Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/02/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Mon, 24 Feb 1997, Steven Blutter wrote: > Lucien wrote: > > > > Steven Blutter wrote: > > > > <Would love to use it on my > > <M'3's as the 40 should just about cover the entire VF (outside the 50mm > > <bright lines). > > > > That's smart. What a good idea. > > > > I don't think there is a problem, because it's a 40 mm (almost a wide-angle) > > Even better, I 'm using the 90 mm elmar made for the CL on my M6 and I've make > > some of my best portraits with that lens at f4 > > > > Lucien > > > > What is funny is that on the 40 mm 2,8 (400 ex., don't try to find one!) the cam > > is like the cam of the regular M lenses.(the same for the lenses made for the > > Minolta CLE, if I remember well)Thanks your thoughts, > re: 90's, just had my collaps. f:4 cleaned and fell in love all over. > As for the 40, I guess its to the darkroom we go!! Will post results > (non-scientific) rgrds > The 40 also works on the M2 or M4, etc. with the 35mm frame showing just slightly more than you get. However, wearing glasses works fine as I cannot see the frame lines anyway, without pushing my eye very close. We find the technique that works and then we use it. Result should be photographs which are an extension of our vision, not the camera's. Ed Meyers