harry_soletsky1

Frankly I would not turn up my nose at other altenatives which I have use including the 50mm f1.4 Canon,or 50mm f1.4 Nikkor(but is likely to be expensive). Price may even be an issue but except for the Nokton and late Summilux these are all old lenses so that may require some care. I suspect price-wise the Nokton may be cheaper but I've seen disturbing posts on some Voightlander lenses from time to time about element and lens mount loosining. I have the 28mm f1.9 and 15mm Vooigtlanders and have no problem however.

As far as I know none of the clip on hoods made for the E39 35mm Leica M lenses will reverse and clip on as all have focussing tabs. Which of the various hood you want to use is up to you as even the earliest clip on hoods (non-vented) will work fine. I actually prefer the vented hood but again that is a matter of personal preference. The hood which splits to take series 7 filters does not reverse. The hoods that reverse were intended for the various 50mm Summicrons where there was no problem except if you collapsed the 50mm Summicron.

As you have already seen by the posts, the question of the focussing tab is a matter of preference. I personally prefer to have the tab and also a separate hood. That's all there is to it dispite some strong statements made on the subject.

My source of things Leica noted that with present production techniques, an aspheric surface adds not a lot to the total cost of manufacturing a lens. What this means for pricing I am not in a position to say.

These Occasionally availible lenses like this from companies like Topcon and Minolta are very hard to value. Not many are availible and there aren't a lot of people looking to buy them. I consider $600+ way too high but if you have to have one, I suppose it's your money. Don't ask me what I think it's worth because of the above comment.

I prefer the lens with the donuts but I guess I understand it. I find the donuts interesting. The blurs are just blurs to me. But image sharpness of the subject is most important.

I've never been convinced that other than sharpness, which color film makes much difference. This is because taking a color negative shot is really only small step in getting to the finished print, particularly as mostlabs use digital technology along the way. As a person who has done it, I use Fuji Press 800 with flash as needed but primarily with availible light.

Dispite what Jay says, I have the flare problem and no amount of movements helps. You can call it foaming at the mouth if you wish. I call it impossible and my M6 is at Leica now getting the update to the MP specs. I've done studies in the situation that invariably causes flare and found the M3 to be best in getting rid of the flare.. The situation is unique but represents a common photo situation for me. The living room of 2 of my grandchildren with a large sliding glass door leading to a deck. And getting a proper picture there is hard with the flare. There have I foamed enough for you with a real problem which hopefully can be corrected.

The entire Viewfinder issues were never online in their entirity.

As far as I know no "thin" 90mm TE exists. As far as the fat chrome, I'm not convinced it is that rare. The probablly rare 90mm f2.8 Elmarit is either the LTM mount and also the black M-mount with clip on hood.

I really doubt that the 90mm f2.8 "thin" TE is particularly rare. I can't figure out why this should be so. The Hove price book certainly doesn't give a price of $2000 in any TE.

Rolfe Fricke had an article quite recently in the "Viewfinder" Vol 34(4), p.41 on LTM Zeiss lenses. In the article he includes a discussion of this particular lens of which several have come to light in both 58mm and 60mm. There is some speculatin that they may have been made by in the Soviet Union. Many if not all have serial #s of 1.4million and all are uncoated. Mine certainly makes pictures. As far as the focal length is concerned, Fuji made a 58mm f1.2 and Konica made a 60mm lens in LTM mount.

The short answer is no. However, Walther Benser took the 120mm Hektor years ago and used it as a Visoflex lens. This, of course, required a focussing mount be made. Eventually Leitz actually mede the lens as the 125 f2.5 Hektor.

Does this mean these are fakes?

Leica has always insisted it makes no difference. However, for what it's worth I tend to leave them uncocked.

What is the serial #. There is some information on the configuration of various '0' series cameras. But that said some very good fakes are around. Where is the camera and what is the provence

I wish this was coming!!!!!

If you get a double stroke M3 make sure it doesn't have a ceramic baseplate. Leitz abandoned it because it caused electrostatic buildup at times as the film went by at times. You can tell. The ceramic plate is in a frame in the back plate.

Using the Visoflex and a bellows was always an option and the bellows provided a M mount to use M Lenses. None of this anything other than Macro Work.. Usually head shots weren't possible because of the already long extensions necessary and you needed a

visoflex to focus.

two Tele-Emarits the earlier one is called the "fat" one and the later the "thin" one. Then there is the early Elmarit (recommended for closeups especailly with a bellows which I have done). For a period the R Elmarit was then the socalled Elmarit and now I believe the present is different still. This does not even discuss the LTM version or the chrome and black versions. I prefer the "thin' one as it's light and small and to me the results are great.

Todd you must first answer the question of what you want to spend. Everthing here including from me represents an individuals opinion which may or may not apply to you. Here is my prejudiced suggestion. For many years I got along with a M2 and a 35 and 90mm lens. So what fits best is the .72 viewfinder.

As a long time user of other makes optics with Leica cameras, if you're satisfied just keep taking pictures.

Brass has been the choice for many ships fittings for many years because it doesn't corrode. However it's quite soft. I have fittings taken on wreck diving 70+ years old which are discolored but not corroded.

from Leica Catalog #36, 5-62. #37,203, large aspherical condenser and #37,814, large double heat absorbing filter. In addition you will need the correct field condenser as well based on the lens size (may be in the assembly). My catalog does not list any 135mm lens for the Prado 66 or the Prado 500 (the 2 X 2 slide model). Bulbs are listed as 500watt

T 10 P or 750 watt T 12 P both 120 volts. I assume you will need all the correct condensors to get even illumination although you might check the body of the Prado you have and perhaps the correct condensors are there. I must admit I have a Linhof labeled Prado,(strictly badging) and with 6 X 6 agfachrome slides I took in the past with a Rolliflex, they looked great compared to Kodachrome and they were just projected using the cardboard mounts.

Just a point regarding Zeiss marked lensed made in Japan. Zeiss has always insisted that the the plant making Zeiss lenses in Japan is their plant and not run by Kayocera at all. Kaycera is obviously getting lenses for their cameras and Zeiss makes them following their specs. It's worth mentioning that years ago the Zeiss lens manufacture was separate from camera manufacture and that part of the company was called Zeiss Ikon