RE: [Leica] M lenses on CL

[Kim Sherman <ksherman@cottenmusic.com>]

Robert,

I too experienced difficulty in trying to mount my 35/2 Summicron =
(latest before aspherical version) on my Leica version of the CL.  I =
would _definitely_ have to force it to go on, and this would be bad =
news, imo.  It doesn't seem to seat properly at all, and it would =
"grind" into place if I tried.  My 50/2 Summicron mounts easily, and it =
produces the "click" as it eases into place.  OTOH, my Leica made 40/2 =
Summicron, works nicely with either my CL body or my M bodies (bringing =
up the 50 frameline, as someone else has already noted).  The Leica 90/4 =
Elmar-C fits just fine on the M bodies too. =20

Oddly, before reading your message, I'd not even tried using my 35/2 =
Summicron on the CL....i have, though, used my 40/2 on the other bodies =
many times.  I'd like to know just why it is our 35/2 Summicronswon't =
work on either the Leica or the Minolta CL.

Anyone else have this trouble?  I'm quite curious now.  :-)

Kim=20

- ----------
From: 	rardinge@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU[SMTP:rardinge@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU]
Sent: 	Tuesday, February 17, 1998 9:18 AM
To: 	leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: 	[Leica] M lenses on CL

A question for CL users/owners.  For an upcoming extended trip to =
central
Asia I will be taking two camera sets, one with 35mm SLRs and the other
with a Leica M.  My Leica set is a new M6, new 50/2 Summicron, recent =
(but
not asph) 35/2 Summicron and a older 90/2.8 Canadian Tele-elmarit.  I =
also
have an older Leitz Minolta CL with the Minolta 40/2 and the German =
Minolta
90/4.  The CL has been CLA'ed about 3 times in the 20 years I've had it.
Seems to work fine.  I would be bringing it along as a backup camera and
was hoping to leave the 90/4 and if possible the 40/2 home (to save
weight/bulk - it all adds up).  Last night I was interchanging lenses =
and
noticed that the 35/2 would not easily mount on the CL (this was the =
first
time I tried it).  The lens would not turn to the "click" stop with =
usual
force (I did not want to try "unusual" force). The 50/2 and 90/2.8 =
mounted
easily and appeared to focus properly.  The 90/4 and the 90/2.8 are very
similar in size and I think I can leave the 90/4 home. I guess I will =
take
the 40/2.

My questions are:

1. Should I expect any problems with focusing the 50/2 and the 90/2.8 on
the CL.  I would probably need to keep the 90/2.8 stopped down a stop to
cover for the shorter rangefinder base.  The focusing cams on the two CL
lenses are angled much more than the cams on the M lenses and I don't =
know
if this makes any difference.  I know the "official" statement from =
Leica
(at least Leica USA, when I called a few months ago) was that CL lenses =
"do
not focus accurately" on an M body and that this is not the experience =
of
many users. I wondered if there was any focusing problems with M lenses =
on
a CL

2. I am surprised that I cannot mount the 35/2 with usual effort.  Since
the Leica will be used primarily for B&W I can tolerate "guessing" at =
the
frame line (guessing at 35mm from the 40mm lines) which I would need to =
do
to use the 35 on the CL but I don't want to break or jam anything,
especially while traveling. Any thoughts on CL mounting compatibility =
with
M lenses? (besides the warnings of meter damage by some retrofocusing =
wide
angles and collapsable normal lenses).

Thanks for your help.

Robert

Robert H. Ardinger, Jr., M.D.