Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/06/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 12.31 1996-06-10 EDT, Gary Stahl wrote about Leica CL/CL-lenses. Gary, basically I agree with everything you say. BUT, my experience is that the CL is harder to focus in dim light than any M-camera. As a matter of fact, that was the reason why I traded my new CL for a M4 in 1974. Since then, I have examined many used CL:s in camera shops, and some of them have been almost impossible to focus. I have never found this trouble on any M camera, not even old M3:s from 1955. So, I suspect there is an important difference in construction here, aside from the shorter based rangefinder. >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. I will not argue aginst your findings, but here is what the 1989 Leica Catalogue said: Leica: General Catalogue for Photographic Dealers (1989), page 11-9: "...These lenses can be mounted on the Leica M, but do not provide precise copupling with the rangefinder. .....we do not recommend the use of Cl lences on Leica M cameras." What does "precise coupling with the rangefinder" mean, really? If Garys conclusion is correct, focusing an Elmar C 90/4,0 should be less demanding for the M-rangefinder than a Summicron 90/2,0, and yet, Leica do not recommend it?!?