Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/05/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]John Collier wrote: > > Leica has always stated that the cams are of different design and will not > couple accurately. While the design is indeed different, the CL cam has a > shorter steeper cam, the depth of field of the 40 seems to make up for the > possible focusing inaccuracies. All anecdotal reports I have heard are that > it focuses just fine. The 40/2 is an excellent lens, just as good as its > contemporary 50/2 (11817). > > John Collier > > > From: Mike Quinn <mlquinn@san.rr.com> > > > > I've heard rumors about a difference in cam pitch, but so far no one has > > explained exactly what the difference is or what effect it has on focussing. > > Rumors without data are maddening! Does anyone (Sal?) have more precise > > information on where in the focusing range (and with which m-series bodies) > > problems might occur? I always thought Leica took this stand so customers wouldn't opt for the cheaper lenses for their M cameras, especially the Minolta versions. I know that when I used the 90 mm Elmar M on the CL it was hard to focus because the image moved so slowly relative to the twist of the lens barrel. I have not tried a C lens on an M. John Shick