Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/06/08

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Voigtländer 40/1.4 (was Leica prices)
From: langeratcarleton at gmail.com (Mark Langer)
Date: Wed Jun 8 05:26:35 2005
References: <ceb1a565050607150249e07523@mail.gmail.com> <BECB92A0.16769%mark@rabinergroup.com>

Well, by its description, the CV 40/1.4 is a compact lens.  As for
whether the rangefinder base is long enough to focus the lens, I
strongly suspect that it is.  I've used a Canon 100/2 lens on mine,
and while focussing is not as dead on as when I mount this on my M6,
it is good enough to be considered reliable wide open.  I can't
imagine that the rangefinder couldn't achieve similar reliability with
a 40/1.4.  Also my Konica Auto S3s have a similar lens to that of the
CV, although with a max aperture of 1.8.  But the rangefinder base is
smaller than the CLEs.  Again, no problem focusing.  I realize that
none of this is rock hard evidence, but it does suggest that the CLE
can handle the 40/1.4.  On the other hand, since neither you nor I
have tried this lens/camera combo, I guess that we are just blowing
hot air. :-)

Mark

On 6/7/05, Mark Rabiner <mark@rabinergroup.com> wrote:
> On 6/7/05 3:02 PM, "Mark Langer" <langeratcarleton@gmail.com> typed:
> 
> > It isn't a strong favorite, but I'm interested in it as a possiblity.
> > I am very happy with the performance of the CV 28/3.5 and am curious
> > as to whether anyone on this list has had a positive experience with
> > the 40/1.4 as I consider my options for a 40mm lens for the CLE.  It
> > is as simple as that.  I want to know what the image quality is like,
> > how it balances on the CL or CLE body, etc.  Not having one locally to
> > try out, this is the best I can do to see if this is worth getting, as
> > opposed to sticking with my Canon 35/2 or getting the Leitz or Minolta
> > 50/2.
> >
> With the shorter focusing base of the CLE a use of fast lens is less
> obvious. What would seem functionally more appropriate is a compact slower
> lens.
> A Leica should be pocketable I think and many think.
> An m6 really is not unless you're talking about sizable jacket pockets.
> A screw mount is (or was). With a small or collapsible lens on them
> The CLs and CLEs also were (or are).
> I say try to keep them as compact as possible.
> And I don't see the logic of the fact that there may by other cameras more
> compact than a CLE to ignore this.
> 
> Mark Rabiner
> Photography
> Portland Oregon
> http://rabinergroup.com/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>


In reply to: Message from langeratcarleton at gmail.com (Mark Langer) (Re: [Leica] Re: Voigtländer 40/1.4 (was Leica prices))
Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Re: Voigtländer 40/1.4 (was Leica prices))