lex_bosman1

<p>Absolutely not a Leica. Leitz never delivered lens caps with a swastika either. This must be one of the rather poorly made russian fakes. No idea about the price.<br>

Lex</p>

<p>The 2.8 Elmar 50mm collapsible is already much better overall than the old 3.5 Elmar. Modern lenses easily win it from older ones in contrast and better performance in general. The comparison should take into account the increase in contrast rendition, due to coating for instance, and many other elements. Both collapsible Elmar 2.8 versions ( the old one Elmar and the modern Elmar-M) are surprising performers.<br>

Lex</p>

<p>Evan, for an all-purpose 50mm lens I would find a Leitz/Leica Summicron 2/50 or Summilux 1.4/50. I use pre-asph versions that are excellent performers. With lenses wider than 1.4 of various brands the problems with focusing when used wide-open are such that in my opinion that doesn't make up for the money they cost. Leica Summicron 50 version III or IV are great.<br>

Lex</p>

<p>Guys, this is all very helpful, thanks. Surfing on the internet for reactions about this lens, I came across various kinds of reactions, some rather positive, others rather negative. Since I only work on film it may take a while before I can see any results of my own Culminar. So far I like the short build and the handling.<br>

Lex</p>

<p>Jim, sounds intersting! So with the adapter you can screw in a filter or a shade? Is the filter size to be used then 41mm? or 39mm? It appears to be the latter, judging from the fact that a Leica lens cap op a E39 lens fits perfectly.</p>

<p>There isn't a screw-in filter mount, so a hood should be a clip-on, I guess. I believe it is in LTM with an adapter, which works fine.</p>

<p>Today I picked up a Steinheil Culminar 2.8/85 mm for my Leica M bodies. Are productions dates, perhaps even with individual numbers available somewhere? Would there be a good shade to use on this lens, because I fear it may flare quite a bit.<br>

I haven't used it yet, are some of you using it regularly?<br>

Thanks, Lex</p>

<p>Not sure about the price. As compared to the old 1.5/50 mm Summarit it looses speed but adds quite ba bit of contrast and detail. The collapsible Summicron often shows cleaning marks however, that may influence the image. Borrowed one a while back but otherwise I use the rigid version and a successor.<br>

Lex</p>

<p>I agree with Gil. I may well be that the lubricants are dried out and there seems to be the possibility of rust on a tiny ball element. I brought my M3 to Will van Manen and I am very happy with it since then.</p>

<p>The Visoflex material is not that expensive, check the items on the famous auction site. I can use the lens head of my older Elmarit 90 mm on the Belows II, and I use a Elmar 65 mm as well. With an adapter one can use several regular 50 mm lenses, I haven't tried that yet. I never really compared the prices in detal with other macro equipment, since I already have Leica M gear. It may not be as sophisticated as modern (digital) equipment but it is a lot of fun to use it.</p>

<p>I was given a Visoflex III half a year ago, with Bellows II and Elmar 65 mm. This has opened up a whole new field for me, since I had never really done any macro. The lens head of my 90 mm Elmarit works great with the Bellows as well and this afternoon I took some shots using a Telyt 4/200 mm on the Visoflex with MOOSP and OUFRO to get closer. You have to take some time to get the set-up in order but then it is really great. I use a Lunasix meter and so far this works very well. Actually I like the handheld meter with the Visoflex much better than the metering of the M6, since that requires some fuss with the mirror. I usually have a MDa on the Visoflex.<br>

Lex</p>

<p>I only bought a reprint of the Leica Buch by Theo Kisselbach, for a normal price. The Eastland Leica M Compendium and a book by Bower and the one of Osterloh I bought severl years ago for normal prices. This increase has started several months ago, I think, and I don't really understand it. I have three pdf-books by Erwin Puts, so let me know if you want me to upload them.<br>

Lex</p>

<p>A friend is looking for a book on street photography for her stepson. We're based in the Netherlands. Does anyone have a recommendation?<br>

Thanks in advance, Lex</p>

<p>Are you sure it is the camera that makes the scratches? I thought my M4-2 did that too, until I found it occasionaly on film with other M's as well. Turned out it was the scanner or the developer at the firm where I had my films developed ans scanned. A CLA of the M4-2 showed there was nothing wrong with it. But a tiny grain of dust can ruin a film indeed.<br>

Lex</p>

<p>Robert, I am using my Elmarit 2.8/90 (1961) for more than ten years now and I am very happy with the results. As with all my lenses I tend to use a hood, which reduces the possible flare. It's really sharp with good contrast, great color, so I can highly recommend it to you. I am using it for different kinds of photographs and I can't say I was ever disappointed (unless I did something wrong).<br>

Lex</p>

<p>M4 with Elmarit 90 mm, Kodak Portra 160 VC<br>

Fog and snow</p><div></div>

<p>My Elmarit 28 third version has an older kind of Leitz rear cap, which is less deep than the other ones, but it fits. My hood (12536) has a bayonet but no vents. Francisco is right, third party rear caps fit as well, I use several of them and I just checked on the Elmarit, they fit.</p>

<p>I just Puts has it on his website again: <a href="http://www.imx.nl/photo/downloads/page70.html">http://www.imx.nl/photo/downloads/page70.html</a></p>

<p>As I recall Erwin Puts had a big dispute with the publisher quite some time after the publication of his Lens Compendium. Had something to do with handing over the rights to another company or something of that kind. He then offered a free pdf on his website, which I quickly downloaded. It has the same information but it lacks the pictures and schemes. Still very useful and it now seems to save me over $ 1000,-</p>

<p>Larry, your M3 is from 1964, the Summicron 50 mm (so called rigid version) and the Elmarit 135 mm are from 1963 (1st version), the Summicron 35 mm is from 1964 (1st version). The other thing (extender) probably bears a catalogue number somewhere or some letters. Can you find those? May help to identify it. I agree with the others: check Ebay for a while, check KEH.com.</p>

<p>For European users I can recommend "Will van Manen Kamera-service" (Zoetermeer, The Netherlands). He CLA'd five of my Leica bodies and they run smoothly again and the finders are bright and clear again. He cleaned several lenses and is now taking care of several more items.</p>

<p>Jay, email the seller about the specifics of the rangefinder fault. When the camera is really cheap and the problem is just cleaning or the adjustment of the finder that is necessary for many after years of service, a CLA might be worth your while. To me the word "fault" sounds more problematic. And as Arthur mentioned, there are plenty M4-P's for sale for good prices. Do you have a number of the camera, is it black chrome?</p>

<p>Deb, the Noctilux is from 1972. If I would inherit your M4 with Noctilux I'd certainly keep them. But then again, we're all Leica-lovers and we use film. If you're not into film photography and aren't that much interested in having a Leica, you can buy yourself a great DSLR and put the rest of the money in the bank. Do you have a picture of the front of the M4 and of the top without the Leicameter?</p>

<p>I have neither but for the money I'd choose the M6J. It has such a special design of the M3 combined with M6 features, and it has played a role in the development of later M6 models and the other M-cameras after that. I would love to have one someday...</p>

<p>Jeff, in the list of serial numbers that I often use your number gives a batch of black M6 camera's made in 1997. The M6 0.85 was introduced in 1998, so yours is most likely a 0.72. Have fun with it!</p>