Hi,

just bought a Leica CL. Right now I'm using it with a spare 2.8/50 Elmar (collapsible; I use a strip of Dymo tape to prevent damage to the back lens/ meter cell). I don't really like the handling of the Elmar after using a Summilux 1.4/50 with my M2 for years. How does the Elmar compare to the 2/40 Summicron/Rokkor respectively? I've also used a 2.8/35 Summaron in the CL, but that's a little inconvenient (no 35mm frame).

Thanks for your help,

- Josef

-- Josef Schwarz (schjos@usa.net), February 14, 2001

Answers

Pick up either the 40 Rokkor or Summicron. They work great on the camera, are very compact, and superb optically. And they are the best deal going for a Leica lens--I got my Rokkor like brand new for $250.00.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), February 14, 2001.

Hi Andrew,

thanks for the advice. I think it's what I'll do. There's a Rokkor in a local shop for about the same price you mention. I may wait for an auction though to buy a Summicron. I know it's the same lens, but my CL says "Leica" on it, and a Leitz-named lens would increase its resale value, it think (though I doubt it I'll sell it again).

Kind regards and thanks again,

- Josef

-- Josef Schwarz (schjos@usa.net), February 17, 2001.

In this instance the Rokkor may be the better choice, as it is probably multi-coated, whereas none of the Summicrons are. The price of a CL body is not less because of the lens mounted on it.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), February 17, 2001.

Hello Bill,

didn't know about the difference between the Rokkor & the Summicron. If it means the Rokkor is actually the better lens, I'll go for it then, especially since there's one in a local shop.

Can anyone confirm the Rokkors are multicoated and the Summicrons aren't? I find this surprising.

Thanks,

- Josef

-- Josef Schwarz (schjos@usa.net), February 19, 2001.

I went for a brand-new 2.0/40mm in the local shop, the more recent model for Minolta CLE. Looks like a nice piece of glass, indeed. Thanks for your help.

- Josef

-- Josef Schwarz (schjos@usa.net), February 21, 2001.

Josef

I have the later CLE Rokkor 40mm which I use on my CL. I suggest you buy it immediately if in good condition. It is a superb lens and quite as good as any equivalent Leica lens (well perhaps not quite up to Summicron-ASPH standard).

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), February 21, 2001.

What are the differences between the 40mm Rokkor lens for the CL and the Rokkor lens for the CLE? Is there an easy way to tell them apart?

-- John Sparks (jasparks@agilent.com), February 21, 2001.

Hello,

I compared the 2 Rokkors in the local shop. The older version has the serial number on the metal ring around the front lens, the later version on the lens barrel. The coating looks different, too; the older Rokkor has a bluish shimmer, the more recent one a brown-blue one. They also had a Leitz Summicron 2.0/40mm; the coating looked the same like on the newer Rokkor.

This is from my observation; can anyone here explain these differences in coating?

- Josef

-- Josef Schwarz (schjos@usa.net), February 21, 2001.

The CLE lens is fully multicoated, and the Summicron and earlier version of the Rokkor are regular coated. The CLE lens also has a cam matching all the standard Leica M lenses, but in practice I didn't notice any difference in focusing accuracy. Nice piece of work that lens is.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), February 22, 2001.