Related Local Links:
Build Quality Surprises
Check RF body/lens registration
Leica Finder Flare
Leica M7
Leica's Retrofocus Wide Angle Lenses
Lens Registration - Leica Vs. Konica [10/2002]
List of Leica Mount Lens Makers
Minolta vs Leica Tests
Only 1.2 Lenses Sold Per M Body?
Rangefinder Best Buys
Rangefinder FAQ
Russian Lens Resolutions
Table of RF Focusing base length

Related Links:
Collected Postings Courtesy of Doug Richardson
Collected Posting on Jupiter 85mm lens " "
Collected Posting on Russian 20mm lens " "

Bessa Rangefinder Prototype Review
Bessa T by Steve Gandy (1/4 cost of M6TTL, uses M lenses..)
Canon P RF (Dante Stella)
Canon 7 & VI-L RF (Dante Stella) [4/2002]
Canon Lenses for Leica (Dante Stella)
Charles Nguyen Leica Pages
Compatibility of Leica M lenses with Minolta CLE/CL [7/2001]
Cosina Bessa Rangefinder
Erwin Puts Leica CDROM
Fed 5C Review
Guide to Buying a Used R3 system
Jem Kime's Guide To Leica Cam Lenses
Jim Brick's Guide to Leica R Cam Lenses 101 [3/2001]
Kiev Rangefinders (by Peter Henning, Cameraquest) [11/2002]
Leica "Freedom Train" (WWII) [10/2002]
Leica Lenses Manual (pdf)[9/2002]
Leica M Lens Test Results [4/2002]
Leica M series Lens Reviewed (Paul Butzi)
Leica M3 Review (Erwin Puts)
Leica M6 Review (Paul Butzi)
Leicas for Leftys [1/2001]
LTM Lenses (cameraquest) [11/2002]
Nikon Lenses for Leica (Dante Stella)
Rangefinder Focusing Tips (Kevin Kalsbeek)
Rangefinder Renaissance 35mm.. (Bob Shell, Beststuff.com) [8/2002]
Review of Leica M mount lenses
Review of Leica M6 by Kirk Tuck [6/2001]
Russian Camera Collector Site (info + links) [12/2000]
Russian Leica Copies
Russian Rangefinder Pages (Manuals and articles)
Voigtlander Leica Mount Lens Reviews (Cosina..)
Yasuhara Corp (Japan Leica-L rangefinder clone maker)

Leica Gallery
Lee Freidlander
Mary Ellen Mark
Salgado
Ted Grant
Tina Manley

Chinese Leica clones (p.31-2 above) include Shanghai 58-II (and rarer 58-I) and Red Flag (M4 clone). Nikka and Leotax Leica clones from Japan. British Reid I - III - all at auction...

When is a Clone not a Clone?

Most repair techs can check this problem for you, using an optical bench or other test gear. Usually, non-matching lenses or bodies can be made to work together. Now you know another thing to check if you get some badly focused results, especially when used wide open, and after careful rangefinder alignments.

The above article concludes with "Warning: When cross-dressing Leica M and Voigtlander M lenses and cameras, be careful. Some lenses may fit the mount but not slide properly into the interior of the camera."

Dante Stella's excellent lens registration article examines this issue for Konica Hexar RF and Leica M series bodies. I believe his explanation for the above table resolution discrepancies in poor focusing effects is reasonable. The Leica lens registration distance in practice is essentially identical to that of the Konica Hexar RF, with a small allowance (.05mm) for film buckling. This observation makes much more sense than the claims that Konica cloned the M-bayonet mount, but got the lens registration wrong. [Update 10/2002]

The very important point here is that clone lenses, whether Russian, Ukrainian, Konica RF, or Voigtlander M variants have to be checked and adjusted to match your camera's lens registration distance to produce sharp results (especially wide open). The depth of focus will cover some problems when stopped down, but best results require a lens matched to the body being used.

Now you know why some folks love their Russian clone lenses, and others cast aspersions on the same optics. As Bob Shell notes in postings below, your camera and lens will work fine if their lens registrations match. But if you use a lens whose lens registration distance is a mere 0.2mm off that of the body, you will get poorer resolution, especially with fast lenses used wide open.

Again, older screw mount lenses should be checked to ensure their lens registrations are appropriate. I would say this is especially critical with older Russian or Ukrainian RF lenses, which are known to vary from the expected ideals in many lens samples which have been tested.

If you aren't sure whether to have this adjustment done, simply test your lenses wide open with fine grain film and compare the resolution with other lenses which are known good. Any problems should be more evident. If you don't see any problems with close focusing distances and your lens when used wide open, you don't probably don't have anything to worry about. If you are one of those who can't help but worry, then get your lenses and camera checked out. Some adjustments or shims will put your lens right into the proper alignment distance at modest costs, if your lens alignment is off.

It may be worthwhile to also check your camera body alignment (and RF focusing alignment) at the same time, in case the camera body is at fault. If you are still getting out of focus results, it may be time to check your vision and eyes to see if that's where the problem lies!

The improvement in maximum lens resolution performance might astonish you. On our critical focusing pages, we have charts which show small errors in focusing of 0.2mm or less can cut maximum resolution in half!

So when you see people trashing some of the clone lenses online, you will have to wonder if they simply failed to match the lens to the camera lens registration distance or really had a bad lens sample. Probably many of the poor ratings for Russian and Ukrainian lenses are from similar mis-match problems, rather than anything flawed with the lens design or construction. On the other hand, you may now be able to buy some great bargains in clone lenses, get them tuned up to the right lens registration distance, and greatly improve their performance. Enjoy!

Related Postings:

Well, let's see. The Bessa-L is selling for about $ 250 out of NYC, body only. I know what the dealer price on both cameras is, so my guess would be that the Bessa-R will sell for somewhere in the neighborhood of $ 569.95, give or take a nickel!

I already put my order in for one, in black.

Bob

......

Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000
From: "David S. Berger" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Lenses for Leica IIIf

MLapla4120 wrote:

> Anybody know which lenses have leica thread mount/rangefinder coupling?
> Did Zeiss make any? So far I know about Canon, Nikon and now the
> new Voigtlander series.
> Thanks

A complete list would be rather long. From the top of my head:

Leitz - Germany: Lots of old ones, couple of recent ones
Zeiss - Germany: none post-war
Nippon Kogaku (Nikon) - Japan: Full line
Canon - Japan: Full line, early ones called Serenar
Minolta (Chiyoko) - Japan: Super Rokkor, Tele Rokkor, current 28mm
Schneider - Germany: Tele Xenar, Xenogon, others
Steinheil - Germany: a bunch
Komura - Japan: a bunch
Kyoei - Japan: Acall
Tanaka Kogaku - Japan: Tanar
Olympus - Japan: rare 40mm (only one?)
Voigtl�nder - Germany: old Nokton 50/1.5 (others?)
Voigtl�nder - Japan: new Cosina stuff
FED, Industar, Jupiter - Russian: lots and lots (Zeiss designs mostly)
Arco - Japan: Tele Colinar, others?
Schacht - Germany: Travenar, Travegon, others
Ricoh - Japan: lens from GR (is this so??)
Wollensak - US: Wartime, joint with Leitz NY
Soligor - Japan:
Adorama (other names) - Japan: couple of wide angles
Sun Optical - Japan: 90mm, 135mm, others?
Angenieux - France: certainly rare
Kilfitt - Germany: viso lenses
Taylor-Hobson - UK: 50mm (rare ?)

I'm sure there are many more.

cheers,

David

David S. Berger, Ph.D.
Department of Medicine/Cardiology Section

Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000
From: Paul Chefurka [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why Leica? (Differences?...)

[email protected] (Robert Monaghan) wrote:

>Hi Paul,
>
>I guess I don't find it surprising that a M series non-retrofocus wide
>angle lens, with fewer optical design constraints, would equal or
>outperform an SLR lens using more elements (higher flare, lower contrast)
>in a retrofocus design.

Actually, I believe most of the new Leica M wides are retrofocus designs. Certainly the 24, the new 28/2.0 and both 35's are.

As to lens elements, I checked and found the following (go to fixed-pitch font for the table):

        Lens             Elements   Groups
---------------------------------------------
21/2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH       9         7
20/2.8 Nikkor              12         9
24/2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH       7         5
24/2.8 Nikkor               9         9
28/2.8 Elmarit-M            8         7
28/2.8 Nikkor AIS           8         8
28/2.0 Summicron-M ASPH     9         6
28/2.0 Nikkor AIS           9         8
35/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH      9         5
35/1.4 Nikkor               9         7
35/2.0 Summicron-M ASPH     7         5
35/2.0 Nikkor               6         5

Interestingly, the only Leica lenses that uses fewer elements than their Nikkor counterpart are the 21 and the 24. However in many cases the Leica lenses use fewer groups, which I assume means fewer air-glass interfaces. Also most of the Leica lenses incorporate aspheric elements, and according to Erwin Puts each aspheric element can be considered to replace two spherical ones as a rule of thumb. And to quote from his review of the 28/2.0 Summicron, "More lens elements can potentially improve performance, as more parameters can be controlled." If you can achieve the effect of more elements through the use of fewer aspherics, you should reap a benefit in terms of contrast among other things.

>While you may feel that the nikkor wide angles are rather poor, nikon's
>wide angles have historically been among the leaders in 35mm SLR wide
>angle lenses, at least prior to the rise of autofocus, with lots of
>optical firsts among SLR lens designs on wide angles to their credit.

I agree that Nikkor wides have been seminal designs. Their 35/2.0 and the 24/2.8 with its floating elements were revolutionary at the time of their introduction.

On the other hand, they have done very little R&D on wide angle primes over the last 15 years. The current 20/2.8 was introduced in 1985, the 24/2.8 dates from 1967, the 24/2.0 from 1978, the 35/1.4 from 1970, the 35/2.0 from 1965 (albeit with a couple of upgrades), the 28/2.0 from 1971 and the 28/2.8 AIS from 1982.

In fact, the last time most of their wides could have been reworked was in 1982 when the AIS redesigns took place. The only new wide angle formulae that were introduced after that date were the 20/2.8 and of course the AF 28's (which were hardly upgrades). The remainder of the reworks after 1982 appear to have been the fitting of AF barrels.

In contrast, Leica's current M wide angle lenses were introduced as follows:

21/2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH   - 1997
24/2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH   - 1998
28/2.8 Elmarit-M        - 1993
28/2.0 Summicron-M ASPH - 2000
35/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH  - 1995
35/2.0 Summicron-M ASPH - 1997

So, while the Nikkor designs were revolutionary when they were introduced, they have not been kept up to date, and have been decisively surpassed in all respects (including price) by Leica's current M lenses.

>a more interesting question is how well the new and much cheaper Cosina
>and other lenses are being received, and how well they perform versus the
>more pricey Leitz/Leica originals, in an apples to apples comparison.

Indeed. Cosina's new 28/1.9, the 35/1.7 Ultron, the 35/2.5, the 50/1.5 Nokton, the 25, the 15, the 12mm, the 75/2.5 and Konica's new 28, 50 and 90 have really put the cat among the pigeons. It sure in nice to see such a renaissance in rangefinder cameras and lenses.

>In the meantime, on my budget, I'm pretty happy to follow the 90/10
>rule; getting 90% of the quality for 10% of the cost ;-) ;-) grins bobm

And I OTOH am amazed that we can buy such state of the art devices as the current Leica lenses for such a pittance (when you consider what state-of-the-art costs in most other technological fields).

Paul Chefurka

Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000
From: Raymond Copley [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Bessa

Hullo Robert. Thanks for your swift reply. Congratulations on your site, it's a beauty which I have started to devour with an appetite. The review of the Bessa-R is the best I have read for a long time. Adeal Pty. Ltd., the Australian agents for Leica and Cosina, said they had been unable to get any backup information from Cosina and simply left me with a body, 3 lenses and the basic instruction manual - thin pickings for a review!

Here is something which you might like to pickup and amplify. Adeal's chief, Brian D'arcy, recently back from Photokina, said he had been told by the head of Leica optics that Leica lenses made 20 years ago were still ahead of the reproductive capabilities of current films and enlarging papers. On my estimation, it will be about 50 years before photographic materials catchup with the lenses NOW being made by Leica! In view of this disparity, it might make economic sense for Leica to slowdown on the costly research and development of new optics which cannot be fully exploited by users and with the savings cut prices which in turn would expand the market for their wonderful goodies. I recently made comparitive photographs using my 50mm F2 Sumicron made in 1955 and the latest version and couldn't detect any difference.

Another morsel from Brian which might provide interest for your viewers. Leica lenses manufactured in Canada are being sought after because of their exceptional optical quality. I have the Canadian 90mm F2 Sumicron and 135mm F2.8 Elmarit puchased in 1978 and they are positively superb.

Thank you again for the site addresses; I'll be making very regular visits. Happy New Year. Raymond Copley, Melbourne. [email protected]

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001
From: "Ken Iisaka" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Bessa-T focusing accuracy

> >M3       - 62
> >M6 .85   - 59
> >>Bessa T - 58
> >Screwmnt - 58 (II b-f, III b-g)
> >Nikon SP - 58
> >M2       - 49
> >M4,M4-2  - 49
> >M6 .72   - 49
> >Hexar RF - 41
> >Screwmnt - 41 (II - IIa, III-IIIa
> >M6 .58   - 40
> >CLE      - 28
> >Bessa R  - 24
> >CL       - 18
>
> What about the M5?

The same as M2/4/6. .72x magnification, at 49mm effective base length.

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001
From: imx [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] historians burden

Any Leica collector and/or historian would like to have all facts neatly arranged and ready to study.

The area of the production numbers and years of production of Leica products will however always be fragmentary and full of uncertainties, even when the collector books do suggest the contrary.

Let us face these very basic facts.

Leica has a thick book in folio format where you will find several entries on a line:

a date, two serial numbers, a lens or body identification and a code number.

As example:

17 december 1957, 1.000.000 to 1.003.000, elmarit 2.8/90, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

This entry tells you that on this date the indicated serial namber range has been 'booked' for that lens. That is all! Every author of any Leica book in existence (except one) has interpreted these lines as meaning: "there have been produced 3000 elmarits, producton starting in december 1957".

In fact the correct interpretation is:

"On 17 december the factory has the intention to produce a batch of elmarit lenses and has reserved the indicated number range for that purpose and the engraving of front lens rings with the lens name and consecutive serial numbers may begin at any time."

It is a reasonable assumption that these rings have been produced. But there is no evidence what so ever in the factory records about production of lenses itself.

Several possibilities now pop up.

(A)The full range of numbers has been indeed produced, but not in one batch, but in several ones, stretching over a longer but unknown period, making it difficult to correlate the production years to the allocation years. A current case is the VE2.8/35-70. Number range has been allocated in 1998, but production is not yet finished.

(B)The full range of numbers has not been produced, but we do not know how many.

There is on the other hand fragmantary info about sold lenses (Verkaufsb�cher). But if we find a gap in the serial numbers (and many can be found), what does that mean: not produced? not sold?, sold by other means? kept in the factory? Laney's books do use the sales figures as being identical to the production numbers, which is tricky.

Sartorius uses the allocation numbers as production numbers, although he sometimes mentions the allocation principle. But he uses the allocation dates as dates of production, which is tricky too.

A small French booklet does the only thing that can be done to find reliable info: he presents the lowest and highest number he has ever spotted. But even then he does not know if and how many gaps there are.

The real production figures not being available, there is a certain amount of uncertainty around all figures and dates that try to indentify dates and numbers of production. The documents that exist give valuable info for imaginative leaps of fantasy.

The 1,5/85 is a case: production numbers are allocated from 1943, but there are sales recorded in 1949. has this lens be on stock for 6 years? are there some lenses made at a later date?

I think we should get accustomed to the fact that the world is not so well ordered and neat as we hope. And some information we may never get to a satisfactory level of reliability! Leica history is a fascinating, but somewhat trivial pursuit. But if it is taken on, it should be done professionally according to the rules of the profession of industrial history.

Erwin

[Ed. Note: noteworthy in context of Leica build quality claims etc.]
From Leica Topica Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001
From: kirk tuck [email protected]
Subject: RE: Definitive Hexar Leica Answer

Actually, Roger, the newest Summicrons are made of aluminum whereas the Konica uses heavier brass and aluminum construction. The Konica may have the advantage on build quality. The real battle ground would be the glass and I would still give Leica the benefit of the doubt there. Just posted the findings as there are alot of folks using Hexars, and I thought they should know.

Best, Kirk

P.S. We pros will shoot with just about anything we can get our hands on. As long as there's a red dot somewhere nearby :-)

Roger Beamon wrote:

> but not too bad if you factor
> in the build. The Summicron IS considerably better, and that is
> important to you pros, not?

Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 
To: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: stats: only 1.2 lenses per leica M sold?


Several posters have suggested that the average (modal?) Leica user only 
owns one lens. I believe this, as similar studies of hasselblad optics 
show only a few lens per owner based on published lens sales, and over 
half the lenses sold are the normal lens alone. So I wouldn't be surprised 
to find out that very few leica owners have more than one lens. Here's the 
math and my sources: (see http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/mffaq.html)

the annual Leica M sales for 2000/1 shows 49.8 million euros on M system
sales (cameras and lenses), source:
http://www.leica-camera.com/imperia/md/content/pdf/investorre/annualrepo/19.pdf

M sales = 49.8 million euros = $44 mil US (http://www.xe.com/ucc/ 
converter euros to $, 88 cents per euro

12,000 sales M bodies (6,000 R) in 1999 Erwin pots
http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/brondeath.html#1999

16% growth to 2000/1, so 1/6th, so add 2,000 M bodies for growth to 2000/1
12,000+2,000 = 14,000 M bodies  [growth stats in above pdf annual report]

price M6TTL.58 = $1,995 (B&H Price) [www.bhphotovideo.com]
price M6TTL.72 = $2,695 (B&H Price)

dealer markup on mailorder bodies is claimed to be 5-10%, so let us be 
conservative and just use $2k for average body cost with above prices;

14,000 M bodies (2000/1) * $2,000 body = $28 mil sales (worldwide) bodies

price 50mm f/2 Leica = $995 (B&H price) (call it $1k) [dealer markup?]

14,000 M lenses * $1,000 = $14 mil sales (worldwide) for leica lens, one 
per body sold, cheapest leica standard lens

total for sales of 14,000 bodies each with 50mm f/2 lens = $28 mil + $14 
mil = $42 mil for M6 body plus one lens

total sales for all M items, including lenses and accessories and bodies
= $44 mil (49.8 mil euros).

amount left to buy more lenses = $2 mil
if lenses cost $2,000 each, only 1,000 lenses for 14,000 units (1.07 
lens/kit)
if lenses cost $1,000 each, only 2,000 lenses for 14,000 units (1.14 
lenses/kit)

Even if we allow for some pretty large dealer markups on the lenses and 
bodies (and the claim is only 5-10% on mailorder on bodies and lenses)
we still are forced to conclude that there isn't much room here for sales 
of Leica lenses to be much over 1.2 lenses per average leica owner.

I am forced to conclude that the posters who claimed that the average 
leica owner had only the standard 50mm f/2 on the average were probably 
more correct than I thought. Naturally, I am not counting voigt-sina or 
konica or fed/zorki and clone lenses or remounted LTM and so on here. 

Does anyone have any lens production sales statistics which can help us 
understand just how many lenses leica owners on average have got? I hear a 
lot about those nifty 35mm f/1.4 and other optics, but it doesn't look 
like every Leica owner has run out and bought one ;-) Does anyone have 
figures on the average lens ownership by leica owners? Or if the above is 
wrong, can someone explain how and why, citing their sources?

thanks for the stats and info in advance!

bobm


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 
From: [email protected]
Subject: Soviet lenses resoloution

Lens          Middle      Edge
Vega 11y      70          40
Industar 50y  60          20
Industar 96y  60          24
Industar 90y  50          25
Industar 23y  50          13
Industar 100y 70          35 another document says 40

I also found a document that says the Volna 9 has a resolution of 47 middle and
30 edge and a second that says 42 middle and 30 edge.

I can find nothing on the Helios 103 1.8/53 for Kiev rangfinders.

Nathan Dayton
www.commiecameras.com
--

From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 
From: "Per Backman" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Soviet lenses resoloution

[email protected] wrote:

>Lens          Middle      Edge
>Vega 11y      70          40
I found 65/35 at 5X enlargement.
>Industar 50y  60          20
>Industar 96y  60          24
>Industar 90y  50          25
>Industar 23y  50          13
>Industar 100y 70          35 another document says 40

Vega 29u (50/2,8), has a resolution power of 75 l/mm in the center and 60 
l/mm at the edge

>I also found a document that says the Volna 9 has a resolution of 47 middle
and 30 edge and a second that says 42 middle and 30 edge.

The factory specs say "not less than 42 in the center and 30 at the edge" at
infinity (at 24cm it is 42/20). This is by fully open aperture, in practice you
would not use it as the depth of field is to small.

It seems to have been a policy to set the specs so low, that no complaints
could be expected.

>I can find nothing on the Helios 103 1.8/53 for Kiev rangfinders.
Helios 103 53/1,8 has a resolution power of 55 l/mm in the center and 28 
l/mm at the edge.

Per


From: "Tony Polson (the one and only)" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc
Subject: NEW LEICA M7.  The verdict.
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002


Shout it from the rooftops:

The Leica M7 is *real*.

The Leica M7 is *here*.

The Leica M7 is *beautiful*.

The Leica M7 offers *real value for money*.

ACCEPT NO IMITATIONS!!!!



OK, now for some facts.

I handled the M7 today at the UK exhibition "Focus on imaging".  I had
about 10 minutes with the camera and loved it enough to order one.
It's basically an M6 TTL with added aperture priority AE and an
electronically controlled shutter offering some interesting
possibilities for flash synch at higher shutter speeds than the usual
1/50 sec.

Body dimensions are identical to the M6 TTL.  The shutter is still a
horizontal travel cloth focal plane shutter but is now electronically
controlled.  Shutter speeds top out at 1/1000 as with the M6 TTL, but
the only non-battery dependent speeds available on the M7 are 1/60 and
1/125 sec.

The body has a new shutter release locking collar which also turns
on/off power to the light meter and AE system.  The shutter speed dial
has an additional click setting "AUTO" but is otherwise similar to the
M6.

DX film speed coding is added but there is full manual over-ride.

Fastest flash X-synch speed remains at 1/50 sec., but a special Metz
SCA 34xx adaptor allows flash synch at speeds between 1/250 and 1/1000
sec including first and second curtain synch.

Now hear this:  In the UK, the M6 TTL lists at GBP 1698.00 including
17.5% sales tax (VAT, about 15% of the selling price).

**The M7 is only GBP 100.00 more.**

I think this represents excellent value for money.  The M6 TTL will
continue in the Leica range for the forseeable future because it
offers a full range of mechanically controlled shutter speeds.


The M7 will be available from March in the usual chrome and black
finishes and with 0.72X, 0.85X and 0.58X magnification viewfinders.
The M7 black 0.72X will come first, followed by the M7 0.72X chrome.
The other viewfinder magnifications will come later.  I was told to
expect my M7 black 0.58X in May 2002.

My thanks to Peter Antoniou of Leica UK for the opportunity to handle
this camera and discuss its specifications in detail.

Leica have a winner on their hands in the M&, no doubt about it.
--
Regards, Jan



[Ed. note: I'm not sure about the cause, but I think it is a good idea to have
RF bodies checked, and your lenses, to ensure proper registration, esp. with older
bodies and lenses, or lenses in adapters...]

From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 
From: "[email protected]" [email protected]
Subject: Film register problems for everyone?!

I was discussing the issue of film-flange register with a certain repair
wizard who lives up on a mountain. The question was how you would check
film-flange register on a given camera/lens combination. The conversation
started with my idea of having my Hexar RF tested against a selection of
lenses and concluded with my wondering if it was my M3 instead that needed
to be checked.

First, besides telling me that as a real world test it is impossible to do
because the film starts to bow inward after a minute (relative humidity
changing); he also shared this interesting insight: Leica late LTM (IIIc and
on) and M bodies contract over time, enough to cause the body focus to
change. This is the same principle which makes boring out old engine blocks
more attractive than using new ones; the cylinders keep their shape. If I
recall, he called it "seasoning" of the alloy.

To be fair, this isn't just Leica, but anything with a diecast chassis (ever
wonder why old SLRs sometimes focus a hair past infinity?). Leitz perceived
this to be such a problem in the screwmount era that it advertised that they
were made of metal stampings to improve precision and stability. Then they
started die-casting and the party line became that die-casting was better
(in reality, die-casting allows smaller tolerances but apparently does
nothing to promote stability).

Second, register problems do not manifest themselves with lenses like the
Summilux 75 close-up, but rather with fast, wide lenses at infinity. Wide
lenses have very little focus travel at the longer distances, and if there
is a register problem (like body focus being too long), the lens will fall
well short of focusing at infinity or focus well past it. This would tend to
suggest that a lot of the people with troublesome Summilux 75s and Leica M6s
close up are having rangefinder or lens problems, not register problems.
Having used a 21/2.8 both on my M3 and my Hexar, both seem to be fine at
f/2.8 at infinity at 50x. My interlocutor said that that fact suggested that
it was unnecessary to test either camera.

My personal conclusion from this is that is that a lot of old M cameras
probably have less than ideal body focus and that the modern Ms (of whatever
brand) are heading that way. It also makes me think twice about all of this
(probably manufactured) argument about the Hexar RF's register distance
being slightly longer, (1) because most people who have complained about
focusing problems have complained about long lenses not focusing
(=rangefinder alignment); (2) because the Leica frame of reference on any
camera before the M6 (1985) is a moving (contracting) target; and (3) given
the nominal dimensions of the Hexar FFR (28.00 +/- 0.03mm) vs. the Leica M
(27.95 +/- 0.01), it seems just as likely that after 10 years, a Hexar RF
could have a FFR closer to Leica spec than a Leica does.

I suspect that the Hexar RF is now mfd to the same FFR as the Leica (27.95
to the inner rails). because it seems that everyone who has had real
register problems has had a low-S/N Hexar. Even then, the majority of
complaints I have seen have centered around focusing long and/or fast normal
lenses.  I surmise that Konica figured out the problem fairly early on.

The solution to all of this seems to be checking body focus (on any camera)
every 10 years or so.

Strange.
------------
Dante Stella
http://www.dantestella.com



[Ed. note: the latest Popular Photography has a blurb on the lens registration distances
between Leica M and the various Bessa... clone lenses - there are some differences which
need to be considered and taken into account by adjustment of some lenses or bodies...]
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rangefinder camera article

 Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) at [email protected] wrote:

> BTW, you do not point out the 1.2 mm difference in the film to lens
> distances for Leica v. Konica.
> Your comments on that on this list were proven true in this month's Pop
> Photo where they measures the distance on the Hexar, Leica-M, and
> Voigtlander.  The Hexar RF was the only one of the 3 that was out by 1.2mm
> which would make for an out of focus picture if you were using a Leica 50mm
> or longer focal length (or so it was said). Wide angles the difference does
> not easily produce soft focus especially when stopped down.
> Why on earth would Konica built a better M6 (or even an M7) and shot
> themselves with this small difference?
> Peter K
>


That article wasn't the place to go into that.

Yes, it was gratifying to see Pop confirm what I already knew to be true.
But I had my Hexar adjusted and it produces great photos with Leica lenses
now.

Bob


From manual minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002
From: "Dave" [email protected]
Subject: More lens tests

Well, I have gone and done it.  The test of what I think are the finest of
the mf Minolta lenses against the test of Leica R systems lenses  of similar
focal lengths.  First off let me say that there were a few surprizes in my
results and the tests were repeated to eliminate human error as best as
possible.  I have not tested all the lenses in their systems, only the ones
I personally own or could borrow.  All the lenses tested have perfect
unmarked lens elements with no scratches, cleaning marks ( which is the ebay
term for scratches) ;-) fog, haze or fungus.  All lenses were very carefully
cleaned prior to test and all lenses had lens hoods mounted during the
shooting.

  The lenses tested are as follows:

35mm MC W. Rokkor f/1.8
35mm Leitz Elmarit-R f/2.8
50mm MC Rokkor-X f/1.4 late version
50mm Leitz Summicron-R f/2 last version
60mm Leitz Elmarit-R Macro f/2.8
85mm MC Rokkor f/1.7 with chrome aperture ring
90mm Leitz Summicron f/2 late version
90mm Leitz Elmarit-R f/2.8 last version
135mm MD Rokkor-X f/2.8 4 element version with rubber grip and all metal
construction
135mm Leitz Elmarit-R f/2.8 last version
180mm Leitz APO Telyt-R f/3.4

First in the 35 mm catagory.  No contest, Leitz wins at all f stops

In the 50mm catagory.  Minolta MC Rokkor-X wins very handily.  In all
apertures, the Rokkor beat the Leitz lens hands down.  This was a very big
surprize for me.  The Leitz Summicron 50 is a very respected lens and rates
a very high number from Photodo. This MC Rokkor is a real winner!  Hats off
to the Mind of Minolta.  I tested the 60mm Leitz Elmarit-R just for fun and
it was an incredible lens beating even the Minolta MC 50 at comparible
apertures.  Even wide open at f/2.8 it beat the MC Rokkor-X at f/2.8.  But
you have have to compare them at 50x magnification to really see the
difference.  At 10x you cannot tell the story.

In the 85 and 90 catagory.  Number one in performance is the Leitz 90mm
Elmarit-R with a close second to the Leitz Summicron 90mm.  Minolta had a
third place showing here with the MC-Rokkor f/1.7.  The Leitz 90mm Elmarit-R
is a fantastic lens and not a surprize here that it beat all comers.

In the 135mm catagory.  Here another surprize for me.  The Leitz 135mm
Elmarit-R late version beat my favorite 135mm Minolta MD-Rokkor-X but only
wide open and f/4.  By f/5.6 the MC Rokkor almost caught up and only at 100x
magnification could you see any real difference.  The Leitz 135 was much
sharper than I had imagined and it had a warmer color cast as well.  Bokeh
with the Leitz 135mm is superb but that sucker is heavy and not one I would
like to lug around too much or too far.  The MD Rokkor-X 4 element  is still
a very sweet lens and still one of my favorites.

Again for fun, I shot the Leitz 180mm APO Telyt-R f/3.4 and have to say it
lives up to it's reputation.  This lens was designed and built in the ELC
plant in Canada for the US Navy as a special recon lens and it is amazing.
It is very sharp wide open and doesn't show any appreciable improvement with
stopping down.  I have not yet shot the MC Rokkor 200mm f/3.5 lens against
it but when I do, I will let you know.

In conclusion, the Minolta lenses faired very well against what is
considered to be the best in the world.  In one case, the 50mm, it even won.
I would love to test the new Leitz 50mm Summilux f/1.4 which is supposed to
easily win against the Summicron but I don't have a spare $2000 in my
pocket.  Which brings up my whole point of this comparison.  There is no
better value in camera lenses than the superb Minolta lenses.  They perform
along with the best at prices that are unbeatable.  Minota owners hold your
heads high when that Nikon or Canon owner looks at your equipment with
disdain.  We know better.

Dave Saalsaa



From leica mailing list:
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 
From: John Collier [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] finder flare

Take your M2 and one of your M6TTLs and try the following. Look thought
the center of the finder, as you normally do, and then slowly let your
eye go off-center to one side. The M2's super-imposed image will shift
slightly, grow dim and finally go white starting at one edge. This
requires a good deal of movement by the eye relative to the finder so in
practice you do not notice it. The M6TTL's super-imposed will shift
slightly, dim and go white all at the same time. It takes very little
eye movement for this to happen so you notice it frequently.

It really annoyed the h*** out of me at first but I have become used to
it now. When it happens I just center my eye again and it disappears. It
is all second nature now such that I do not even notice it happening.
There is another finder flare that is induced by a strong oblique light
hitting the viewfinder. This causes the finder patch to white out and
eye centering will not get it to reappear. All M cameras suffer from
this equally.

The M7 with its coated windows is better than the M6TTL but not as good
as the M2. It is a good compromise though and, if Leica does not soon
announce its long awaited fix for the finder flare, I will get the M7
windows fitted to my two M6TTLs.

John Collier

Steve LeHuray wrote:

> I have been wondering about the dreaded M flare for several years now,
> wondering because flare has never occured with any of my Ms (2 M2s, M3, 2
> M6TTLs). Many others have also have no flare problems. Could it have
> something to do with the difference in peoples eyes? Could it be there is a
> correct and incorrect way to look through the viewfinder?


=====
See Related Postings for more comments and discussion on rangefinders

(warning: file is over 800kb download - split to speed up downloading this page...)


End of Page