Archived posting to the
Leica Users Group, 2010/04/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index]
[Home]
[Search]
Subject: [Leica] 3.5 cm. Elmar
From: passaro.vince at gmail.com (Vince Passaro)
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 23:40:56 -0400
References: <C7E4F55D.6100B%mark@rabinergroup.com> <2786BA03-D291-4624-84B6-AA860C62F52F@usjet.net> <u2vdaaeb97e1004091351y8dfdf1cm761523585d579911@mail.gmail.com> <p2w19b6d42d1004091553rdc804b86ha8b565b90c924932@mail.gmail.com> <CFAE197F-8D96-4651-8EF8-C39F85CBE963@charter.net>
slobodan,
thanks
vince
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 11:27 PM, slobodan Dimitrov
<s.dimitrov at charter.net>wrote:
> I believe that coating was standard as of 1946.
> S.d.
>
>
> On Apr 9, 2010, at 3:53 PM, Vince Passaro wrote:
>
> > Anyway -- is this equipment (lens first I guess) worth saving? Anyone
> know
> > if a 1948-1951 era Summar is coated or not?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
In reply to:
Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] 3.5 cm. Elmar)
Message from robertmeier at usjet.net (Robert Meier) ([Leica] 3.5 cm. Elmar)
Message from digiratidoc at gmail.com (James Laird) ([Leica] 3.5 cm. Elmar)
Message from passaro.vince at gmail.com (Vince Passaro) ([Leica] 3.5 cm. Elmar)
Message from s.dimitrov at charter.net (slobodan Dimitrov) ([Leica] 3.5 cm. Elmar)