I can't wait to mount and use mine on my A7r after it is delivered.
ISO1600 wrote:
Rokkor is easiest of the three to find here in Korea- every shop in Seoul has one (or two!).
Get the later CLE one with the MC. These lenses have the SN around the outside of the barrel. The older CL ones have the SN inside the lens filter threads.
carstenw wrote:
Apart from that one guy who came in here and asked for his photos not to be posted here without his permission, right?
That was Makten, who gave his permission right as soon as I asked. He had thought I'd made a copy of his images. I was in contact with him minutes after he made the post. Once I explained it was a link to his flickr, he said it was fine.
briantho wrote:
Are you drunk? This is just ridicoulous.
Yeah I've been drunk ever since you told me the 28 cron was a waste on the 5n You know, like before anyone tried it.
One lens says MADE IN GERMANY on the barrel, and the other says MADE IN JAPAN. They are different, if the interweb says one is better than the other, then it must be true i guess.
Jabberwockt wrote:
One lens says MADE IN GERMANY on the barrel, and the other says MADE IN JAPAN. They are different, if the interweb says one is better than the other, then it must be true i guess.
You may wish to look at my summary about the lenses:
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.
Jabberwockt wrote:
One lens says MADE IN GERMANY on the barrel, and the other says MADE IN JAPAN. They are different, if the interweb says one is better than the other, then it must be true i guess.
Myself I don't think there is any difference at all in the real world expect the Summicron has a PITA filter size and thread pitch. You pay more for that pleasure.
But, I read a few threads at RFF where the various merits were debated, while my own was on the way.
Rich, its great that you did your homework before buying your Rokkor a few months ago. I dont understand if u guys are agreeing or disagreeing with me that there are differences.
Anyways, to answer the ISO1600's questions. I own two of the three lenses in question. The voigtlander has f1.4 and moderately harsher bokeh combined with the the slight purple fringing tendency wide open that a lot of voigtlanders have. The rokkor/cron 40 is sharp and has decent contrast in the middle, that sharpness falls off a bit towards the edges and corners. Neither would probably be my first choice for stop down landscapes. Had both the rokkor and cron version to compare last month, the rokkor seemed to glow more than the cron (although both did it) but i think the copy i had was an outlier. With older lenses, it has been my experience that sample variation is pretty significant. Have not tried the canon 35 LTM, would like to one of these days, but i think some folks here have shots with it on the Leica image thread.
Jabberwockt wrote:
Rich, its great that you did your homework before buying your Rokkor a few months ago. I dont understand if u guys are agreeing or disagreeing with me that there are differences.
Anyways, to answer the ISO1600's questions. I own two of the three lenses in question. The voigtlander has f1.4 and moderately harsher bokeh combined with the the slight purple fringing tendency wide open that a lot of voigtlanders have. The rokkor/cron 40 is sharp and has decent contrast in the middle, that sharpness falls off a bit towards the edges and corners. Neither would probably be my first choice for stop down landscapes. Had both the rokkor and cron version to compare last month, the rokkor seemed to glow more than the cron (although both did it) but i think the copy i had was an outlier. With older lenses, it has been my experience that sample variation is pretty significant. Have not tried the canon 35 LTM, would like to one of these days, but i think some folks here have shots with it on the Leica image thread. ...Show more →
Since you have not mentioned the camera once, and it's a picky beast, I have to ask: have you ordered one?
I'm afraid your vast Leica experience is pretty much useless in this context, in fact it works against you , since you seem to think you already know everything.
Here you will find the cv 35/1.4 http://flic.kr/ps/z3zDS
I have also seen the canon but I'm going to have to dig that one up.
to be honest, if I did not already own the 40/2, CVs 35/1.2 35/1.4 and 35/2.5 (which I don't expect to do well), I would get the native zeiss 35 which will outperform them all expect at very low light, in which case the cv35/1.4 will do well.
the 1.2 looks to give the native a real run for the money, but it's big.
The camera does seem to like the cv.35/1.4 quite a bit
This might also be useful since the lens was based on the canon 35/2: HERE
I've owned about a million copies of the Canon 35/2- I know I love that lens, but I'd rather avoid lenses with 1m MFD. I don't want to have to buy a Hawk's adapter.
I really liked both the CV 35/1.4 and M-Rokkor (i've had both CL and CLE versions), they are both such good lenses it is hard to decide.
uhoh7, why don't you expect the 35/2.5 to do well?
