I just spent two evenings (spring) cleaning all the equipment I travel with plus the "new" package of bodies and lenses that I just picked up from a friend who acted as my ebay proxy while I was overseas.

I posted a comment here weeks ago about how I'd heard, read, and experienced "cheapened" Leica bodies. Now I feel quite the same way about their lenses too. The old chrome ones feel sooo well made mechanically, and look so good with their hand finished quality.

For instance, comparing what I had or have:

50 black 'cron (1975) to DR chrome 'cron (1960) and '68 chrome 'lux

90 black TE (1974) to chrome Elmarit (1961)

135 black TE (1974) to chrome Elmar (1960)

35 chrome (1960/1968) 'crons are incomparable!

The f-stop index ring fell off my 135 TE; the aperture ring turning and indexing on the 90 TE feels plasticky and the rear element has the TE disease (marks not from cleaning); and the 50 'cron finish doesn't wear well. Optically they all perform fine. It's just the chrome ones feel/work/look so much more old-school handcrafted, which I love. The weight adds up quickly substituting brass for aluminium; it's a factor in my own personal preferences when choosing what I bring on-the-road to use, so the blacks go with and the 135's and chromes stay home; they're just too good to sell, though.

-- chris chen (chrischen@msn.com), March 01, 2002

Answers

Chris you are quite right. I think the recent Leica lenses are nicer finished than they were in the 70s and early 80s and are really very good. My lenses of 70s and 80s vintage have not lasted as well. In terms of beauty though the 1950 and 60s M lenses are just superb. But the same can be said of most cameras. The old chrome C type lenses for the Hasselblad are works of art too, clearly way too expensive today to manufacture (the Synchro-Compur sliding DOF indicators are wonderful to behold).

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), March 01, 2002.

Chris, I think your disappointment should be with that "friend" who got you those lenses off e-Bay, or the sellers if they failed to disclose those problems. My similar lenses from the 70's are in perfect shape after almost 3 decades of use. While it may be true that the early chrome lenses were heftier, I never found them more precise, nor have they held up as well in terms of glass fogging which was commonly seen on 60's lenses even a decade ago but rarely if ever on 70's lenses today.

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

Jay,

My friend was proxy for the '59-'61 chrome equip. from the orig. owner's beneficiaries. They are all near mint; although the M2 less so, it shows some bright marks, and the 1st ver. 35, 'cron show a hint of fog (going to Golden Touch w/M4 that needs a shutter curtain and CLA); chrome 65/90/135 have only slight camera bag/handling bright marks (near mint glass). The Viso III w/200 1:4.0 is near mint. The 50 DR has a small front element scratch. The best part, though, are the numerous accessories: vintage caps for all, filters, etc.

Both the diseased 90 TE and the detatched index ring (still have) 135 TE were mint when I bought them more than 12 years ago.

-- chris chen (chrischen@msn.com), March 01, 2002.

Chris your e-mail address dosen't work. I tried to contact you off list , but came back "undeliverable". PLEASE contact me off list with correct e-mail address.

-- bob langjahr (langjahr@earthlink.net), March 01, 2002.

Bob

-- chris chen (chrischen@msn.com,), March 04, 2002.

Bob,

What can I do for you. You may reach me here; don't worry, postings tend to die quickly and are forgotten.

-- chris chen (chrischen@msn.com,), March 04, 2002.