Hi all. I've fallen for the SL! It's such a kick to use. I was going to sell mine, but have changed my mind. The only flaw I can see with the SL is that you can't use the 35-70 f4. I know the lens can't be modified, but I was wondering if maybe the body could be modified to work with the lens. Has anyone figured out a way to use this lens on the SL (even if you lose metering)?

If there is no work around, I'm considering an R8. How will my two cam lenses work on the the R8?

Thanks as always, and by the way I blame you all for my finacial ruin :-)!

-- JDR (jrivera@vapop.ucsd.edu), December 31, 2001

Answers

Attempting to mount a 3rd-cam-only or ROM lens (such as the 35-70/4) on the SL, the 3rd cam will foul the metering lever inside the body (it would normally be pushed out of harm's way by the SL cam in a 3- cam lens). Using 2-cam lenses on the R8 you'll just have to meter in stop-down mode but you won't damage anything. Having the 3rd cam added to 2-cam lenses is only about $50 each.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), December 31, 2001.

>>>Attempting to mount a 3rd-cam-only or ROM lens (such as the 35-70/4) on the SL, the 3rd cam will foul the metering lever inside the body (it would normally be pushed out of harm's way by the SL cam in a 3- cam lens).<<<

I had no troube putting a 3rd-cam only lens on my SL, except I had to use stop-down metering.

There are two problems with putting a 35-70 f/4 on a Leicaflex: ROM and mirror clearance. The ROM contacts would be fouled by the 1st cam follower, an issue for the Leicaflex Standard and SL2, but not the SL The mirror clearance is an issue for the Leicaflex Standard and the SL, but not the SL2. Leica's solution for preventing damage from putting a ROM lens on a Leicaflex is to use an R-only bayonet on the lens.

In other words, to use the 35-70 f/4 on the SL, you'd have to shorten the mirror and change the lens mount, and if you wanted to use the SL's meter you'd have to get at least the 2nd cam installed on the lens.

-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), December 31, 2001.

Sub-query: I tried (and failed) to mount a ROM 80-200 f/4 on my SL. Will the non-ROM 80-200 f/4s fit on SLs? Or are they ALL "locked out" because of mirror (or other) clearnce problems?

Does the earlier 35-70 f/3.5 fit on SLs?

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), January 01, 2002.

I'd also like to get an answer to Andy's question about the earlier 35-70 zooms, will they fit?

Also, Jay and Doug, I know you prefer the new zoom to the older ones, but how much do you lose in peformance? The reason I ask is, for me, a 2nd SL body, a 35-70, a 180 2.8, and the 400 6.8 along with my 50 f2 will do everything I need at a very reasonable cost. Jumping to an R8 will add 500-900 to my total, not a huge amount of money, but signifincant. I usually print no bigger than 7x10.5. I know only I can be my own judge, but will the older zooms work for me in your opinion?

-- Jeff (jrivera@vapop.ucsd.edu), January 01, 2002.

Andy Piper wrote:

>>>Sub-query: I tried (and failed) to mount a ROM 80-200 f/4 on my SL. Will the non-ROM 80-200 f/4s fit on SLs? Or are they ALL "locked out" because of mirror (or other) clearnce problems?<<<

As far as I know, ALL 80-200 f4.0 lenses are ROM, and cannot be converted to 3-cam. Of the earlier vario lenses in this approximate range and aperture, the 80-200 f/4.5 cannot be used on a Standard or SL, while the 75-200 and 70-210 will work fine.

>>>Does the earlier 35-70 f/3.5 fit on SLs?<<<

Yes.

Jeff wrote:

>>>I know you prefer the new zoom to the older ones, but how much do you lose in peformance? The reason I ask is, for me, a 2nd SL body, a 35-70, a 180 2.8, and the 400 6.8 along with my 50 f2 will do everything I need at a very reasonable cost. Jumping to an R8 will add 500-900 to my total, not a huge amount of money, but signifincant. I usually print no bigger than 7x10.5. I know only I can be my own judge, but will the older zooms work for me in your opinion? <<<

If you're printing no bigger than 7"x10.5" the older zooms should be fine.

-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), January 01, 2002.

1. I've got a 60/2.8 and a couple of 28/2.8's and a 500 MR-Telyt that are 3rd-cam non-ROM lenses and none of them will mount on the SL without the R cam smacking into the SL's meter lever. With my 3-cam lenses the SL cam pushes the meter lever out of harm's way before the R cam gets to it.

2. The 80-200/4 was made in non-ROM version initially, and those can not be ROM'ed by Leica. The non-ROM version is 3rd-cam, not 3-cam.

3. The 35-70/3.5 3-cam is a decent lens but the 1st (E60, Japan) version is prone to getting loose and sloppy and the 2nd (E67, Germany) version is obnoxiously expensive. The close-focus is only 1m.

There is a middle-ground between the ancient SL and the expensive R7 or R8, that being an R5 or R-E. Or if you prefer all-mechanical, the R6 (not 6.2) is priced within reason. The current lenses can all me mounted and used with those bodies, and older 2-cam lenses can have the R-cam added inexpensively.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 01, 2002.

Update:

Added a nice R4s to use the 35-70 f4. Will Keep the SL for long lenses 'til I can afford an R8.

Thanks,

Anyone got a 400 6.8 they want to sell cheap?

-- JDR (jrivera@vapop.ucsd.edu), January 05, 2002.