I'm using an Elmar 50/3.5 which seems fine. Are there any other collapsibles which also fit? Thanks a lot.

-- John (doi3@hotmail.com), March 18, 2002

Answers

John: Here's a link that will tell you everything there us to know about CLE lens compatibility:

MIOLTA CLE

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), March 18, 2002.

Thanks Bob. May I know anyone here has good experience using other collapsibles? (I know the elmar 90/f4 doesn't work)

-- John (doi3@hotmail.com), March 18, 2002.

Several things about the CLE. First, not many of them were made, it's offered for sale less often then the CL. Secondly, this is not a Leica M camera, in fact it has little or nothing to do with Leica. This is entirely a Minolta effort. Thirdly, many (? most) M lenses are not useable (partially or fully), fully in the case of M lenses that can't even be mounted on the CLE. It was designed for the use of three CL/CLE lenses: 28/2.8 Rokkor, 40/2, and 90/4). You are best off sticking with these lenses for full compatibility.

I don't recommend the Minolta CLE as a "second M body", as it is very limited in this regard. You are better off with a Hexar RF in terms of lens compatibility than a CLE.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), March 18, 2002.

Another opinion - I've used the CLE for almost 20 years and feel it's a wonderful second camera. Actually, it's seen much more use than my M4. The viewfinder is less cluttered than the CL, which is also a great camera.

No problems with M lens compatibility except for the old cron & lux 35's. I use my old lux 35 on it by removing the protective ring on the lens. It makes a great, fast, highly compact outfit. Most of the "incompatiilities" described on Gandy's site are due to the lenses partially blocking the viewfinder.

Nice to know the 50 collapsible works & the 90 doesn't. I'd be interested to hear how other collapsibles work as well.

Regards,

-- Jay D (jayd@netvigator.com), March 18, 2002.

Jay. I have to disagree. There are a number of lenses that can't be used on the CLE for various reasons (eg., 50/2 DR Summicron, 50/1.4 Slux, 50/1 Nocti, 135/2.8 Elmarit-M). In some cases the lens blocks the RF window so you can't focus. In other cases, you can't focus with the lenshood in place. Some lenses when collapsed can damage the camera. Not to mention the limited number of frames, which limits your lens options without an accessory VF.

And many people are not comfortable with removing a ring from the lens so they can use certain versions of the 35 mm Scron or Slux. I don't think the CLE can be generally recommended as a second M body. No doubt it is fine for some individuals who can adapt to its idiosynchrasies, but this camera was just not designed to use Leica M lenses.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), March 19, 2002.

Eliot, we'll agree to disagree. The incompatibilities you note are all due to the small size of the camera and the bulk of the lenses in question, and apply equally to the CL. The CL is actually much more prone to damage than the CLE due to its meter arm. 99% of Leica lenses work perfectly on it. I use the 28, 35 (lux and cron), 40, 50 (2 versions), and 90 lenses as well as the VC 15 and 21's without trouble on both cameras.

Anyway, I'm sure most CLE users could care less what you or I think. The CLE has been out of production for almost 20 years and still remains one of the best user cameras of all time.

-- Jay D (jayd@netvigator.com), March 19, 2002.

I’ve owned two CLE’s w/hand grips and CLE flash units for over 20 years. I’ve always used Leica glass. Actually, I’d never heard of problems of lenses until a few years ago when I started reading the historical postings (Mr. Gandy, thank you.). Back then, I used mid-70s 35 and 50 Summicrons, an Elmarit 28/2.8 (1982), and TE 90/2.8 (1982). No alternations, ring removals, etc. Pulled 'em from the box and stuck 'em on the cameras. I still have them and love them fiercely.

I broke down and got an M6TTL .85 a couple years ago, and have purchased a set of new lenses: Cosina 15, Elmarit 24 ASPH, 35/2 ASPH, 50/2 & 90/2 ASPH. They all work fine on the CLEs.

In fact, the ULTIMATE P&S camera, for close quarters parties, diplomatic functions, dinner parties where you’re expected to “document”, etc.: The CLE w/grip, the 24 ASPH, & CLE flash. There is no greater p&s when flash will be required, and you don’t want to make a big deal about it... until you deliver the photos!

No, you can’t use the hood, as it blocks the rangefinder. So what? I’ve spent many a day wandering thru local markets with the CLE & 24 and had no problems with flare, etc. I had owned the 24 for nearly 2 years and hadn’t gotten into it until I tossed it onto a CLE. The viewfinder gives you at least 25-6, and I lean my head back a few degrees to get 24, then lean in. That’s a good general rule for the 24, anyway. Closer is almost always better. The CLE has OTF TTL and the sliding diffuser on the little flash has remarkable coverage.

While I really, really love the M6, at least one CLE stays with me. True, framelines with the 35 lens show 28, and with the 50 they show 40. The TE 90 covers slightly more than the CLE 90 framelines, but just a hair. But I simply know my viewfinder and have long ago mentally inscribed the actual lens frame performance. Those lenses are all tiny (except the 28, which I never came to love), and I could use them in many situations where bigger cameras would simply not have been welcome.

The 90/2 ASPH is huge and heavy. With the hood out, the rangefinder has partial obstruction, but I find that it isn’t enough to hinder in bright light and, in low light, I don’t need the hood out. Anyway, the TE 90/2.8 still gets carried more often, because of weight. I carry all I need in a (very full) Tenba P-211 (original messenger type) that is as old as the CLEs I bought new. (M6, CLE, 24, 35, 50, 90, flashes, maybe the 15, maybe the 50/1.4, etc).

I am overwhelmingly grateful to this forum, as I’m mainly a lurker. I also live in a country where Internet access is still severely restricted. So, when I can, I get in and read like mad and rarely contribute. This was a chance to defend my beloved CLEs and still think it is the very best M (Leica never) made. I’m waiting to see if the M7 finally does justice to its memory.

Thank you, again. Owen Wrigley Yangon, Myanmar

-- Dr. Owen Wrigley (owenw@sala.net), March 22, 2002.