Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/11/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]ah yes, but there are two factors here, the focal length and the lens quality. I don't like the 40 focal length personally. I prefer shooting with either the 35 or the 50 over it, from a standpoint of the view. the 40/2 is a very sharp lens, and relatively inexpensive. for decades a beautiful sharp 20x30 hand held shot taken with the 40/2 on the CL was on the wall at Riviera camera in Redondo Beach CA, taken by the shop owner of ....da da da... his Leica rep at a camera show. most people thought that it had been taken with 2 1/4. I was also quite happy with the lens sharpness when I was shooting my first M mount, a Minolta CL. but I just never liked the focal length. Stephen "M.E.Berube" wrote: > At 07:07 PM 11/8/00 -0600, Mike wrote about the 40mm: > >Me, too. I like this angle of view best of all. Some people dislike it, such > >as my friend Stephen Gandy. > > Really? On his page: http://www.cameraquest.com/leicacl.htm > I read that Mr. Gandy writes: > > "VERY sharp lightweight 4.5 oz 40/2 <SNIP> In my experience the 40/2 is one > of the best, and least expensive, Leica M lenses. " > > >A Summicron-C can be easily modified to bring up the 35mm framelines on an M. > > Cool, I'll ask Ms. K about it when I send in the M5 for a much needed CLA. > > It will likely, then, remain my only actual M mount lens. > Thanks. > > CL, > Michael E. Berube