james_elwing

<p>I do like that speed with 85mm. I never did buy anything that fast for Leica except with 50mm lenses. </p>

<p>I was thinking of our punter, Mukul, who, I think, was discussing size and weight.<br> No, the Elmarit is a fine lens. I tend to use an Elmar C as it fits in my pocket a bit smaller.</p>

<p>The 135mm 2.8 Elmarit will work on the M8 because it has goggles that reveal the 90mm frame lines, giving the affect of an 180mm lens. They are usually cheapish because they are a bit heavy, long and lumpy. What is your 135, Sandy?</p>

<p>Yes, a fast 35, and almost any Leica M 90, except the old collapsible Elmar, which apparently won't collapse safely. Which Elmarit were you thinking of Mukul?<br> Yes, the macro Elmar is very light. The later black Tele Elmarit 90 isn't much heavier, and of course, both are conveniently short.</p>

<p>Yes<br> Yes<br> don't know; probably brass. I think M4-2 was steel<br> 1.35-1.4 if you want M3 style viewfinder; just my opinion.</p>

<p>With crop sensor, I agree. Maybe also look at 135 f2. </p>

<p>'...Break the bank on a whim...'<br> You can pick up a used M9 for $4000 + or an M8 for $2500 +.<br> I accept that's not cheap, but if your plumber shook his head and said that's what it will cost to get your bathroom working again, the cheque book comes out in a flash. </p>

<p>Have used Leicas for decades, mostly M3's, but had to wait for my mother to die of extreme old age to get my first new Leica, an M9. I didn't want the slight inheritance to go into consolidated revenue.<br> With a few hiccoughs related to dead pixels, I nevertheless can't say I am sorry. As far as I am concerned, the M3 was a great camera, but they sit there full of film for a reason; mainly that I can get the same images with the M9 with mostly the same lenses, cheaper and quicker, and with viewfinder magnifier, pretty much the same view. There aren't too many bells and whistles; the menu is fairly straightforward and I only use what I want. <br> Once I paid my money, the pain was gone. The only thing I don't like is that I don't believe the M9 will be functioning in 50 years time like the M3, but then neither will I.</p>

<p>I suppose there was insufficient demand for other viewfinder magnification. 135mm is unfashionable, and 35mm is seen for many in the way 50 was back when the M3 was king. 'People' want wider lenses.<br> Never the less, with magnifiers available, I don't see your problem. I moved from M3 to M9 and now have no problem, but I am a left eye photographer, so never have both eyes open.</p>

<p>Be fair. Canon RF lenses will be over 50 years old, therefore probably have been through a few hands. Bit hard to blame Canon for accurate adjustment. </p>

<p>Craig, lots of lenses used radioactive glass to get the corrections right. Yes measurable on a Geiger counter. The Pentax Takumar 50 f 1.4 was one, Collapsible Summicron another. Obviously they phased out radioactive lenses over time. They go yellowy brown with age, but can be bleached with UV light.</p>

<p>I am with you.<br> 1.35 or 1.4 magnifier will give you your M3 type viewfinder mag; not necessarily Leica brand, on an M9. Mine has focus / dioptric adjustment. Works fine, only components came unscrewed, so I needed to tape them together. Can't remember the brand.<br> Will work with 35mm lens at a pinch, but not with 28mm. They unscrew easily when required. The Leica ones have a retaining cord of some kind.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Try to relax. Life is short. </p>

<p>It was claimed that the Summarit 1.5 from f4 on was the equal of the Summicron (presumably collapsible) by I can't remember who. Brian has got good images out of clean Summarits. My ex-wife got better pictures from hers, covered with scratches & all than I ever got from mine, which is optically clean. Her lens with punchy Kodachrome or B&W is what turned me on to Leicas. </p>

<p>so it's made in 1956, therefore not radioactive. From what you say about it's history, the coatings might be OK. That alone would make it a little unusual. Therefore worth a bit more, if it's clean. </p>

<p>Serial number is inappropriate for the period this lens was produced. Only the earliest were radioactive. I suspect if your lens does not have a strong yellowish colour cast it is not radioactive. Radioactive is not a benefit, and most were not radioactive.<br> Yes, radioactive or not, it is collectible and desirable, but not extremely valuable.<br> Value is almost totally on cosmetic and optical condition. It can vary from virtually nothing to whatever people are paying on ebay, as external surfaces are delicate and easily damaged..<br> You could probably get away with putting $500 on it for insurance, but check the serial number again. I don't think Leica has made over 4 million lenses, although I could be wrong. </p>

<p>'Rigid' usually refers to a II, to distinguish it from the collapsible Summicron. <br> There is an advantage with older Summicrons to having close focusing as earlier Leica lenses only focus to 1m, so that's where the DR comes in; a bit more flexibility. I can't talk for Bill, but people with DR lenses frequently have a touching love for them and a desire to love no other. Good lens. <br> My rigid has a far from perfect front element, but apart from shooting into the sun, I don't see any issues to concern me.</p>

<p>I think the 135/35, 90/28 and 50/75 are the modern adaptor pairings.<br> Your 28/50 was for M3, M2, where the 28 used a separate viewfinder, and would now work with 50/75.<br> You need a 35/135 adaptor, named 135 on early adaptors. I have trouble finding a Leitz adaptor that doesn't have a cut out. I think some 90's don't, and I have one somewhere.<br> Just make sure it needs fixing before you worry too much.<br> <strong> </strong></p>

<p>Obviously the Summarit 2.4 is a modern lens, with the kind of size and weight you want but a bit slow. It and the Summilux both would have modern hard coatings, but the latter a bit bulky and heavy (335 g for black;460 for chrome).<br> The Summarit 1.5 is the lens you don't want; too bulky & heavy at over 300g(?), prone to age related low contrast from too many single coated elements, soft coating.<br> The Summicron rigid is presumably the II, optically the same as the DR, but lighter, is only maybe 60g heavier than the 2.4 (190g). <br> If you can live with the soft coatings, it might be your best bet; and it fits with the M2. </p>

<p>Could the Elmar infinity lock be binding on the bayonet adaptor? The edge cut-outs on tm-bayonet adaptors were made for some older lenses with low cut infinity locks. The adaptor for 90/28 doesn't have this cut out.</p>

<p>Yes, it would seem too expensive, particularly in the absence of a lens technician who can evaluate. We, however, don't know what you mean quantatively by your description of the optical damage. It's pretty rare for a lens of that age to have no damage. You are unlikely to find the other lenses you mention in 'as new' condition.<br> Which means; it might be just fine in practice, but I don't like the sound of rear coating damage. I figure if I can hold a lens up to a strong light and see a clean image, It might be OK, and if you only have one surface to repair, it may not be too bad. <br> Haven't helped really, have I. I have had your problem with virtually the same old Leitz lenses; win a few, lose a few.</p>

<p>Yes, it would seem too expensive, particularly in the absence of a lens technician who can evaluate. We, however, don't know what you mean quantatively by your description of the optical damage. It's pretty rare for a lens of that age to have no damage. You are unlikely to find the other lenses you mention in 'as new' condition.<br> Which means; it might be just fine in practice, but I don't like the sound of rear coating damage. I figure if I can hold a lens up to a strong light and see a clean image, It might be OK, and if you only have one surface to repair, it may not be too bad. </p>

<p>Thanks Arthur. Pity they didn't translate the book to English. Many of us are suckers for such books.<br> As far as 35mm film quality you mention is concerned; every now and then I run into 1920's-30's recipes for getting the best out of emulsions, mostly the alchemy of magical developers, but the most interesting is bumping up the speed (ASA/Weston etc) rating by exposing the film to mercury vapour before use. </p>

<p>Hi Geoff,<br> Just to clarify, the 135 Hektor is f4.5. Hope it is optically clear. The pre-war Hektors can have element separation and pitting of internal lens surfaces, along with the excessively casual cleaning marks on external surfaces. At the same time, many are in good condition, so good luck. It will most likely be uncoated, unless coated in the post war period. You can't really lose if the price is good.</p>

<p>Jochen, does that link translate into English?</p>