[Leica] MR and CL Qs

[jeremy.kime@bbc.co.uk]

     James wrote:

 Q: I would like some info on the Leica MR-meter. Does it just average   
the
entire scene?
A: No, it's centre weighted, approx 90mm field of view for the 50mm lens,   
instruction and sales leaflets explain more.
 Q: Is it accurate and reliable in situations where a
center-weighted average meter could do the job?
A: Mine has always been accurate, don't forget to replace the (hard to   
find) PX625 baterries though.
 Q: Of course I do have a small incident light meter as well but I don't   
want to have to use it for every shot.  The M6 wont quite fit into my   
budget right now, so I'm looking at a M4-? camera, and I'll need a MR   
meter.
A: The MR meter is miles more ergonomic to use than a hand held meter   
(though not quite as versatile), budget wise, the M4-2 is the cheapest   
option, prices from around œ500(UKP) up, expect to pay another œ100(UKP)   
for an MR meter. CLs are approx œ250(UKP) upwards and M6s are found from   
œ700(UKP) if you look hard enough.
 Q:   Right now I am leaning towards a CL because of the built-in meter   
and
compact size.   Will the CL accept the 24 ASPH lens?
A: The CL is compact, sure. Regarding the 24mm, if you're going to get   
that, then get an M6 first, you'll have far more flexibility and control   
over focusing .
 Q:  Also has anyone tried using a 90 elmarit of summicron with this   
camera?
A: 'Elmarit of Summicron' sounds like an exquisite cordial, like 'Essence   
of Cinnamon'! But to return to the Q, I use a 90mm Tele-Elmarit (f2.8)   
because it's small and I don't have a seperate 90/4, but I try not to use   
it wide open up close, which is where you'd expect the most trouble.
 Q: Is the rangefinder really not accurate enough to use these 90mm   
lenses?
A: As above, use your common sense, if those (F2 and F2.8) lenses are   
used at F4, then no problem, any wider and be careful, at infinity   
there's a lot greater d.o.f. to cover focusing error.    Q: Lastly, what   
the final word on the 40mm lenses for the CL.  First I heard that they   
were all made in Japan and re-badged Leica summicron of Minolta Rokkor.   
 Then someone tells me that the Leica versions are a little better than   
the M-Rokkor versions.  Is this true?
A: We're into that big debate again of whether the nth degree of   
difference is noticeable to you or others. If you'll worry about seeing   
any small degree of difference, save your concern and buy the Leica lens,   
if you're more interested in pictures then concentrate on those and   
accept the Rokkor. I don't know what, if any, differences there were in   
production, but I bet I wouldn't be able to see the differences in a 12 x   
16 print.
 Q: Is the 40mm Summicron-C better than the 40mm M-Rokkor?  Can the same   
be said of the 90mm elmars?
A: Again, I can't say, but I did hear from someone who visited a German   
factory (either Rodenstock or Schneider - I forget which) that they were   
assembling lens modules for the 90/4 Elmar-C. Of course they were to   
Leitz spec. but read into that what you will, ie. what is a true Leica   
lens compared to a 'foriegn' lens?

regards,
Jem