I have read that the 40 mm lenses produced for the CL and CLE were very good performers. What can you tell me about these lenses? Were the Leitz and Minolta lenses comparable? Were the Minolta inscribed lenses produced by Leitz or vice-versa? Thanks for any information.

-- David (pagedt@chartertn.net), December 29, 2001

Answers

The 90mm f/4 Rokkor was produced in Wetzlar, and is identical to the 90mm Elmar-C, save for wearing the Minolta name.

To the best of my knowledge the 40mm Rokkor was produced in Japan by Minolta; but those who use them say that they are first-class, and equal to the 40mm Summicron--itself a fine lens.

Regards,

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), December 29, 2001.

All 3 40's (the Suimmicron, Rokkor, and later CLE 40mm) are excellent lenses. My favorite 40mm is the CLE lens, which is multicoated and uses the standard Leica M cam for focusing. It's a stellar performer, and probably the best Leica M mount lens per dollar on the market. The serial number on the CLE 40mm is on the lens body and not on the front ring--this is how you can spot one from the earlier Rokkor from the CL.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), December 29, 2001.

Lens hoods threads were different on the two 90mm lenses.

-- (bmitch@home.com), December 29, 2001.

Yeah, I meant Optically identical. The local Leica dealer has one of each on the shelf right now, and anyone can see they're not physically identical. They are nice and small, though, for a 90.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), December 29, 2001.

I have found mine to be an excellent performer. I've never felt that there was any difference between the Minolta vs. Leica lenses. But for what's worth, mine is a Leitz lens.

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), December 29, 2001.

The Summicron version is shorter, rather like a pancake lens, which was why I chose it over the Rokkor version. Performance wise, the Summicron-C is as good as it reputes to be. I can't offer a scientific evaluation of its optical performance, but the slides (Provia 400F) shot with this lens seem extremely sharp, and more contrasty and saturated than those shot with Nikkor lenses. The lens' large f/2 maximum aperture makes it useful in low light situations when flash isn't possible or allowed. By the way, Voigtlander recently released a 40mm external viewfinder, which should be useful if you're using the lens on camera bodies that don't have the 40mm frameline in the viewfinder.

-- Hoyin Lee (leehoyin@hutchcity.com), December 29, 2001.

I don't remember the Summicron being shorter than the Minolta versions--are you sure about that? My CLE 40mm only sticks out 3/4 of an inch from the body.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), December 29, 2001.

Like Andrew Schank, I have the Minolta M-Rokkor 40/2 for the CLE & I agree w/him that it's a great performing lens (especially for the $$), fully comparable w/my other modern Leica & Zeiss lenses. I also happen to like the 40mm & 45mm focal lengths, & they're supposed to be closer to true "normal" lenses (as measured by the diagonal of the 35mm film frame). The only thing where the M-Rokkor doesn't match up w/Leica-made lenses is in the construction quality & lens barrel materials, but that has the advantage of keeping the weight down. AFAIK, the main advantage of getting the more recent CLE version of the 40/2 is that it's said to be multi rather than single-coated. Here's an example of a snapshot using the 40/2 that's been cropped about 60%:

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@cris.com), December 29, 2001.

Sorry to keep sticking my nose in here, but having owned both the Leica and Minolta versions, I can see no difference in the construction quality between the two. The Rokkor is also very solid, silky smooth, has zero play in the focus or mount, definite 1/2 f stop clicks, brass focus cam, etc. just like the Leica. Only difference I found was that the filter size on the Rokkor is 40.5mm, while the Summicron is a series 5.5 ( some people jam a 39mm filter on -but the pitch is different).

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), December 29, 2001.

If you have seen this already, sorry to be repetitious, but if not it may be of interest to you. There is a new finder for the 40mm lens from the folks at Cosina. This would be a solution for the M user that might want to use the 40mm, which is not supported by that particular frame line.

Take a look at: new finder

To speed up the load, click on cancel for the translation from Japanese, and just look at the photos.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), December 29, 2001.

Andrew:

Sorry if my post wasn't clear, but my point of comparison for the M-Rokkor's construction quality was not to the Leica 40mm Summicron, which I've never seen or handled, but to my other Leica M lenses (35 Summicron & Summilux, 50 Summicron DR, etc.), which seem to me to be much more solid & hefty than the M-Rokkor.

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@cris.com), December 30, 2001.

I have the 40 mm Minolta ROKKOR lens for a few weeks now and I´am really impressed by the quality of the photos I get with it. I used it along with my 35 mm SUMMICRON from the 70ies and found no difference at all.

The lens looks fine, feels fine, even the colour and the shape of the engravings is identical to the ones of the Leitz lenses of the same production period. And it comes with a focusing tab and the red dot to align the lens when changing, very handy.

My problem still is the viewfinder, too much guessing for my liking with the 50 mm frame and the LEICA M. Unfortunately I ruined my LEITZ Wetzlar universal finder which I had utilized tohether with the 40 mm lens because I dropped it down on a concrete floor ... I can use my finder as kind of a musicinstrument now, I can only rattle with it.

As far as the built quality of the ROKKOR is concerned, I´am quite sure there is a substantial difference to the 40 mm SUMMICRON. The Leitz lens, according to my 1976 catalogue, weighs 150.00 g, the 40 mm Rokkor, weighed just now showed 105.00 g on the scale.

But nevertheless, someone here called the ROKKOR the poor man´s SUMMICRON. For this interesting consumer circle it´s a beautiful product.

Best wishes

-- K. G. Wolf (k.g.wolf@web.de), December 30, 2001.

I too have the 40 mm Rokkor and find this lens a very nice performer, this is also a very small and light f2 lens best with the CLE bit also OK on a M3 (I tend to use all the finder) The 28 mm is also very small and quite good optically, The contrast of the 90mm isen't the best unless stopped down a bit but again very small and silky smooth. As far as I know the Leitz have a steper focusing cam making it less usefull on a M. Walue for money is exelent with the Rokkor

-- Kaj Froling (saluki@mail.tele.dk), December 30, 2001.

Andrew is abolutely correct, there is no difference in build, or optical quality between these lenses. I know because I collect 40's. Being a CL/CLE buff it seemed the thing to do. (Although I couldnt afford that 40 f2.8 that went on ebay not long ago.) The only difference in the 3 lenses is that the later CLE 40 has a more squared off tab while the earlier Rokkor and Summicron have a more rounded tab. The posts above that claim these lenses arent Leitz usual build quality is unfounded. They are identical to any Leitz lenses of the 70's that I have owned. The CLE lens which is said to be multicoated, its great although I cannot pick the difference in my photos between all 3. When i learn how to post pics on this sight I will do a test of all three and see who can pick the difference. (Some shots into the sun to see if the CLE multicoated does the job better) There is also a 40mm f1.8 russian lens actually in Leica M mount out there too. I have photos of that one but never seen one in real life. As a price guide, within the last 6 months in Germany, I purchased a 40mm Summicron mint for the equivalent of $250 USD. There were 2 CLE 40's that went for $125 USD just recently on ebay. Thats BLOODY GOOD VALUE!

-- Joel Matherson (joel_2000@hotmail.com), December 30, 2001.

Hello Joel,

there must have been a difference in construction between the Leitz and the Minolta lenses. How else do you explain the diffrent weights of them?

Performancewise they are all great. The lenses for the Monolta CL were produced in Wetzlar. Only the later ROKKOR lenses for the CLE came from Minolta.

Best wishes

-- K. G. Wolf (k.g.wolf@web.de), December 30, 2001.

Anybody got a 40 summicron and a good accurate scale to check the weight?

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), December 30, 2001.

Let's see if I can get rid of this centering thing . . . there!

-- Hoyin Lee (leehoyin@hutchcity.com), December 31, 2001.

Nope, didn't work, now back to my HTML for Dummies . . .

-- Hoyin Lee (leehoyin@hutchcity.com), December 31, 2001.

Sigh, now what have I done?

-- Hoyin Lee (leehoyin@hutchcity.com), December 31, 2001.

Hello Hoyin,

thank you for your efforts here as well as above in the RED FLAG 20 category.

A GOOD LEICA - YEAR TO YOU

-- K. G. Wolf (k.g.wolf@web.de), December 31, 2001.

how about

did that work?

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), December 31, 2001.

I heard that some people argue the lens of the Canon Canonet G-III QL17 was comparable to the Leica CL with the 40mm M-Rokkor lens. I don't know whether the tests will bear it out but it's a fascinating possibility?

I still would think that the Leica-affiliate lens would be better than the Canonet lens especially when wide open.

Alfie

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), December 31, 2001.

K G Wolf, you are incorrect, the 40mm Rokkor for the the Minolta CL was not made in Germany only the 90mm for the Minolta CL is. The 40mm Rokkor for the CL, the older version with the rounded tab similar to that of the 40mm Summicron, is clearly labelled "Made in Japan" ( I can email u pictures if you like?) And this lens is identical in weight as well to the summicron 40. (give or take a few grams as it does have a 40.5mm filter ring) Its the CLE 40 with a squarer tab thats slighty lighter (very slightly lighter). Keep in mind that the more modern Leica lenses get lighter too and since the CLE multicoated lens was redesigned with a differnt tab and more importantly with proper M focusing cams not the angular cams of the Minolta/Leica CL 40's is fair to account for the difference in weight.

-- Joel Matherson (joel_2000@hotmail.com), January 01, 2002.

Hallo Joel,

if you have the M-Rokkor 40 mm lens (for the CL) marked LEITZ Wetzlar and made in Japan this would surprise me. Everything can happen, though. Since the Minolta CL was distributed in the USA and Japan directly by Minolta there might have been Rokkor lenses supplied by Monolta for these cameras. To my knowledge, all LEICA CLs, (made by Minolta) had LEITZ lenses and LEITZ supplied the lenses for the Minolta CLs in return. This seams to have been different, I thank you for for correction.

Let me just end with one hint: the difference in weight between 150 g (Cron 40 and Rokkor 40 for CL) and 105 g (Rokkor 40 for CLE) IMHO is more than just a few grams. And I apologize here right awayin case, these figures might be incorrect.

Actually I hate it to count srews on Leicas, and now I find me in the middle of it. It is much nicer to take photos instead. And this you can do with all three of the CL/ CLE 40 mm lenses superbly. Not to mention the Elmarit-C 40 mm lens offered for € 2,000.00 recently on a photomarket.

Best wishes and a happy New Year

-- K. G. Wolf (k.g.wolf@web.de), January 01, 2002.

K.G.Wolf, your facts as you remember them are incorrect! Also some points I made regarding weights you have also misread. So I will go through it again. (I have also emailed you photos of ALL the lenses so you can see)

Firstly you intitally wrote "The lenses for the Monolta CL were produced in Wetzlar. Only the later ROKKOR lenses for the CLE came from Minolta. " This is INCORRECT! It is true the 90mm lens for the Minolta CL was made by Leitz but the 40mm Rokkor for the Minolta CL was NOT! It was made in Japan by Minolta. Nowhere is Leitz even mentioned on this lens and its clearly marked "Made in Japan" (a photo has been supplied to you) Even the instuctions of the Minolta CL show this lens pictured (again a photo supplied to you) As you can see it looks the same as the Summicron 40 (again photo supplied to you) Both these lenses weigh 120g! Not 150gs as you mentioned. (a photo of the Leitz 40mm Lens specs have been supplied to you) Now the few grams difference I was refferring to if you read properly is between these 2 lenses as the Minolta lens has a different filter size one would have to expect a very very minute difference between the two. The premise you made that one was significatly lighter therefore the Summicron must be better quality doesnt work they are the same weight (give or take a gram or two) and one is made in Japan and the other made in Germany.

The Rokkor 40 for the CLE is different from the earlier Rokkor 40 for the CL in that it does weigh 105grams, making it slightly lighter than the earlier Japanese Rokkor 40 for the CL to which as I mentioned it was slightly lighter in my previous post. (again a photo of this lens has been provided) and you will notice that its has a squarer tab than the earlier Rokkor and the Summicron. This lens is also said to be multicoated while the other two are not. Now the 15 gram difference between the CLE lens and its earlier Japanese made counterpart can easily be acounted for, as i mentioned previously, because its cammed as a regular M lens. The earlier summicron and the Japanese Rokkor for the CL had more angular cams and often there is speculation that they will not work on regular M cameras although this appears to be just a myth. With different cams a different tab redesign and being made years after the previous version and with different coatings its fair without quality loss to be 15 grams lighter would it not? (Not to mention weights with or without caps)

So the 3 lenses we have are as follows;

1/ Summicron 40 for the Leica CL (Made in Germany) 120g Series 5.5 filters

2/ M-Rokkor 40 for the Minolta & Leitz Minolta CL (Made in Japan) 120g 40.5mm filters

3/ M-Rokkor 40 for the Minolta CLE - (Made in Japan) Multicoated with different tab 105g 40.5 filters

Also have a read of the Cameraquest sight makes reference to all 3 lenses.

I hope this now explains fully, your misconception arises from you believing that that M-Rokkor 40 for the Minolta CL is a Wetzlar made lens when in fact it isnt and never was.

Andrew Shank, I have also emailed you the photos too being a devote of these lenses in case I left something out thats should be mentioned.

-- Joel Matherson (joel_2000@hotmail.com), January 01, 2002.

Hello Joel,

thank you very much for the large effort you made to claify things. I appreciate your work a lot.

Best wishes

-- K. G. Wolf (k.g.wolf@web.de), January 01, 2002.

While we're on the subjet, does anyone have MTF or resolution (lines per mm) for the 40/2 Summicron or any incarnation of the Rokkor 40/2? I am working on a small comparison chart of the various 40s made in SLR and rangefinder mount in the 70s and 80s. Thanks.

-- Davidde Stella (davidde@umich.edu), January 31, 2002.