Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/08/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
According to my personal experience to use Summicron 40/f2. I agree what
Steven posted. When taking pictures under strong back-lighting situation, I
got poor results. Which mean that this lens was not multi-coated. But as to
M-Rokkor 40/f2, I have no chance to use it. But under most normal cases,
i.e, not back-lighting condition, this lens work very good.
William Hu.
- ----- Original Message -----
> Well Erwin,
>
> I wonder where you got your information.
>
> I have never seen any any official Leica publication saying the original
CL
> 40/2's were multicoated. If you have, what is the source ?
>
> I have a letter from Minolta confirming that the CLE lenses were
multicoated.
> In testing the Minolta CLE, Modern Photography also said the Minolta
lenses
> were multi-coated, while commenting that the earlier 40/2 lenses "appear
not to
> be."
>
> A close look at the CLE brochure shows a similar optical design to the
original
> CL lenses, but the elements do not appear to be identical. Though similar,
the
> shape of the 3rd element is different than the published cross section in
the CL
> brochure.
>
> I readily admit I am not an optical expert, but then I regard no one as an
> optical expert who has not worked as a lens designer and/or has a degree
or long
> apprenticeship in optical design with a major lens maker.
>
> Stephen Gandy
>
> Erwin Puts wrote:
>
> > The info on the Cameraquest site is not fully correct.
> > The Summicron-C and the Rokkor-C were both multicoated and so there is
no
> > difference with the CLE-version. There is no improved optical formula.
and I
> > wonder where Cameraquest got the facts for this assertion. Even if some
> > minor changes had been made, it is doubtful if this would have any
influence
> > on performance.
> > The Rokkor-C has been made in Japan.
> >
> > Erwin
>
>