CLE Observations

["Kent Smith" <unipac@teleport.com>]

Hi,

I recently picked up a CLE with the 40mm f/2 Rokkor-M and have some
questions and comments.

Does anyone have any feedback on the 40mm lens as to its performance?  How
does it compare to the 35mm f/2 Summicron (1976 - Second Version)?  Is it a
keeper?

I'm curious in any event as to why the 40mm focal length was selected for
this camera and the CL.  Was there perhaps the thought that this would
eliminate any sales competition between the 50mm and 35mm Leitz lenses and
the Minolta produced lenses for the CL?  Was this an attempt to come up
with a more "natural" perspective for a "normal" lens.  (We had a detailed
and interesting discussion here recently regarding what exactly a "normal"
focal length is.  In my view it is a personal matter and depends upon what
the photographer feels works best foe their style and approach.  I have
seen other discussions however regarding the 40mm to 45mm focal length as
optimum for a "normal" lens.  Was this an attempt in that direction?)

I find that the 35mm Summicron doesn't activate the frame (40) in the
viewfinder and that the 50mm LTM-to-Bayonet adapter does activate the
frame.  I also notice that if I rotate the lens just slightly past the lock
point the frame does come up.  Now I normally use the 35 on my M3 with a
SBLOO finder and I can go this way on the CLE but I can see the advantage
of using the (40) frame in the viewfinder and fudging for a quick shot. 
Too bad they didn't make the CLE with (35) and (50) frames.

There was a posting here a day or so ago about the ergonomics of the Leica
II's and III's.  Unfortunately I deleted the posting but the point was well
taken that these small, old cameras are still a joy to use.  The CLE fits
into this idea very nicely.  It is smaller and significantly lighter than
the M and fits my ideal of what a the 35mm format should be better than the
M3.  (I'm talking about the ergonomics of the camera, I'd prefer to have
the option to use manual TTL metering over full auto and would prefer the
M6 in that regards.)  

When I see the size of most of the 35mm cameras today I have to shake my
head.  Look at an R8, an F5, or one of my old F1's and then look at the
actual size of the 35mm negative.  This format was originally conceived for
 a small and inconspicuous camera, one that could be easily carried. 
Believe me, a complete F1 outfit is does not meet any of these criteria. 
An M outfit is a huge step in the right direction but even though an M3 or
M6 is smaller than an SLR I feel they could use a further reduction in
size.

I would love to see a new Leica CL3.

Well I've gone on for too long, fortunately there is nothing in the user
group guidelines about following your subject thread.   (I hope!)

Kent Smith
unipac@teleport.com