Using a Leica CL

I am interested in others experiences using a Leica CL. I like the CL's spot meter, size, room around the 40/50/90mm frames, and the match needle. Wearing glasses I can see the entire view, however the finder is very small.

<p>

How do you get a diopter adjustment (would current X-370/700 Minolta diopters fit?

<p>

Would the 40 and 90mm CL lens be competitive with Minolta MD or C&N glass.

<p>

Would multi-coated Minolta Rokkers made in the 80s be an improvement over Leica badged single coated lens?

<p>

Does the CL have an accurate focus at distances over 3 ft since the rangefinder base is short?

I have not used a CL extensively but can answer your questions. The

eyepeice correction lenses are CL only and are extremely difficult to

find (found this in the Leica-users archives). The 40mm summicron is a

very sharp, highly regarded lens and just as good as the 50mm

summicron of the day (ie. excellent). Both of the 90mm f4 lenses were

made by Leitz in Germany and are very good if a little slow compared

to what we are now used to. The lenses for the CLE were multicoated

but they also used a different focussing cam. The original CL lenses

used a "steep" cam that was different from the M camera's lens cam.

When Minolta made the CLE and its lenses they switched to the M camera

type of cam so these lens are not supposed to focus accurately on the

CL. I have heard people say they work just fine but would recomend you

do your own focussing tests with a yard stick to be sure before

buying. The CL rangefinder is fine for focussing its lenses. I would

not mount a 50mm f1.4 to it nor would I mount a 90mm f2.0. If you

stick with the CL's original lenses you will get sharp contrasty

properly focussed images. Some people use a 90mm F2.8 and say it

focusses fine but do your own tests first. The CL was a great camera

and singlehandedly killed off the M5 and almost took out the M4 line

as well. Leica stopped making them as they made very little money off

them, though Minolta did alright making them for Leica, and the CL

took away from sales of t

Well it cut off my final line which was to say that the CL took sales

away from Leica's premium (and money making) cameras

Some people maintain that the CLE 40mm and 90mm are actually better

than the CL lenses, because they are multicoated. They are certainly

cheaper and of equal quality, although the 28mm is apparently not as

good as the Elmarit of the same vintage. As to steep focussing cams

etc. I think this was Leica propaganda. If Leica-M-lenses work on the

CLE then it must work the other way round too. It was Leica basically

attempting to stop CLE Rokkors from stealing their market for M

owners.

The CLE lenses do not use the steep cam, only the CL lenses do. The

CLE lenses work fine on any Leica M camera but the CLE 28 will bring

up the 35/135 frameline on a Leica M camera. It is possible to modify

the bayonet flange by adding extra material to bring up the correct

framel

It cut off my last word again! Frameline. I will inset this garbage

sentence s

The Minolta CLE was a much better choice for me than the CL. I found

that the CL's meter always seems to be jumping around, even on

cameras that just had been repaired by a Leica specialist. The

rangefinder base on the CLE was larger as well. As far as the lenses

go, the 40mm multicoated Rokkor for the CLE is as good as any lens I

have ever used, and is sharp even at f2.0. I wasn't as happy with

the 90mm f4.0 and sold it. I already had a 90mm 2.8 Elmarit that

works great on either the cl or cle, and is noticeably better than

the f4.0 Elmar/Rokkor at all f-stops.

Andrew, your advise came in handy for me. I happen to buy a used CLE

recently and I was comtemplating whether to buy the Leica 90mm or the

Minolta one. Looks like Leica will be the choice. Thanks.