[Leica] RE: M lenses on CL/CLE

[Vince Lamberti <106623.3440@compuserve.com>]

Edmund,

I can offer some advice on the CLE, but not the CL.

My travel kit is a CLE with a new Summicron 35 and Rokkor 90.  The
CLE/Summicron 35, in particular, is a potent combo.  I've come close to
replacing the Rokkor 90 with an Elmarit 90, however I stopped short since=
 I
only use this lens for around 10% of my travel shots.  I prefer the frami=
ng
and focussing accuracy of my R7 or RE with lenses 90mm or longer, and use=

these when I'm in the mood for lugging around some extra weight.

The aperture priority TTL metering and tremendous TTL flash capabilities
with my Metz flash, combined with the ability to use Leica M glass are th=
e
main reasons I use this camera.  Its also very compact and travels well.

I've attached an archived rec.photo message with similar/some additional
information to Stephen Gandy's web site.  I don't agree with the comments=

in the attached message on the 35s since I use the Summicron 35 on my CLE=
,
and Michiel Fokkema (a fellow LUGer) uses a Summilux 35 on his CLE.   We
have both removed the protective rings on the back element.  If you leave=

this ring on the 35s, focus stops just short of infinity at around 25+
feet.

In my view the CLE is ideally suited to wide to standard focal length
lenses.  The key limitations are that it is has a shorter base length tha=
n
Leica Ms and framelines for just 28,40 and 90s.  Aside of fast M tele's
blocking the viewfinder and/or rangefinder, focussing accuracy may be a
problem, particularly with a 75/1.4 wide open for example.

Cheers,

Vince Lamberti

P.S.  I'll be out of email contact until 15/12.


rec.photo archive :

Subject:        Re: Leica CL/Minolta CLE: M lens compatibily
From:           Michael McCurdy <M-CMcCurdy.Olathe@worldnet.att.net>
Date:           1997/02/26
Message-ID:     <3313F39B.793C@worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups:     rec.photo.equipment.35mm

Danny Gonzalez wrote:
> =

> I recently had a conversation with a man (named H. Cummer) about the M
> lens compatibility of the CL/CLE cameras. The upshot was that most M le=
ns
> work fine, with a few that don't.
> =

> The CLE can mount and focus the 21, while the CL's can't (meter cell's
> semaphore arm blocks mounting).
> =

> The 50 1.4 Summilux blocks the secondary RF window at close focus.
> =

> The 35/2 Summicron and 35 1.4 S'lux (as well as the current ASPH) won't=

> mount on either the CL or CLE.
> =

> The first version Asphercal 35 1.4 works fine on a CLE (No CL experienc=
e)
> =

> The 28's from version II to current, work fine on both cameras (no 28
> framelines in CL)
> =

> The 50/2 works fine on both.
> =

> The 75 1.4 doesn't work (blocks both view and RF windows), but will
mount.
> Ditto the 90/2.
> =

> The 90 2.8 Tele-Elmarit and Tele-Elmarit-M both work very well. The new=
er
> Elmarit may be too large, but no experience to back that.
> =

> Any body else care to fill in the holes here?