40/50mm for a Minolta CLE
p.1 #140/50mm for a Minolta CLE
I got this CLE right before a trip up Big Sur and only had the Thypoch 28/1.4 with me. The camera is in mint condition and it was fantastic to shoot. But now I need a compact normal lens for it.
I'm looking for modern capabilities over vintage vibe, so I am going for a corrected look.
Would also prefer size/focus tab over lens speed.
What are your thoughts?
CV 40/2.8 - doesn't seem anymore capable than the 1.4?
CV 40/1.4 Nokton - focus shift at 2.8, 4?
CV 50/2.2 Skopar - apart from vignetting this one seems about right.
Zeiss 50/2 Planar - Fixes the vignetting of the above?
CV 50/2 Apo - No focus tab. Over kill performance?
Thypoch 50/2 - collapsible but maybe too retro.
I'm looking for modern capabilities over vintage vibe, so I am going for a corrected look.
Would also prefer size/focus tab over lens speed.
What are your thoughts?
CV 40/2.8 - doesn't seem anymore capable than the 1.4?
CV 40/1.4 Nokton - focus shift at 2.8, 4?
CV 50/2.2 Skopar - apart from vignetting this one seems about right.
Zeiss 50/2 Planar - Fixes the vignetting of the above?
CV 50/2 Apo - No focus tab. Over kill performance?
Thypoch 50/2 - collapsible but maybe too retro.
Mar 23, 2026 at 03:16 PM
p.1 #240/50mm for a Minolta CLE
You will be ok with no 50mm framelines on the CLE?
Otherwise, I would suggest any of the 40s since they will use the correct framelines. I have the CV 40mm and the Leica/Minolta 40mm, and prefer the Leica due to size on the CLE.
I can't really comment on performance.
Otherwise, I would suggest any of the 40s since they will use the correct framelines. I have the CV 40mm and the Leica/Minolta 40mm, and prefer the Leica due to size on the CLE.
I can't really comment on performance.
Mar 24, 2026 at 08:05 AM
p.1 #340/50mm for a Minolta CLE
Dood, you want to borrow my Cron 40 for your trip?
I have the CV 40 2.8 and had the 1.4. Looking back if I still had a CLE I would pick the 1.4 just for the extra 2 stops on film. Once slightly stopped down I can’t tell any difference plus it is easier to use as the aperture ring does not move w the focus ring.
I also had both the SC and MC versions - tested them side by side for flare and could barely see any difference. So if you were going that way I’d just get whichever one is the better deal.
FYI the Cron is tiny. And the CV 50 2.2 does NOT vignette on film! You can see my images in the 2.2 thread when that was released. I tested for it shooting at 2.2. It does vignette on digital.
I have the CV 40 2.8 and had the 1.4. Looking back if I still had a CLE I would pick the 1.4 just for the extra 2 stops on film. Once slightly stopped down I can’t tell any difference plus it is easier to use as the aperture ring does not move w the focus ring.
I also had both the SC and MC versions - tested them side by side for flare and could barely see any difference. So if you were going that way I’d just get whichever one is the better deal.
FYI the Cron is tiny. And the CV 50 2.2 does NOT vignette on film! You can see my images in the 2.2 thread when that was released. I tested for it shooting at 2.2. It does vignette on digital.
Mar 24, 2026 at 09:15 AM
p.1 #440/50mm for a Minolta CLE
Re the 50 APO - the size may block one of the RF windows on the CLE. I remember encountering that with some of my bigger 50s when I had my CLEs. So you could not focus w the RF!
Mar 24, 2026 at 09:19 AM
p.1 #540/50mm for a Minolta CLE
aw614 wrote:
You will be ok with no 50mm framelines on the CLE?
Otherwise, I would suggest any of the 40s since they will use the correct framelines. I have the CV 40mm and the Leica/Minolta 40mm, and prefer the Leica due to size on the CLE.
I can't really comment on performance.
It's funny because I have done the opposite. I used to have the 40 on a M240. But 24mp it plenty of crop space for me and it mainly provided me with a margin of error. Accurate frame lines with the 40mm would clearly be an advantage. I like the idea of a 50 for portrait heavy shooting though. The 28 sort of fills my need for deep focus and accurate framing.
I would love the jewel like 40mm cron but prices have been sort of silly lately for a 70s coated lens.
Desmolicious wrote:
Dood, you want to borrow my Cron 40 for your trip?
I have the CV 40 2.8 and had the 1.4. Looking back if I still had a CLE I would pick the 1.4 just for the extra 2 stops on film. Once slightly stopped down I can’t tell any difference plus it is easier to use as the aperture ring does not move w the focus ring.
I also had both the SC and MC versions - tested them side by side for flare and could barely see any difference. So if you were going that way I’d just get whichever...Show more →
I thought highly of the 40/1.4 on digital when I had one. After f2.8 it's pretty clean and f1.4 is like boost-mode/character-mode. At the prices they go for it's a pretty good choice. Interesting about the coating non-variation.
Good to know about the CV 50/2.2. That lens seems like an APO-lite. The haptics seem pretty dialed in too.
Main point to the 50/1.5 is use on digital too. Seems like the right size and amount of character / cleanness for use on both.
This CLE is wonderfully clean but if it's electronics croak I hope it happens within the 6 month warranty I was given with it lol
You will be ok with no 50mm framelines on the CLE?
Otherwise, I would suggest any of the 40s since they will use the correct framelines. I have the CV 40mm and the Leica/Minolta 40mm, and prefer the Leica due to size on the CLE.
I can't really comment on performance.
It's funny because I have done the opposite. I used to have the 40 on a M240. But 24mp it plenty of crop space for me and it mainly provided me with a margin of error. Accurate frame lines with the 40mm would clearly be an advantage. I like the idea of a 50 for portrait heavy shooting though. The 28 sort of fills my need for deep focus and accurate framing.
I would love the jewel like 40mm cron but prices have been sort of silly lately for a 70s coated lens.
Desmolicious wrote:
Dood, you want to borrow my Cron 40 for your trip?
I have the CV 40 2.8 and had the 1.4. Looking back if I still had a CLE I would pick the 1.4 just for the extra 2 stops on film. Once slightly stopped down I can’t tell any difference plus it is easier to use as the aperture ring does not move w the focus ring.
I also had both the SC and MC versions - tested them side by side for flare and could barely see any difference. So if you were going that way I’d just get whichever...Show more →
I thought highly of the 40/1.4 on digital when I had one. After f2.8 it's pretty clean and f1.4 is like boost-mode/character-mode. At the prices they go for it's a pretty good choice. Interesting about the coating non-variation.
Good to know about the CV 50/2.2. That lens seems like an APO-lite. The haptics seem pretty dialed in too.
Main point to the 50/1.5 is use on digital too. Seems like the right size and amount of character / cleanness for use on both.
This CLE is wonderfully clean but if it's electronics croak I hope it happens within the 6 month warranty I was given with it lol
Mar 24, 2026 at 10:11 AM
|
p.1 #640/50mm for a Minolta CLE
Had CLE + 40mm Rokkor couple of yeas ago.
Great kit, and 1.4/40 Voighlander they say is on par but stop faster.
Electtonics could be glitchy (backin 2000s two of my friends had Minolta XG's which were similar to CLE on electronic department - one had some issues. Mine CLE underexposed arpund a stop in the dark - i.e. EV3 or less), other were great but I never thought about gettin 50mm on it. No framelines and not very lon rangefinder base.
Great kit, and 1.4/40 Voighlander they say is on par but stop faster.
Electtonics could be glitchy (backin 2000s two of my friends had Minolta XG's which were similar to CLE on electronic department - one had some issues. Mine CLE underexposed arpund a stop in the dark - i.e. EV3 or less), other were great but I never thought about gettin 50mm on it. No framelines and not very lon rangefinder base.
Mar 24, 2026 at 11:56 AM
p.1 #740/50mm for a Minolta CLE
Yeah both my CLEs started getting the dancing LED thing. One I made 'ok' by taking apart the shutter speed dial and cleaning everything. The other I had serviced which made it 'ok' but at that point I lost trust in them and sold them off.
Interestingly these are plastic bodied cameras with a metal paint coating that gives the impression they are made out of metal. I found them too small and my size medium hands kept on accidentally hitting the lens release button in use.
Interestingly these are plastic bodied cameras with a metal paint coating that gives the impression they are made out of metal. I found them too small and my size medium hands kept on accidentally hitting the lens release button in use.
Mar 24, 2026 at 12:03 PM
p.1 #940/50mm for a Minolta CLE
Desmolicious wrote:
Interestingly these are plastic bodied cameras with a metal paint coating that gives the impression they are made out of metal.
I filed off small ding on the corner and it appears to be PVC under an electroformed shell. It's a cool process. You can get extremely fine fit and finish with that method. Brass isn't much harder but the modern molded magnesium alloy is probably a lot more rugged for about the same level of fit. I bounced a Fuji XE2 off the pavement from about 5.5' up and it barley got a scrape.
Interestingly these are plastic bodied cameras with a metal paint coating that gives the impression they are made out of metal.
I filed off small ding on the corner and it appears to be PVC under an electroformed shell. It's a cool process. You can get extremely fine fit and finish with that method. Brass isn't much harder but the modern molded magnesium alloy is probably a lot more rugged for about the same level of fit. I bounced a Fuji XE2 off the pavement from about 5.5' up and it barley got a scrape.
Mar 24, 2026 at 12:16 PM
p.1 #1040/50mm for a Minolta CLE
I had mine CLA'ed, it occasionally had the dancing metering issue, but not enough to bother me. It seems solid now post CLA.
The main issue mine had was the frame lines were not moving and barely when it did when focusing.
That issue when it got CLA's and is now fixed and more of a mechanical issue. Rangefinder isn't too hard to adjust when needed if you feel comfortable pulling the top off.
The CV40mm I picked up cheap on photrio as a project due to hard focusing. Got it about 90% better, but attribute to occasionally binding when focusing due to the smaller body of the CLE. It doesnt seem to bind as much on my Leica M3.
The main issue mine had was the frame lines were not moving and barely when it did when focusing.
That issue when it got CLA's and is now fixed and more of a mechanical issue. Rangefinder isn't too hard to adjust when needed if you feel comfortable pulling the top off.
The CV40mm I picked up cheap on photrio as a project due to hard focusing. Got it about 90% better, but attribute to occasionally binding when focusing due to the smaller body of the CLE. It doesnt seem to bind as much on my Leica M3.
Mar 24, 2026 at 12:40 PM