mark_rossano

Don't worry about it. I had a DR some years ago and the amount of variation between just snug and very tight was less than one degree of turn. if memory serves me, the thread pitch on the lens head is something like 0.5mm. A bit of arithmetic shows that the difference in seated depth would therefore be something like 0.001mm to 0.002mm. This is an order of magnitude less than the tolerances of the camera assembly itself.

Well, it seems that the matte screen is the way to go. If anyone has one that isn't discolored or scratched, I'd pay a fair price for it. I understand that the SL2 matte screen can be modified to fit the SL, but that part is over $300 from Leice, plus there's more labor involved in making use of it because of the retrofit.

I'm in search of a replacement focusing screen for my Leicaflex SL.

I've started using the 400/6.8 and 560/6.8 Telyt and the standard

microprism spot is rather unpleasant to use because of the "gray-

out" that occurs. Has anyone tried the replacement split prism

screen with these slow lenses? I assume that the SL2 split prism

would behave similarly to the replacement screen on the SL, so

responses from anyone experienced with that model might be helpful.

It seems that Leica no longer has the plain matte screen available

for the SL. Any suggestions for another solution?

I've been debating the purchase of either a 280/4.8 Telyt-V (Later

version with the improved optical formula) or a 250/4 Telyt-R

(Second Version with the new formula and revised barrel) for use on

a Leicaflex SL. I have the 14167 adapter so either will work

without too much fuss, and I'm not concerned with auto-aperture

versus preset. I've read Doug Herr's reviews on these lenses and

they both seem good for the money that they typically sell for. Has

anyone an opinion on which one will excel in terms of sharpness,

contrast and flare resistance? The Telyt-V would be in the standard

helical mount, not a Televit. Any opinions based on use or first-

hand observation would be much-appreciated.

Thanks for all your observations and advice.

My understanding is that the 135 Elmarit for the M cameras had its

optical formula changed in the mid-70's to match that of the R

lens. Was there any discernible change in the performance or image

characteristics between the earlier and later lenses, and if so,

what should the user expect to see? Which version would be

considered better, optically, and why (sharpness, contrast, flare

resistance, close-up performance, distortion, etc.)?