CL Leica/Leitz Minolta

[wheelie52]

I've recently bought a CL Leitz Minolta in absolutely mint condition

and I'm curious about the lense. The camera is a very late model

one ... possibly the last year of production and the lense is a

Rokkor 40MM. I know how highly regarded the 40MM Summicron is on

this camera but I know nothing about the Rokkor. How does it compare

to the Summicron of the earlier camera? Keith

[michael_a._shapiro]

I've heard it's a more desireable lens.

Michael

[vincenzo_maielli]

Hi, dear friend. The Leica CL and both the lenses (40 and 90 mm) was built in Japan, by Minolta factory, on the optical and mechanical Leitz project. The production during from 1973 to 1976. The metering system of the Leica CL it's the same of the Leica M5. The Summicron 40 mm f/ 2 it's a great lens. See www.cameraquest.com (classic camera profile section) for more info on the Leica CL and M5. For replace the outlawed PX625 battery of the Leica CL, you can use a Weincell zync air MRB625, an 1,35 volt battery. As option, there is an MR-9 adapter, that have a built in micro electronic circuit, that reduce the 1,5 volt of the silver oxyde battery into 1,35 voltage of the ancient and outlawed PX625 mercury battery.

Ciao.

 

Vincenzo Maielli

[al_kaplan1]

The Rokkors made for the later Minolta CLE were multi-coated. The 40 CL lenses, both the Rokkor and the Summicron, were supposedly the same optical formula. The Rokkor has the advantage of taking standard 40.5mm filters. The Leica lens takes an odd-ball "series 5.5" filter.

 

Were the CL 40's multi-coated? Both Leitz and Minolta were continuously upgrading. The Leitz rep back then told me that Leitz didn't start advertizing about multi-coating until Pentax started making a big deal about "Seven Layer Super Multi Coated Takumars". He said that some of those seven layers were for adhesion to the glass, to seperate optically functional layers from one another, and to protect the outer surface, but that the seven layer claim was mostly hype. But to answer your question, essentially you have a "Japanese Summicron". Enjoy!

[michael s.]

Excellent little lens. I agree with Vincenzo and Al.

 

Enjoy the new camera/lens and post some photos with us here, Keith.

[wheelie52]

I have read Stephen Gandy's info on the lenses and rushed off downstairs to see what it is ... it's the CL lense not the CLE as it has the serial no. on the filter ring. This identifies them apparently.

I bought the camera off ebay and was stunned to find when it arrived here in Australia, that it was in it's original box with the leather case and strap .... and tucked away under the styrafoam was the original purchase receipt and warranty card! It looks like it's hardly been used at all and the only issue I have is the light meter which seems rather erratic ... but obviously it has not been used in a long time so may settle down. If not I have one of those very pretty little VCII Voigtlander meters courtesy of Stephen Gandy again.

I also bought a Voigtalnder f1.9 28mm Ultron from him a while ago and it looks a treat on the CL! Doesn't quite suit the 40mm brightline but oh well.... I guess I'll just shove my eye right inside the viewfinder ... :-)

[working camera]

Keith if your CL is late production it may have been assembled at Wetzlar.

 

Not that it actually matters but as a matter of interest.

 

Sounds like a nice catch congrats, C.

 

C

[joel_matherson]

"The Leica CL and both the lenses (40 and 90 mm) was built in Japan, by Minolta factory"

 

No they werent, the 90mm Rokkor made for the Leitz Minolta CL were made in Germany and are labelled "Made by Leitz"

 

"Keith if your CL is late production it may have been assembled at Wetzlar."

 

Definately not possible, no Leica CL or Leitz Minolta CL was ever assembled at Wetzlar. Even more so if its a late Leitz Minolta CL then it had to be made in Japan purely because Leica ceased their involvement with the CL to which Minolta took over all markets with their Leitz Minolta labelled version rather than just the Japanese home market.

 

"The production during from 1973 to 1976"

 

Actually production of the Leitz Minolta CL went up to 1978

 

With respect to the original question, the 40mm f2 Rokkor for the Leitz Minolta CL is identical optically to the Summicron-C it just takes 40.5mm filters like others have pointed out. Even tabs and barrel parts are the same so I suspect a bit of parts sharing. Unlike the CLE version which has different barrel, aperture rings and tab. So you have a lens even bit as good as the Summicron-C and you can get filters for it. Enjoy.

[wheelie52]

Interesting what you say about the production dates Joel. The docket, from a camera shop in New York, is dated 1978 and is for the camera and ten rolls of film totalling around $740.00. That was a lot of money for a small rangefinder back then! Keith

[wheelie52]

Actually I have just noticed that there is a 50mm Summicron lense on the docket but there has been a cross put throught that item. What would a CL have cost back then ... maybe the $740.00 was for the summicron as well?

[todd_phillips1]

If I remember correctly, there were three production runs of the Leitz CL (with constant upgrades throughout the production). Mine is from the last batch, serial number 1433xxx. The body is marked "mfd. in Japan for Leitz Wetzlar My 40mm Summicron is marked "lens made in Germany".

 

It's not an "M", but it wasn't meant to be. A nice little camera.

[al_kaplan1]

I seem to recall that they cost a little less than $600 with a 40mm Summicron. I guess that'd be roughly $2,500 today.

[george_shihanian]

From what I recall, the CL's price in yen was 65,000. I also think the USD price was a bit over $500, but I have no idea if the two prices have a correct correlation for 1973-76.

[richard jepsen]

My CLE 40mm is marked Minolta 40mm M-Rokkor on the inside of the filter ring. I understand the 40mm Rokkor made for the CL is labled differently. Minolta multicoated lenses in the early 60s. By the late 70s their coatings also balanced color between different focal lengths. The Rokkor 40mm has less flair and improved ergonomics over the 35mm v2 cron I used to own. The v2 cron was not objectionable but the Minolta 40mm is a touch better suppressing flair. The Rokkor-M is made of polycarbon vs brass and does not feel as dense however changing apertures feels smoother than the 35mm v2 cron. Is your Minolta CL lens in an all metal mount similar to the 40mm cron?

[mark_ryan2]

As to metering erraticly, make sure the film advance lever is out from the body and stays there. Mine meter needle would "stick" in the top position when I first got it. By jiggling the camera, or "popping" the film advance lever It would usually start to meter right. I sent it of to DAG, and now it works great.

 

Wasn't the 90mm Rokkor made in Germany?

 

I think the CL is the smallest, highest quality camera that you can travel with. A built in meter with that tight pattern, and the matched needle mettering with the shutter speeds in the viewfinder make it for me a vary capable and portable camera.

[wheelie52]

Richard ... my lense is marked exactly as you describe and it is all metal mount. The serial no of the lens is 1023969. It was supplied with the camera and matches the serial numbers on the box. They are a lovely little camera but no M as someone pointed out. I'm very fond of the little Rollei 35s and in fact have four of them but these CLs are a big step up from the Rollei with their rangefinder! The Cl also seems to me to be very ergonomically similar to the M5! I sort of like the chunkiness of the M5 and the CL looks like a smaller little brother, or maybe sister !!!!!

 

......Keith

[richard jepsen]

Keith

 

I just looked at my 40mm Rokkor and I was wrong; the lens is metal as I see brass on the inside of the mount. For some reason it is much lighter than the black 35mm v2 cron. Regardless, you got a great camera. I had a CL and liked the size, film loading, and meter display. The 40 and 90 cover a lot of ground. The Elmar-C 90mm contrast/sharpness at f/4 is reported to be similar to the Mandler Elmarit and Tele-Elmarit.

[richard jepsen]

Just to clarify, the serial number for my lens is located on the bottom of the focus ring. It reads; "Lens Made In Japan 2120433. When I bought the 40mm Rokkor I was told it came from a CLE.

[carbon_dragon]

My understanding is that all the bodies were made by Minolta but the Summicron 40mm's were made in both Germany and Japan. The optical formula was the same as the 40mm's on the Leitz Minoltas but the glass was local (Germany or Japan). I don't think that makes any difference to the results though.

 

I have a CL and a 40 Summicron that I just used in San Francisco. Very nice camera and like one poster said, the lightest most compact camera with full manual control (full manual exposure, light meter, manual focusing with depth of field scale, and interchangeable lens). I used my modern 50 and 35 summicrons on it as well as a Voigtlander 25. Everything worked great. The Wein cell behaved itself also.

[jimsimmons]

All the 40mm Summicrons were made in Wetzlar. I don't know about the Rokkors. As to price, I bought my CL with 40mm Summi in 1975 at one of the "unpleasant to deal with" NYC dealers for $350, their advertised price. Still have it, still love it. My son will inherit it, and it will still be taking great pictures. (Maybe it will cost $30 for a roll of film, but...)

[dave_powell1]

I just made a possibly interesting discovery for anyone who buys a used Leica CL. I found a great-looking one marked $3 in the bottom of a Goodwill Industries bin. At at that price, I bought it, even though the shutter button and the film advance lever seemed jammed.

 

Don't ask me why, but I decided to try unscrewing the collar around the shutter button. And when I did, both the button and the advance lever released. The unit seems to be working fine now!

 

I'm now wondering whether this collar is SUPPOSED to be used to lock the shutter release? And I wanted to let others know who might also have a "jammed" CL!

 

Sincerely,

 

Dave

[al_kaplan1]

That was THREE DOLLARS including the 40mm lens? That's the buy of the century! Congratulations. I never heard of using the collar as a shutter lock.

[dave_powell1]

Yes, it did include the Summicron 40 (which looks good and clean)... plus the original screw-on rubber lens hood! I did some test shots yesterday, and will see if any problems show up there. I did notice, however, that the bulb setting is now instantaneous. But hey...a small price to pay! I kinda wondered if the shutter-release collar was a known "lock"...I should try to see if I can use it to again lock the release. But I'm not sure I want to tempt Lady Luck!

[al_kaplan1]

Congratulations Dave! When the rubber hood falls apart (they all do) trim off most of the rubber and it'll be a press fit into the rear of a Series VI metal lens hood. Use a bit of epoxy or contact cement to secure it. You might have to grind off a bit of the rear of the threaded portion of the hood before gluing it in place or it may press against the aperture ring on the lens so you can't turn it. Some do, some don't. Damn, you're lucky! I was happy to pay just $3 for an old Series VI hood a few months ago.

[dave_powell1]

Thanks Al...I do feel very lucky! (The camera was buried under a mound of the usual Polaroids and cheapie plastic point-and-shoots. Thanks too for the great ideas about the hood! The rubber is so thin, I could see it coming apart eventually. I'll let everyone know how the prints turned out.