harry_soletsky1

Dispite its high price, I recommend Jim Lager's book, "Leica,An Illustrated History, Vol. II, Lenses".

I remember in the early 70's, I attended a seminar at Rockleigh primarily intended to acquaint dealers with Leica equipment. I tried, as part of the course, a f1.2 Noctilux. Using it indoors with Kodachome 64 was a revalation, compared to what was availible.

I recently tried my Canon f 0.95 lens (which as described in a earlier posting was one the lenses mounted by Professional Camera) to compare to a 1.2 and 1.0 Noctilux. As mentioned, the Leica lenses are much better but to be honest I did not find either now or in the past note vignetting on the 0.95 lens. I did note lots of flare and unsharpness.

As one who has used both lenses but has not done any systematic testing, I do find the f1.2 sharper in my hands. However, the Leica folks have said even their own personel (statement at LHSA) have preferences for one or the other. They believe that because of the fearfully short depth of field wide open, it could represent better alignment to the camera. They did suggest if one wanted the best results, a given Noctilux should be individually matched to a particular camera. I also prefer the f1.2 as it's smaller and lighter and does not have the artifical vignetting from the design of the f1.0. According to Dr. Mandler this was done to improve performance wide open.

I believe that most of the black Leica lenses made over the last 30plus years are black anodized not black chrome. There were some black paint Summiluxes and Summicrons made in the 50s and 60s to mostly special order. The black lenses that appeared in the 60s and later were anodized which does wear better. There also may have be issues related what alloys were capable to be directly painted on.

I have used all the 50mm Summicrons up to the present formulae with a separate hood. I like it the best of all because of smooth handling especially with the focusing lever. All are actually just fine including the early collapsible. However, the latter may have problems in some versions because wear on the lugs of the collapsible element.

I need to screw the 1.25 magnifier tightly on the M6 otherwise it

tends to come off in the case while I'm driving around. However then

when I try to remove it from my M6 the eyepiece of the camera comes

off with it and are very difficult to separate. In fact, it now has

become impossible. Any thoughts?

unfortuneately, I've found that if one screws the 1.25 magnifier "tight", when one tries to unscrew it the M6 eyepiece cover comes with it and seems tough to separate. Any thoughts?

When one usses a through the lens meter, I would prefer to avoid confusion

I misspoke. The diaphram rings of the Nikon lenses turn opposite the the Leica rings. I find this a constant source of irritation in using them with my M6 which has the arrows. The focusing rings do turn in the Leica direction as do the Canon LTM lenses. The Canon diaphram rings turn in the Leica direction. I use the Canon 100mm f3.5 a lot with my M6 and Minotlta CLE

As a collector of LTM lenses made by other manufacturers, I note that the Nikon LTM lenses focus opposite to the Leica direction. The Canon LTM focus in the Leica direction.