harry_soletsky1

September 19, 2003

I have and have used both and actually the Hologon is somewhat better (not a lot but better, no surprise). Obviously the value (which is even now in the 10-15K range) makes me think twice. the CV 15mm is handier to use and the finder is smaller and in something that is carried in a corner of a bag for "what if" situations ends up getting used more (the price also tends to encourage more use). The f16 aperature also sometimes is a problem but with such a wide angle lens slow shutter speeds are often OK. Of course the $70K price is much too high. I note it's attracted no bids.

September 18, 2003

I love my 75mm Summilux and team it up with a 35mm lens. It's quite sharp and, to me, ergonomically very good.

September 17, 2003

at f2 the Summitar was a big advance, Computer aid was not used for the collapsible Summicron. At f2.0 I doubt I'd see much difference and I've used both lenses. For portraits perhaps the Summicron may be a little sharper and perhaps for portraits that may not be ideal. I'm still not sure you'll see much difference considering all issues.

September 17, 2003

For many uses minimal difference. With these old lens condition may be the big limitation.

September 17, 2003

The picture on the web site is not of a real back. It's a mockup. Maybe somewhere the back now exists.

September 16, 2003

You should ask to try any of the older lenses especially the Industar as new they are uneven in quality. A big issue with collapsible lenses is wear on bayonet lugs can signifigantly affect quality

September 15, 2003

The collapsible 50mm Summicron was not computer designed. It was designed using the ray tracing technique just as the Summitar. The Dual Range Summicron used a computer to design it.

September 15, 2003

I don't know certainly my camera was old, early 1983. The one I'm sending is 1987

September 15, 2003

I checked the ebay sites above. They certainly are missing the mounts. What they were used for "is your guess is as good as mine." By the way the both sites have the same photographs of the lenses. I find the bids offered much too high unless one wants to take a flyer and hope something will turn up that will justify those prices ($175 and $199).

September 15, 2003

Oops I forgot to add it was called the Red Flag 20 and also the Hong QI.

September 15, 2003

Mr. Cornell's post jogged my memory enough to check: Douglas St.Denny, "Cameras of the Peoples Republic of China" p.36. The camera and the 90mm Summicron 35mm Summilux and 50mm Summilux clones are also pictured. The Camera has a rectangular ends of the M5 but as mentioned no TTL meter. It also showed normal camera lugs for "O" rings not M5 style. The article calls it a M4 copy.

September 15, 2003

Just for general information the 41mm filter was the filter size of the 50mm Summarit which preceeded the first 35mm Summilux.

September 15, 2003

very interesting. Thanks Diego

September 15, 2003

As I remember it really was an M4 clone (No TTL meter) but had the same strap carry arrangement on the side as the M5. The lens was a 50mm 1.4 Summilux Knockoff. This was in the photo magazines.

September 14, 2003

Changes in magnification did not come up. I agree with the price being so reasoneable I doubt they will do that.

September 14, 2003

With the above quick answers, dispite what Jay says, the flare is real.

September 14, 2003

$262.50

September 14, 2003

About one month or so.

September 14, 2003

Just got back my early M6 sent to Leica USA for installation of the

MP finder. It works!!!!!!

September 12, 2003

The marked vignetting is caused by the immutable laws of physics. The lens is so close to film plane there is a great difference in the distance the light has to go to the edges of the film plane compared to the center and the loss of light energy getting to the edges is great. This is seen at its extreme in the 15 and 16mm Hologon. Retrofocus lenses because the back focus is longer do not have this problem

September 11, 2003

Please excuse the typos but I meant to say there experience as microscope makers enabled them to make cameras to close tolerance which they still do

September 11, 2003

Note the Aspherical 35 was not hand ground. It was made on the same grinding machine that was used to make the 50mm f1.2 Noctilux. The problem was there were lots of rejects and it was never an economically viable proposition. The molded pressed system was viable and at present adds very little relatively to the cost of manufacture.

September 11, 2003

I find it interesting the wide variety of experience people have with what is similar lenses. I often wonder considerint these lenses are often quite elderly up to 30 yrs old and often with years of service. maybe the lenses represent the result of years of handing (and mishandling) rather than any basic difference in the lenses. I wonder if many of the writers bad results would be noticeably improved by having the lens overhauled. I'm particularly concerned as some seem to distain any idea that maybe these need special handling with proper equipment to properly bring these lens up to spec. Remember that what made the Leica successful when other 35s were not that they were microscope makers and knew how to acheive the close tolerances necessary to make a useful negative.

September 11, 2003

a chrome Elmar ought to have a serial #. The very early ones are nickel. Lookover the back of the lens icluding some of the baffles. Also I suspect you already know to look, check around the metal ring that just circles the glass. The aperature selling knob is there as well.

September 10, 2003

As one who used a M3, a M2 and then a M4 for years, I was overjoyed when the M5 came out with the meter and while I preferred the M4 feel(I even had a M3 finder installed), I used the M5 and CL in preference and felt that the M6 was it and I still think so especially that the MP finder can be installed to get rid of flare.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by harry_soletsky1