This may be a stupid question, but I haven't seen it answered elsewhere in this forum. What is the difference between a chrome lens and a black lens other than the weight and material used? Does one have an advantage over the other (e.g. more durable, lens susceptible to scratches, etc.)

-- Laurie Kimber (mgb80@telusplanet.net), January 25, 2002

Answers

This is definitely a FAQ. Just click on the "Leica M" subheading of this group & do a text search for "chrome" or "black."

-- Chris Chen (Washington, DC) (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), January 25, 2002.

There is no difference. It is purely a matter of taste. As you point out, the chrome lens are heavier. I would add they are considerably heavier. The black lens look good on the chrome or black bodies. Most people do not like the chrome lens on the black bodies. Black looks good on the titanium, but the chrome looks bad. If you have a chrome body, I would get a 35 or 50 in the chrome, but the further lens, I would opt for black.

-- Bob Haight (rhaigh5748@aol.com), January 25, 2002.

A very compact chrome lens like the 35 Summicron, Summaron, etc. with a back lens hood fitted, looks fine to me on the black body. A larger expanse of chrome is another matter.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 25, 2002.

No optical advantage to either.

The chrome-plated brass probably dents a bit more easily than the black-anodised aluminum, and the black-anodised aluminum probably scratches a bit more easily than the chrome. So again, no real advantage to either, either.

So, it pretty much boils down to the issue of appearance, weight and cost.

:) Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), January 25, 2002.

Jack,

I was under the impression that chrome or black models of the same lens cost the same. If so, then it might be just a matter of visual preference and weight (assuming one can see those skinny little black lines within the coma of the bright sun reflecting off the chrome surface of the lens).

The real question is why can't I get a stainless steel and gold Leica lens to match my Rolex? ;-)

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), January 26, 2002.

Ralph:

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. At my local camera shop in California the chrome lenses cost more. But per your comment I went online to B&H and sure enough, the prices are listed as the same. My appologies for the incorrect information in the previous post.

:| Regards,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), January 26, 2002.

So far we have been talking only about Leica made lenses. Let's consider Voigtlander, which makes black and silver. The blacks cost a little more than the silvers. I have both types. The silver has the advantage that the ft distance scale is more readable on the silver than the black. The black's have reddish-pinkish feet numbers which are hard to see. I've had to repaint them yellow-orange, which is a bit of a drag. The Voigtlander lens weigh the same. I think that the silver lenses are less prone to wear and tear.

A lot of old chrome lenses (Leica, Cannon, Nikon, etc.) are very hard to read. I've tried white on the d of f scale on my old Nikkor 85/2. It is a bit better than black in dim light--may be worse in bright light. May repaint.

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), January 26, 2002.