james_elwing

The normal kit lens (18-55) of that time was what we might call 'useful'. That is, use it at F8 and put up with the barrel distortion. I retired mine early, and it sits unloved. If I want one, I borrow wife's late USM version, as it's much more useful. That isn't very often.

I have often found it cheaper to buy an old Leica with Summar attached than to look for a Summar in isolation. I don't know if this is the case on-line.

I also agree with Jochen. They are each good & cheap lenses. Does the 760D come with a kit lens? If it does, it will be the USM which is quite usable itself. I like buying FF lenses wherever possible in case I go to full frame later. I have the 40.

You have nothing to lose. It's still basically a new camera, and very easy to use. Why don't you get her using the kit lens first,to work out where she wants to work with focal lengths as you also have the option of a 40mm pancake. You don't say if you have any full frame lenses to spare or are you the kind of guy who won't let the wife drive your red sports car? My 400D, the next model, 10mp instead of your 8mp, is now 10 years old. It came with the same kit lens, which is useful but rubbish. I use it daily for recording work using decent modern EFS lenses and a 50mm/2.5 macro, and it hasn't missed a beat. I am pretty sure the 350D would give very respectable images up to around A4 size. I would start her off using only the Av setting. I find people who start on the various program settings lose interest because they don't know what's going on, and feel they have no control, then graduate to phone cameras. So no, you aren't missing anything. Just check that you can still download and use the jpeg and raw files. If she is happy, you can put in a 16gig CF memory to replace the 2gig one you probably bought it with.

If the Canon is OK, keep it, you will never get another lens with it's speed without paying a lot. Of course you get a 1a, you need it. That's a nice model of Rollei. What condition do you chase with equipment?.

<p>My coated elmar is softer & less contrasty than my Summaron, in line with Stephen's post, when used on M9.<br> <em>I sold my coated elmar for no reason</em><br> I kept both of mine, also for no reason. If you can't have both, Summaron is better, if clean.<br> The Summaron, at moderate apertures is undistinguishable from any other more modern Leica 35's in the centre, to my eyes. </p>

<p><em>For fashion/portrait 50/2.5 renders harsh backgrounds - not a good choice in my opinion. 50/1.4 was the choice of many top pros.</em><br> I couldn't find any negative comments on the 50/2.5 bokeh. Rockwell seemed to really like its bokeh. I nearly always use it at smaller apertures 5.6 & up, so that's not my area. Its nicely sharp as any macro should be at those apertures. I guess you miss out on f1.4 / f2 out of focus backgrounds.</p>

<p>I thought it was the philosophy forum. If not Leica, which Photo.net forum?</p>

<p>Well, it does a great upside down very low level portrait finder, or ok left to right portrait format sports finder. Doubt if Leni Reifenstahl used one.<br> We begin to lose our original inborn wisdom when we start noticing scantily clad girls on the beach (personal observation unsupported by whatever)</p>

<p>Consider if you have to carry extra weight in specialised filters and lens hoods on the lens front bayonet or / filter ring. The recommended lens hoods and ordinary filters are fine, but some particularly light lenses like the 50 / 1.8 II have a lot of work for their motors to do when used vertically in copy work. I might be wrong, but think the STM version may have internal focusing?</p>

<p>When cameras mostly didn't look like Leicas, people generally didn't know they were being perved on. Nobody would get away with it now. It would, in my opinion, mostly have appealed to a certain kind of gentleman who wanted pictures of bathing beauties.</p> <p>I have one that fits on my Leica II; love it, but have never seriously used it. My children would laugh at me:) </p>

<p> don't know if you can attach 39mm filters on top of barn door hood. The 39mm Leitz filter mounts seem wider. There are a lot of Summitar filters around, including independent makes like Walz; none coated of course, and some of the B&W filter colours are a bit non standard, but the glass seems flat enough.</p>

<p>It's the same as the solid Elmar f4 90mm from 1954, optics bumped up a little by slight changes and coating from the 1930's Elmar. Glad it's clean. It's a bit heavy. Yes, same hood as for the 135 f4.5 Hektor M, 135 f4 Elmar M, etc.</p>

<p>Go on, Richard, get one. Its only money. Just make sure it's the one to fit the Summitar and not the one for the collapsible Summicron. They are virtually identical, but are marked for purpose.</p>

<p>black pvc electrical insulation tape can cover the autographic hole, then fold down the cover over it; well hidden. At worst, the adhesive eventually gets slimy, but will come off with petroleum spirits.</p>

<p>Gee I really doubt it would have this feature. I used a 120 film autographic and no autographic film was available back in the 1960s, had to use ordinary 120 film. I never had to cover up the red window, however, so it depends on the density of the backing paper. Because the bellows were always a bit leaky, one pocketed the camera when not in use, which would cover the red window. I think if it was autographic film, they would trade on it. </p>

<p>The barn doors don't look that scary in real life.</p>

<p>My guess is that it won't vignette. If it does you could dispense with the filter or get a SOOPD(?) barn door hood made for the Summitar. I don't think it's ugly.</p>

<p>Looks OK to me too. It does look like they are being responsive to comments.</p>

<p>Of course it's not normal. Some 20 years ago, I had the X cable corroded out somewhere on an M3, and I think I may have had the flash go off outside the shutter opening period, but I no longer recall. I had to have the cable replaced. I think the bulb circuit continued to work.<br> Have you shot flash with the back open? You may find there is no light getting through.</p>

<p>Anhydrous isopropyl alcohol which is quite pure is available for cleaning electronic components etc, at a reasonable price. Usually it behaves like ethanol/ ethyl alcohol solvent wise.</p>

<p>there were 35 mm Canon lenses f2.8, f3.2, f1.8, f2, f1.5. The 1.8 was discontinued in favour of the f2, which is well regarded.<br> Leica had two f3.5 lenses, of which the later Summaron is better regarded, if clean.<br> There are really lots more older lenses of other brands. The Modern Voigtlander 35's are better coated and less likely to give trouble if purchased sight unseen.<br> Of course you need one. Traditionally, set at the hyperfocal distance, they have been considered very good for unobtrusive street photography.</p>

<p>Maybe it was an aesthetic decision to replace winder. Its a very clean camera.</p>

<p>Silly me. I thought you talking about a 25mm lens, not an extension tube. Now I look, mr google says there isn't a 25mm EF lens. Makes sense now.</p>

<p>In each case you are mounting the two lenses face to face via filter threads, 25 off camera?<br> Anyhow, good result, and happy new year.</p>