terry_rory Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 Well the title pretty much says it. Ignoring (if possible) any camera that is attached to both of these lenses what are your opinions on this comparison? Erwin Puts (in his review of the Summarit 40mm f2.4/Minilux) would seem to place the quality of this lens in between the 35mm Summicron f2 Asph (Best) and the 40mm Summicron f2 (not quite as good as Summarit) He doesn't actually find a lot of difference between all 3 designs and seems to think the 40mm f2.4 Minilux lens is the pinnacle of the Double Gauss design. (Bit strong maybe?) Can those with experience of both 35mm/40mm Summicrons and the Minilux's Summarit 40mm offer any thought or samples to illustrate? (Real world stuff not 'test' shots of newspapers pinned to walls.) Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xavier_dalfort Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 Trevor, The 40mm is a real gem although it has a simple coating. I suppose the E0 elmarit has better design in terms of unsollicited reflection but at a lower economic cost. Back to the CL, I recently discovered the product of Akihiro Asahi: http://www.aki-asahi.com/store/html/cl/cl.php Who can help me in identifying the shade attached to the CL lens? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan flanders Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 The shade appears to be the #12585. The Summicron C doesnt have the clip groove but if you strip the rubber off the collapsible hood the ventilated shade will clip to it. When my rubber shade dried out and cracked I put the ring in the lathe and turned it down to 42mm and put a groove in the remaining rubber, however I now use the #12526 which is perfect for this lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_touchon Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 Hi Trevor. I don't have any experience with the Minilux 40mm. However, the attached photos were made with the 40mm rokkor cl version lens. The photos were made approximately 27 years apart. Is that real world enough?<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_touchon Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_touchon Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 .<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger_michel Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 hi -- it is a little bit contradictory for you to ask people to speak to the differences between these closely matched lenses but then to belittle critical testing. i would venture to say that, assuming each of the lenses you mention is used properly (focused well, properly shaded, etc), objective differences, if any, will be noticeable ONLY on th etest bench. each will give very good performance for handheld, available light shooting. i must say i also disagree with the idea that it is possible to separate out the performance of the lens from the camera body on which the lens will be used. the minilux is a nice compact camera, but IME it exhibits all the typical drawbacks of active AF. this will degrade performance, if only occasionally, as compared with a carefully focused M camera. also, the rf base-length is longer in the M, so the M camera is capable of better focus. i use an m4p -- motor m -- rokkor 40mm an awful lot. it is a great combo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_simmons Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Roger, how do you frame for 40mm in the MP? The 40 view of the world is a very nice one, don't you think? Encompasses a lot, but very naturally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirk-san1 Posted February 14, 2010 Share Posted February 14, 2010 <p><a title="Leica Minilux Summarit 40/2.4 converted to Leica M mount by Dirk | JapanExposures.com, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4047/4352431759_2271a33848.jpg" alt="Leica Minilux Summarit 40/2.4 converted to Leica M mount" width="500" height="375" /></a></p> <p>Old thread, nonetheless, may be of interest. Leica Minilux Summarit 40/2.4 converted to Leica M mount</p> 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stukendall Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 <p><a title="Leica Minilux Summarit 40/2.4 converted to Leica M mount by Dirk | JapanExposures.com, on Flickr" href="Leica Minilux Summarit 40/2.4 converted to Leica M mount"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4047/4352431759_2271a33848.jpg" alt="Leica Minilux Summarit 40/2.4 converted to Leica M mount" width="500" height="375" /></a></p> <p>Old thread, nonetheless, may be of interest. Leica Minilux Summarit 40/2.4 converted to Leica M mount</p> Wonderful conversion, dirk-san! If I send you my old minilux with its 40/2.4, could you convert it for me? (Or recommend who can?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now