CL rangefinder accurate enough for Nokton 40mm f1.4

<p>In reviewing earlier threads on the Voigtlander Nokton 40mm f1.4 I found numerous comparisons to the Leica 40mm f2, but no real discussion of how well the short base CL rangefinder could focus the f1.4 lens. I'm considering the f1.4 over the Leitz 40mm f2 if there are no focusin accuracy issues.</p>

<p>It depends. Focusing accuracy depends not just on the rangefinder base length, but on the total optical system, of which the eye is a part. So the well-rested and well-corrected eye, in conjunction with a CL, might very well focus the 40/1.4 accurately enough. But in general, the longer base length of an M6, and the higher magnification of the .85 or .91 finder, will increase the chances of success for those of us with tired old eyes! </p>

<p>My guess is that it would be OK most of the time. At closest focus you may miss focus sometimes - but then isn't that always the case whatever fast lens you are using?</p>

<p>Thanks. Your responses confirm my thougts on this combination. Lately, I've seen the f1.4 Nokton going for less than the f2 Leica or Minolta 40 on the used market. </p>

<p>I like the look for that 40/1.4 I have to say - but I no longer have a camera to fit it on. CL+Nokton would be a sweet combination.</p>

<p>We're only taking 1 stop here over the Leica 40/2 the CL came with. I think you should be ok, but I guess you could use a magnifier. Not sure if the Leica M magnifiers fit or not.</p>

<p>You'll probably be okay with the 40mm Nokton on the CL most of the time. But wide-open in low light - forget about it.</p>

<p>AFAIK - there are no mag finders designed to fit the CL (it was a Minolta designed eyepiece).</p>

<p>The CL was one of the most interesting cameras Leitz ever had a part in. It was designed by and tagged "Leitz Wetzlar" but built by Minolta Japan. It was discontinued because it was <em>said</em> to be below Leitz' quality control standards, but it was very successful during its run. Approximately 65,000 CLs were built and sold (that's more than the M4 or M4-2 and M4-P combined). </p>

<p>During the Leitz-Minolta “partnership” certain cameras and lenses were designed by Minolta and built by Leitz (i.e., the R3, R4 - along with its various incarnations, and 24mm Elmarit-R - a very complex lens design, BTW). Similarly, certain cameras and lenses were designed by Leitz and built by Minolta (i.e., the CL and 40mm Summicron). I'm sure there are at least a few other 'crossover' examples.</p>

 

<p>Bill, even though the CL was built by Minolta, the 40 cron-C and 90 elmar-c were both built in Germany. They say "made in Germany" on the lens. I have them both, and even though other lenses may be somewhat technically better, they are both fantastic and so small that they are a pleasure to use. As I understand it, Leica may have also produced the 90 Rokkor. I'm not sure about the 40 Rokkor or anything that was made for the later Minolta CLE.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As I understand it, Leica may have also produced the 90 Rokkor. I'm not sure about the 40 Rokkor or anything that was made for the later Minolta CLE.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I didn't want to get into the minutia (I thought I'd said too much already), but yes, you are <em>partly</em> correct. The 90 and 40 C lenses were built by Leitz in Wetzlar, Germany, but the corresponding Minolta Rokkor branded lenses were built by Minolta in Japan. These corresponding lenses were identical in lens formula (designed by Leitz, Germany for the Leitz/Minolta CL). Only the lens coatings were different (in this case, Minolta used multi-coatings while Leitz used single coatings). </p>

<p>These lenses (either brand) were, and still are, considered by most to be excellent by any standard. </p>

<p>I thought what you wrote implied the Leica cron-c was made by minolta while only the Rokkor 40 was. My impression over the years is that you are quite knowledgeable, so that is that. I didn't mean to get off post.<br>

In my attempt to stay on task with the poster, I would agree that Rob F's post and yours and the other's as well are right. I've used a CL a lot with the cron-c, and I think the chances with the 1.4 lens are good enough to be worth trying. I have been enticed by that little 40 1.4 but because I have the cron-C and love it, I just stuck with it. I am delighted by how the cron-c has increased in price lately since I have one, and I can certainly see why the 1.4 makes a lot of sense these days.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I didn't want to get into the minutia (I thought I'd said too much already), but yes, you are <em>partly</em> correct. The 90 and 40 C lenses were built by Leitz in Wetzlar, Germany, but the corresponding Minolta Rokkor branded lenses were built by Minolta in Japan. These corresponding lenses were identical in lens formula (designed by Leitz, Germany for the Leitz/Minolta CL). Only the lens coatings were different (in this case, Minolta used multi-coatings while Leitz used single coatings).</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />This isnt quite correct. The first 40mm and 90mm Rokkors for the Leitz/Minolta CL were not multicoated only the later CLE versions were. The first 90mm Rokkor wasnt just designed by Leitz but was made in Germany by Leitz Wetzlar so it coatings are identical to the Elmar-C. With the CL Summicron C and the CL Rokkor there was clearly some parts sharing. There are coating variations with the Summicron C but some of them have identical coatings to the first Rokkor that suggest some optic sharing on occasions as well. All the Leitz Minolta CL Rokkor 40mm f2's are single coated.<br>

<br />With respect to the original posting, yes the CL can focus the 40mm f1.4. The recommended extreme for the CL is a 50mm f2.0 for which it has framelines. A wider and faster lens like the 40mm f1.4 will be on the edge of its capabilities but if you take your time to focus like you would a 50mm at f2 you will be fine. The Nokton 40mm f1.4 makes the CL look like a bit of a beast.</p>