to find their strengths and >>> weaknesses. I will add it to my list of lenses. >>> >>> It will take a while to test, but I will state the results here.... >>> >>> BTW, I have a 90 ELmar-C which sold for about the same price as the LTM >>> model. It is quite good, but if you are looking to get the "special" >>> look, skip the C. >>> >>> LTM models and M models differ 10% in price..... and you do not need an >>> adapter if you are using it on an M camera. Why an LTM model? LTM >>> camera? >>> >>> If you decide on any older Leica lens, check it for haze... a common >>> remnant of outgassing of the lubricant originally used. Common problem >>> with lenses through the 70's. >>> >>> >>> Frank Filippone >>> BMWRed735i at Gmail.com >>> On 7/17/2021 12:37 PM, Jeffery Smith via LUG wrote: >>>> My Erwin Puts books are back home in Louisiana. Does anyone have >>>> experience or insight into this particular lens? I would like the >>>> vintage portrait look, and this model doesn't seem particularly >>>> coveted, at least not if price is an indicator. >>>> >>>> Jeffery >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Leica Users Group. >>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > -- > Jim Nichols > Tullahoma, TN USA > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information