Re: [Leica] Leica 24mm Lenses

["Bud Cook" <budcook@ibm.net>]

I have an SL and SL-2, not a Minolta derivative.  I simply chose to buy a 28
designed by Leitz instead of the 24 designed by Minolta..  This was in 1977
when Leica was in trouble and was rebadging Minolta gear to survive.

I was switching SLR systems from Nikon F's to Leicaflexes in order to obtain
lenses that were as good as my Leica M lenses and had a similar color
rendition on Kodachrome.   I didn't want to take a chance on a Minolta
design just days before leaving on a 6 week tour of Europe.

Bud Cook
- -----Original Message-----
From: Jim Brick <jim@brick.org>
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Date: Saturday, January 24, 1998 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica 24mm Lenses


>I would like to know the reason behind not choosing the 24 on the basis
>that it's a Minolta design? Assuming you are using an R Leica (not an R8),
>you are using a Minolta designed camera body. This is an honest question
>(not a jibe) as I have been using my 24mm R lens since 1976 and have proven
>over and over that it is a stellar performer.
>
>So again, what defect should be inherent in the Minolta design?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Jim
>
>
>At 08:44 AM 1/24/98 -0600, you wrote:
>>I currently use a 28mm ElmaritR although I prefer the 24mm over the 28.
>>When I switched from Nikon SLR's to Leica SLR's the only 24mm available
was
>>a Minolta design so I bought a 28.
>>
>>Is the current 24mm ElmaritR a true Leitz lens?  Does anyone have
experience
>>with it?
>>
>>The other option I have is the 24mm for the M body.  If both lenses were
>>similar in performance, I'd prefer the reflex version but this is a very
>>important focal length for me so I'd put up with the auxiliary viewfinder
if
>>the M lens was worth the trouble.
>>
>>TIA,
>>Bud Cook
>>
>