bjarni_m.

<p>Hi Arthur!<br /><br />When i said that the hood isn't good, i mean that it's a shame it isn't sitting tight enough on the lens. My only complain was that it isn't sitting tight/firm enough on the lens.<br /><br />I didn't complain about the hood in other ways.</p>

<p>Ok, thanks for your input and help.</p>

<p>Ok. I assume, from what you are saying, if i order a Leica Summilux-M 50 mm f/1.4 type/model 11891, i will get a lens with the focus tab, right?</p>

<p>Yes, but the focus tab is on some of the 50 mm Summilux versions as well, which explains my question.</p>

I'm looking to buy a factory new Leica Summilux-M 50 mm f/1.4 ASPH, model 11891. It seems to me on some websites that 11891 doesn't have the focus tab. Does 11891 have a focus tab?

The problem is solved in a way. Leica did send me a new hood (thumbs up for customer service), which is sitting much tighter on the lens than the hood that was supplied with the lens from factory when new. I would prefer if it was as hard to knock of the lens as a screw in hood is.

<p>I don't like the original and supplied hood so well, because it's not sitting so tight as a screw-in hood would do, and in certain situations i don't want to bother about the hood maybe falling of the lens.</p> <p>Yes, i know it would need some kind of lock to position if a square hood should be used as a screw-in hood.</p> <p>I almost refuse to believe that Leica didn't invent a better square hood than the supplied 12526 hood, since the Summicron-M 35 ASPH is a excellent lens, which the lens hood isn't.</p>

<p>I would like to find a screw-in hood - preferably square and metal - for my Summicron-M 35 mm ASPH, so i could have a hood that's impossible to knock of by accident.</p> <p>Is there any square screw-in hoods from Leica, that could be used for the Summicron-M 35 mm ASPH (E39 mm)?</p> <p>It looks like the Summarit 2.5 35 mm has a square metal hood with the right diameter, E39. Does anyone know if it's a choice? Is it gonna sit tight on the Summicron and aligned well?</p>

<p>I was afraid i should live without my lens for several weeks - if it was necessary for me to send the lens to a service check in Germany - but since it's brand new, Leica Germany sent me a new hood free of charge, which solved the problem.</p> <p>It's not sitting as tight as a screw in hood (which i wasn't expecting either) but the new hood is sitting much tighter and firmly on the lens than the supplied hood which came with the lens.</p> <p>Thumbs up for good customer service, Leica!</p>

@Stephen: Interesting, i'll try that next time i'm near a Leica dealer.

<p>Thanks for your replies.</p> <p>I'm perfectly happy with my M6, which i think will serve me well for many years, since it's in such a good condition over all.</p> <p>If i do understand you all right, i'm not guaranteed a brighter and more contrasty viewfinder if i upgrade to the MP viewfinder, right?</p> <p>It isn't that bad. I could could just use a little bit more light in dark conditions in my viewfinder, so it would be easier to focus, since i shoot a lot in situations where there isn't so much available light.</p>

<p>I own a Leica M6 manufactured in 1998 in almost perfect condition - both outside and inside. It's in a perfect condition, 9 out of 10, and i'm planning to keep it and not selling it because i'm very happy with it and it's a keeper i like very much, though two new models have arrived since mine was made in 1998.</p> <p>Sometimes i wish the viewfinder would be a little bit brighter making it a little bit easier to focus in dark conditions - and that's the only small complaint i have about a otherwise perfect Leica.</p> <p>My viewfinder isn't dusty, and it's very nice and clean - no dust what so ever inside the viewfinder. I haven't been looking through others M6 viewfinders or the viewfinder of the MP so i can't compare my own camera to others M6 and the MP to see if there's any difference, since i live in a very abroad country where there isn't many Leica's.</p> <p>I can't go to a Leica dealer either because there simply isn't any here in the Faroe Islands, so i can't do any comparisons to other Leica cameras what so ever.</p> <p>Would it be worth upgrading the viewfinder to the MP vievfinder? Is it brighter and contrastier? Could a CLA of my camera make the viewfinder brighter?</p> <p>Sorry if this question has been asked here before. I did find this thread from 2005, but i would guess that things maybe have changed for nine years since this thread: http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00Bujl</p>

<p>Thanks for your input :)</p>

<p>I do get your points. Maybe i should make my question clearer:</p> <p><strong>Is there any specific serials i should go for, where the risk of the three errors mentioned is less likely?</strong></p>

<p>I've been looking at second hand Leica M6's (non TTL) lately.</p> <p>Some users are saying that some specific serials suffer from a sluggish light meter (not as precise as it should be), some specific serials suffer from a bad frame counter that probably will not last becasue plastic was used while some other serials are more likely to have viewfinder flare (the .72 model).</p> <p><strong>1:</strong> Which serial/production year of the M6 should i go for if i want a second hand M6 that doesn't suffer from a sluggish light meter, a picture counter that will clutter and/or a viewfinder that flares?</p> <p><strong>2:</strong> I've looked at a M6 with the serial number 24324xx which was made in 1998. Is it a good serial number/production year regarding the faults/flaws i've mentioned in [1]?</p> <p><strong>3:</strong> Is the viewfinder more bright in a M6 that was made in 1998 than in a model that was made for example in 1988 or 1991?</p> <p>In other words: Which serial and production year should i go for to get the best value for money to minimize the risk of getting a serial that's "infected" with all the above mentioned flaws? <strong>Which serial/production year is the most perfect (read less errors) of the M6?</strong></p>

<p>@Gus: Thanks for information. I know.</p> <p>@Bill: How did/will you solve the problem?</p>

<p>Yes, i know how hood should fit into the front of the lens - there are markers indicating this as well, both on the hood and the lens. It makes a little sound when in place, but it isn't sitting tight enough, it seems to me.</p>

<p>Forgot to mention. The one thing i'm most concerned about is the hood detaching from the lens while in my camera bag and the hood scratching the glas/optics since it seems that there is some kind of metal in the spring mechanism of the hood.</p>

<p>Thanks for your quick reply. I will try to get in touch with Leica for a solution.</p>

<p>Just bought a Summicron 35 mm ASPH, which i'm very happy with - it's razor sharp, contrasty and almost free of distortion and well built. Overall 9/10 in my opinion.</p> <p>One thing i'm wondering about which i think is also pretty annoying is how easily the original lens hood 12526 falls off the lens.<br /><br />If i have my camera hanging around my neck and my arm barely touches the hood it un-clips and falls off the lens. I don't want to keep a spare hood in my bag for more than 100 USD, just because the original hood un-clips so easily</p> <p>How normal is this for the Summicron 35 mm ASPH, that the 12526 hood un-clips so easily?</p>

<p>Kodak's Technical Data only says "Always store film (exposed or unexposed) in a cool, dry place" and no more than that here: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf</p> <p>I would like if they could be a bit more specific regarding temperatures when it's a Technical Data Sheet. After all they are making the Tri-X. Meaning, if Kodak can't be specific, what should i then believe?</p>

<p>@Craig: Please note that i will use them before they reach the expiry date (05/2016), so my concern isn't to keep them as long as possible, also after the expiry date.<br /><br />My only concern is to keep them the best way i can until i will use them, since i wil use them on a big project, where i can't afford storage to be a source of/to error.</p>

<p>I've bought a large amount of Kodak Tri-X 135/400. Now i'm wondering where the best place is to keep them until i will use them.</p> <p>My choices are these:</p> <p>1. The living room where the temperature changes from 16-22 degrees celsius and changing humidity as well, depending on the time of the year.<br> 2. The refrigerator where the temperature is from 4-6 degrees celsius and the humidity is fairly consistent.<br> 3. The freezer where the temperature is around -16 to -18 degrees celsius and the humidity is fairly consistent.</p> <p>Please note that i will use them before they reach the expiry date (05/2016), so my concern isn't to keep them as long as possible, also after the expiry date.</p> <p>Any suggestions?</p>

<p>I might end in a situation, where i will have to wait a year or so, before i can develop my films, mainly 135-36 T-Max 400 & Tri-X 400.<br> Any suggestions how i should store my films, that have been exposed but not processed?</p>

<p>Thanks a lot for all your thoughts. I've got the impression, that the version 4 is a decent objective.<br /><br />@Jim: Are all of the photos in your link taken with the 50 mm version 4?</p>