No Subject

[stahl@erim.org (Gary Stahl)]

Subject: Re: Leica 90mm for CL

>Hans Pahlen wrote:

>Many Cl cameras have a bad contrast (deteriorates with age) in the measuring
>field of the rangefinder, and are difficult to focus. Hope yours is OK...

This sounds like one of those dubious tales floated by those who have
never been able to accept the lowly CL as being a "real Leica".  The CL was
built by Minolta for Leitz to Leitz specification and with Leitz supervision.
The viewfinder and rangefiner use the same technology as the M-4.  I don't 
quetion that some may loose contrast, but I doubt that a CL is any more likely
to do so than an M-4 or M-5 on the same period.

>I can't supply you with a 90, but from my experience with the CL, I think
>you'll find the German made Tele-Elmarit-M superior to the Canadian made
>Elmar-C, which was made for the CL.

The 90mm Tele-Elmar-C was German made, as was the 90mm Rokkor-M. (the only
Leitz made lens ever sold under another manufacter's name).  These lenses are
identical except for the lens hood and caps. Have you actually owned or seen
one marked 'Canada 

> The Tele-Elmarit was sharper, and had a much better "feel".  
>The Elmar-C somehow managed to lack the silky smoothness we all associate 
>with Leica lenses.

My 90mm Rokkor-M "feels" much like my 50mm Summicron.

>My first Leica was a Cl, bought in 1974. I used a Tele-Elmarit M on it, but
>I never got a sharp picture with this lens, until I used it on a M4!
>Why? Rangefinder couplings are different on M and Cl lenses. The books say:
A) M-lenses focus OK on the Cl-body B)Cl-lenses dont focus correct on M-bodies.

I have read this also but I think that the 'books' use the work 'correct'
when what they really mean is "precise".  The lenses designed for the CL
have steeper focussing cams and shorter heliod movements than other M-lenses.
This, combined with the shorter based rangefinder and lower magnification
viewfinder make the CL inherently "less precise" than the M series cameras.

The 40mm f2 and 90mm f4 are designed to operate within the limitations of 
the CL's rangefinder/viewfinder.  They will work on the M-series, and will
focus accurately, but cannot make use of the added precision afforded by 
longer baseline and greater magification of the M cameras. 

>But according to my own experiences, the above A) is not 100% true!

This has been my experience also.  I even tested a 50mm Summicron 90mm and 
40 mm Rokkor on both my CL and M4-2.  Focussed on objects at known distances
(from 28 inches to 20 feet) and compared the distance on the lens scales.
I marked the scale with tape and a fine point pencil and made multiple 
measurements at each distance. As you might expect the CL and M-4 focussed
all three lenses to the SAME distances.  Both cameras focussed the 40 and 90
mm lenses with roughly the same degree of precision (marks on the scale had 
roughly the same spread with both cameras).  The M-4 was able to focus the
Summicon more precisely than the CL could. Beyond 10 feet, variance with the
M-4 was less than the thickness of my pencil mark. 

Basically I concluded that my M-4 came focus my CL lenses as accuratey as the
CL can and that the CL can focuss them as accurately as it needs to, given 
their focal length and aperture.

The problem with using faster 90mm lenses on the CL is analogous to that
of using the 135mm f2.8 on the M series (other than M-3). The viewfinder
lacks sufficient magnification which is why Leitz supplies the lens with
"eyes".

>therefore my advice to Mark McCormick is:Buy the 90/4 Elmar C!

I concur !  I know it sounds like I have been disagreeing with Herr Pahlen
but the 90mm Elmar-C is clearly the best match to the CL given the limitations
of the rangefiner/viewfinder, (not to mention price).