We had laminated sheets @ .001, so it was easy to count off say 7 and peel them off as a stack of .007 or whatever thickness you wanted. Just lift the corners to get the count, then peel off the stack of 7 and cut as a stack of .007 ... too easy, i.e. no need to cut several individual shims. Laminated is the way to go if you can find it without having to buy a mountain of it. I've seen it @ .0015, .002, .003 lams as well.
If not, Jim's point @ .005 & .002 would make a good combo also.
waterden wrote:
...Summicron-C 40/2. Like others here I have the Rokkor-M version and it is one of my favourite lenses.
The Rokkor-M is the "[Minolta] version" of the Summicron-C? As in "[Minolta] equivalent/competitor" of? Or is it the same lens rehoused or design-shared?
Lee Saxon wrote:
The Rokkor-M is the "[Minolta] version" of the Summicron-C? As in "[Minolta] equivalent/competitor" of? Or is it the same lens rehoused or design-shared?
Lee,
The Leica C Summicron 40mm f2 Summicron (it is an M mount) and the equivalent Minolta (almost identical to the Leica C Summicron 40mm f2) 40mm f2 M-Rokkor and the later Minolta CLE MC (version) 40mm f2 M-Rokkor lenses I believe these were the smallest lenses with an M mount ever made by Leica and Minolta. They really are tiny and light.
The Leica (Leitz) C Summicron 40mm f2 lens was made by Leica. This lens was designed by Leica and was the original lens that was used for the Leitz or Leitz/Minolta CL cameras. Minolta also made these lenses for the CL cameras as I recalled for Japan and other areas of the world at the same time? and/or after Leica discontinued the camera and the project with Minolta. The Minolta version of the lens is the same optical design as the Leica version, but from what some of us have been able to find, Minolta may have changed 1 element of the glass in the lens and used Rokkor glass as I understand it while the Leica lens used Leitz Glass. Minolta continued with the design of the CL camera several years later and released the CLE camera. With the Minolta CLE camera Minolta released the same 3 lenses that were made for the CL cameras but they were with the new MC. They included the Minolta CLE MC 40mm f2 M-Rokkor lens. The CLE version was the last of the same or equivalent design of the original Leitz C 40mm f2 Summicron lens. The CLE version also had multicoatings (or better coatings) than previous lenses as well as an improved focus tab. All 3 lenses are so small you need the focus tab to focus the lens. In the case of the Leitz C Summicron it has an odd 39mm pitch filter size. Leitz used a different pitch size than standard (so using standard 39mm filters can be a problem if they are over tightened) than the norm though adapters and hoods are available for this. In the case of the Minolta lenses they use the much more common 40.5mm filter size. There are also I believe adapters that can be used with the Summicron C lenses to use a 40.5mm filter.
You can recognize between the versions of the Minolta M-Rokkor lenses by the placement of the Serial Numbers. The older lenses released with the CL camera have their Serial Numbers on the front of the lens inside of the filter threads. The later Minolta M-Rokkor lenses (better and/or multicoated) lens released with the Minolta CLE camera have their Serial Numbers around the lens barrel.
Well, I haven't ordered the A7R yet, but I've got my wides lined up! Based on this thread, looks like for the 35mm length, I should be able to use an RF lens.
Sadly, no 100% crops. The 12mm Voigtlander and the ZM 18 have color shift, can't tell much about smearing from the small size. The FE 35 2.8 looks crazy sharp:
I thought they looked average until I noticed they are 100% crops:
Indeed the Zeiss FE lenses will be spectacular and the obvious way to go if you don't already own some RF glass. This said, from all the samples shown, I can deduce that the A7R is definitively not as good as my M9 in terms of color shift (and most probably smearing). In particular the ZM 18 samples show color shift even at this close range, something that it would never do on my M9. The good news is that the color shift seems somewhat mild and probably in line with what the Leica M would produce without lens profiles. The color shift should be completely correctable with Cornerfix or the LR plugin. So far moderately good news.
Of course these are not 100% crop views of these images but they certainly don't look terrible! Hard to see the level of smearing in the corners but again, I was anticipating something far worse than what is displayed. Still, time will tell.
The Leica C Summicron 40mm f2 Summicron (it is an M mount) and the equivalent Minolta (almost identical to the Leica C Summicron 40mm f2) 40mm f2 M-Rokkor and the later Minolta CLE MC (version) 40mm f2 M-Rokkor lenses I believe these were the smallest lenses with an M mount ever made by Leica and Minolta. They really are tiny and light.
The Leica (Leitz) C Summicron 40mm f2 lens was made by Leica. This lens was designed by Leica and was the original lens that was used for the Leitz or Leitz/Minolta CL cameras. Minolta also made these lenses for the CL cameras as I recalled for Japan and other areas of the world at the same time? and/or after Leica discontinued the camera and the project with Minolta. The Minolta version of the lens is the same optical design as the Leica version, but from what some of us have been able to find, Minolta may have changed 1 element of the glass in the lens and used Rokkor glass as I understand it while the Leica lens used Leitz Glass. Minolta continued with the design of the CL camera several years later and released the CLE camera. With the Minolta CLE camera Minolta released the same 3 lenses that were made for the CL cameras but they were with the new MC. They included the Minolta CLE MC 40mm f2 M-Rokkor lens. The CLE version was the last of the same or equivalent design of the original Leitz C 40mm f2 Summicron lens. The CLE version also had multicoatings (or better coatings) than previous lenses as well as an improved focus tab. All 3 lenses are so small you need the focus tab to focus the lens. In the case of the Leitz C Summicron it has an odd 39mm pitch filter size. Leitz used a different pitch size than standard (so using standard 39mm filters can be a problem if they are over tightened) than the norm though adapters and hoods are available for this. In the case of the Minolta lenses they use the much more common 40.5mm filter size. There are also I believe adapters that can be used with the Summicron C lenses to use a 40.5mm filter.
You can recognize between the versions of the Minolta M-Rokkor lenses by the placement of the Serial Numbers. The older lenses released with the CL camera have their Serial Numbers on the front of the lens inside of the filter threads. The later Minolta M-Rokkor lenses (better and/or multicoated) lens released with the Minolta CLE camera have their Serial Numbers around the lens barrel.
Rich...Show more →
This is an excellent synopsis. As I said I have a copy of the M-Rokkor, the latest CLE version as stated on its box but nowhere does the lens itself say CLE. However, the serial number is on the barrel as you say.
I've lost track. Do we have a WA RF lens winner for the A7r, yet, in the range of 20 to 25ish? Anything that doesn't cost > 1K$ ?
I'm taking my C/Y Distagon 28/2.8 off to see the A7r tonight. It's not RF glass but isn't huge either, and I'm hoping to at least be able to rely on it for the interim.
A couple other locals have contacted me so I know some other RF lenses will be there. Sure wish I still had my ZM25 and ZM35/2 to check out. Fingers crossed someone else of like mind will be there tonight or at Sunday's event.
Interesting. I had thought of the Pentax 31 Limited as a useful option and it looks like it works well. Some might consider it too big with an adapter, but it would be fine for me.
michaelwatkins wrote:
I've lost track. Do we have a WA RF lens winner for the A7r, yet, in the range of 20 to 25ish? Anything that doesn't cost > 1K$ ?
I'm taking my C/Y Distagon 28/2.8 off to see the A7r tonight. It's not RF glass but isn't huge either, and I'm hoping to at least be able to rely on it for the interim.
Can't wait for the results: I just bought a C/Y 28/2.8, thinking it might be a good wide for a future A7r.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Interesting. I had thought of the Pentax 31 Limited as a useful option and it looks like it works well. Some might consider it too big with an adapter, but it would be fine for me.
With K to E adapter, the Pentax 31/1.8 is almost exactly the same size as the CV 35/1.2 with M to E adapter, but significantly lighter (and slower).
Closer in, I'm sure there'll be sufficient workable options < 35mm. We've seen plenty of closer-in subjects.
O mighty anointed Sony Early Access Reviewer, please show us a planar scene where the focus point is at 15 - 40 yards out (with squirrels in the foreground, and we need clowns in makeup and at least one in drag) and then another set with a planar subject at or near enough to infinity, hopefully with pretty trees on a ridge and peaks in the distance. f 5/6 - 11.
It's great that this subject is generating exposure in more general-interest publications. I know he's not always popular here, but reviewers like Huff also contribute a lot to raising the profile of alt-lens users.
