40mm for Leica m9 - Leica/Minolta or CV?

[EVIL_Guy]

I had 40 CLE latest version.
At f2 bokeh was buzzing.
With 40 1.4 you'll get even more of it. To me it is not good.

Same!
I owned a M-Rokkor 40 for my Minolta CLE (plus some digital use) and exchanged it by the Nokon 40 1.4.
The M-Rokkor was to "soft" for my taste.
The Nokton 40mm is very sharp (starting at f1.7 or f2) with a good contrast.
At f2 it's definitely better than the others at the same aperture.

 

[Rob-F]

I had 40 CLE latest version.
At f2 bokeh was buzzing.
With 40 1.4 you'll get even more of it. To me it is not good.

Even if 40 is real match for crappy M9 35 frames, I still prefer 35 lens on my M-E. Despite of odd rendering at 1.4 I'm finding 40, 35 of it to be much more practical on M9 sensor.

I wouldn't bother with 40mm for the M9 if the object is to match the framelines. The 40mm Rokkor or CV 40/1.4 actually cover slightly less (at a distance of 10 feet or so) than the finder shows. It's not the same as with the same lenses on my M6/M7/MP, where the opposite is true.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

FWIW, if you have a choice, my personal impression is that the CL version of te M-Rokkor is somewhat more solidly built than the later CLE version.

I have changed entire focus part on latest CLE version.
To the new one. It is all metal, three helicoids part.
Optical block is also metal.

No idea from where this CL vs CLE mythology comes from.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I wouldn't bother with 40mm for the M9 if the object is to match the framelines. The 40mm Rokkor or CV 40/1.4 actually cover slightly less (at a distance of 10 feet or so) than the finder shows. It's not the same as with the same lenses on my M6/M7/MP, where the opposite is true.

On M9 with 35 mm frames, 40 lens is more accurate for framing on all distances. Close and far.

 

[Huss]

I like the Cle‘s Rokkor - it takes 40.5 mm filters and the rf coupling is „normal“ - not cl specific.
The IQ is IMO outstanding and it is so small...

I have never had an rf coupling/focus issue w my Summicron 40 on any of my M bodies. Well apart from my MDA.

 

[kermaier]

I have changed entire focus part on latest CLE version.
To the new one. It is all metal, three helicoids part.
Optical block is also metal.

No idea from where this CL vs CLE mythology comes from.

It’s not “mythology” — I’ve handled both, and the first version of the M-Rokkor felt heavier and had smoother mechanical movements.

 

[FrozenInTime]

There is a very good comparison of the Summicron-C vs Nokton here:
http://gear.vogelius.se/-editorials/40-vs-40/index.html

 

[olifaunt]

FWIW, if you have a choice, my personal impression is that the CL version of te M-Rokkor is somewhat more solidly built than the later CLE version.

Newer M-Rokkors are purported to have a different (better for color?) lens coating. These are supposedly the ones with the serial number on the barrel, not the front.

 

[santino]

I have never had an rf coupling/focus issue w my Summicron 40 on any of my M bodies. Well apart from my MDA.

I know, I had the C-Elmar and no problems at all but Leica claimed an incompatibility between M and CL M lenses - maybe pure marketing.

 

[David Hughes]

If I remember correctly the Minolta 40mm was made by Minolta and the Leica version was made in Germany. Again, IIRF, there was an article about them being made by a sub-contractor in Germany but I lost the article, otherwise I'd show it or quote from it.


Regards, David

 

[FrozenInTime]

I never quite get why the Leica and Minolta 40mm lenses are so revered with the Voigtlander a mere footnote.

 

[Strangefinder]

I would try to get a contax g 2.0 45mm wich Leica m adapted.

 

[santino]

The Planar is probably the best of the bunch but rare in m mount and 45mm...

 

[Doug]

I would try to get a contax g 2.0 45mm wich Leica m adapted.

I have one of those (original unconverted) and it's a great lens. But according to its specs, the 45mm focal length is nominal, and it's actually 47mm. I guess that would put it out of the 40mm class!

I also have the 40mm Rokkor, and that's a fine lens too. And also the 1.4/40mm Nokton SC in the second production run. Both of these are used primarily on Minolta CLE bodies. Here are my comments on the Nokton...

"While this lens is just fine on film cameras, uncoded it's unacceptable on the digital Leica M typ240, smearing corner resolution and with strong corner illumination fall-off and cyan color-shift... the wider the aperture the stronger it gets and the closer it moves toward center. The "plane" of focus at wider apertures is decidedly bowl-shaped, concave. The 40 Rokkor is far superior!"

Also, the Nokton has a slightly smaller/narrower field of view than the Rokkor so the focal length must be slightly longer.

 

[IEDEI]

get a 40mm Summicron C.

IMO the same goodness as a 35mm Summicron of that era; put into a 40mm for a bargain price. Even though prices have gone up a little bit in the past few years i still firmly believe it's the most 'bang for the buck' Leica lens money can buy. Love mine and it's my 'go to' lens for every occasion.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

get a 40mm Summicron C.

IMO the same goodness as a 35mm Summicron of that era; put into a 40mm for a bargain price. Even though prices have gone up a little bit in the past few years i still firmly believe it's the most 'bang for the buck' Leica lens money can buy. Love mine and it's my 'go to' lens for every occasion.

Absolutely! A '70s era Summicron for $4-500? A no-brainer.