AidanA
Member
I'm on the market Leitz Minolta CL (/Leica CL). This will be my first rangefinder camera and I'm very excited about it.
Right now I shoot primarily street photography on a 35mm lens, which brings up my question.
I know that there are not 35mm framelines on a CL (there are 40/50/90), and so I'm curious to hear input/experience when it comes using a 35mm lens (the Voigtlander Nokton is probably what I would go with) on the CL.
Does anyone have experience doing this? If so, how easy/hard is it to work with given the CL framelines? Do any of the 35mm M mounts (the Voigtlander in particular) sit well on the camera?
The other option would be the M-Rokkor 40 or the Summicron 40, which both produce wonderful images and would be more straightforward to use with the CL framelines, but aren't my focal length of choice.
Any experience, advice, or thoughts, would be appreciated!
(That said, please don't try to steer me away from the CL to the other Leica M bodies. I'm a student on a tight budget and I think the CL will be a wonderful opportunity for a Minolta lover like myself to take a step into rangefinder/Leica photography. Thanks!)
Edit/Update 7/24:
Right now I shoot primarily street photography on a 35mm lens, which brings up my question.
I know that there are not 35mm framelines on a CL (there are 40/50/90), and so I'm curious to hear input/experience when it comes using a 35mm lens (the Voigtlander Nokton is probably what I would go with) on the CL.
Does anyone have experience doing this? If so, how easy/hard is it to work with given the CL framelines? Do any of the 35mm M mounts (the Voigtlander in particular) sit well on the camera?
The other option would be the M-Rokkor 40 or the Summicron 40, which both produce wonderful images and would be more straightforward to use with the CL framelines, but aren't my focal length of choice.
Any experience, advice, or thoughts, would be appreciated!
(That said, please don't try to steer me away from the CL to the other Leica M bodies. I'm a student on a tight budget and I think the CL will be a wonderful opportunity for a Minolta lover like myself to take a step into rangefinder/Leica photography. Thanks!)
Edit/Update 7/24:
aizan
Veteran
sure, you can use the 40mm framelines for a 35mm lens without much adjustment.
here's an illustration: https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/how-close-is-the-viewfinder-of-leica-cl-to-35mm.146309/
both the voigtlander 35/1.4 and 2.5 balance nicely on the cl.
here's an illustration: https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/how-close-is-the-viewfinder-of-leica-cl-to-35mm.146309/
both the voigtlander 35/1.4 and 2.5 balance nicely on the cl.
AidanA
Member
Ahh. Thank you very much. That's helpful to look at, it seems like the range is not so drastically different. I appreciate it!
Still interested to hear others' thoughts about this camera lens combo as well. Cheers!
Still interested to hear others' thoughts about this camera lens combo as well. Cheers!
ferider
Veteran
If you are in the US and print on 8x10 frequently, think about it this way:
a 8x12 photo taken with a 35mm lens and then cropped to 8x10 for framing purposes, is the same as going down from a 35mm to a 40mm lens perspective along the long side.
So not a big deal. If you know your 35mm lens, you'll get the hang of it quickly.
Now, that being said, the 40/1.4 Nokton or 40mm CLE Rokkor are outstanding lenses with a great price/performance ratio.
Roland.
a 8x12 photo taken with a 35mm lens and then cropped to 8x10 for framing purposes, is the same as going down from a 35mm to a 40mm lens perspective along the long side.
So not a big deal. If you know your 35mm lens, you'll get the hang of it quickly.
Now, that being said, the 40/1.4 Nokton or 40mm CLE Rokkor are outstanding lenses with a great price/performance ratio.
Roland.
AidanA
Member
Interesting, that's not something I had considered. I don't print often, but I'm hoping to start doing so more frequently soon. Cool to know, thanks.
Do you think that the 40mm lenses you listed perform significantly better than the 35mm voigtlander nokton 1.4, or do you mention them specifically just because they have lower price points?
I have been impressed with what I have seen from the Rokkor 40 for sure. I am not as familiar with the 40/1.4 Nokton.
css9450
Veteran
My thoughts exactly. Be aware that the CL framelines will move automatically as you focus the lens from near to far, so the margin outside of the framelines will be less accurate at closer distances. So don't frame too tightly.
I shoot my CL often with a 35, but I use an external viewfinder in the hot shoe, so its not corrected for parallax either. I don't have an M-mount 35, so I use my old Pentax Takumar M42 lens with an adapter.... I can see smoke coming from the eyes of the Leica purists already! Its not rangefinder-coupled so I have to focus it using the distance scale on the lens. Works great otherwise.
Huss
Veteran
From that list I have the Nokton 40 1.4, CV 35 2.5, Summicron 40 f2. Do not have the Nokton 35 1.4.
They are all excellent but the Summicron 40 f2 (which I am pretty sure is the same lens as the Rokkor 40 f2) is a knock out. One of the best Leica lenses that I have. So if you have an angle on the Rokkor, get it. Not only is is fantastic but it also matches the frame lines.
ferider
Veteran
This. The Summicron-C/Rokkor is a really special lens, similar (but cheaper) than the late pre-asph Summicron 35/2. I prefer the late CLE Rokkor version because it's mechanically better built (straight RF cam), and easier to filter (40.5mm). But mechanics and coating differences aside, it's essentially the same lens compared to the 40 Summicron-C. In Japan, the Rokkor is sometimes called "The Water-lens", because of the pastel background/color rendering.
The Nokton 35 and 40 are slightly different, the 40 has less distortion, mainly. Both are good lenses, IMO.
Roland.
AidanA
Member
Thanks a lot for the personal experience and advice, you two. It sounds like the rokkor 40 might be a good option for me. I still feel some hesitancy when it comes to straying from 35mm, but I have never owned a 40mm lens and it sounds like if there's ever a time to give it a go, it's now.
Still happy to hear others' input as well!
Still happy to hear others' input as well!
AidanA
Member
Would you mind commenting on the two different types of the Rokkor 40 lens? I understand there was an earlier version with less coatings. I'm not as knowledgeable about this type of thing.
FWIW I will be shooting mostly B+W street photography. I don't know how coatings affect the image. Any input would be appreciated.
ferider
Veteran
There are 3 versions of basically the same lens design:
1) Leica CL / 40mm Summicron-C / Series 5.5 filter
2) Minolta CL / 40mm Rokkor / 40.5mm filter
3) Minolta CLE / 40mm Rokkor / 40.5mm filter
While the mechanics are different, they all are interchangeable, and unless modified will bring up 50mm framelines on a "big" Leica (M3, M2, etc.).
Here you can see how the mechanics changed:
(I just "stole" these pictures from ebay, hopefully the sellers don't mind ....)
Regarding coating, the common wisdom is that 1) and 2) are single-coated, and 3) is multi-coated. However, there is evidence that some of the 2) lenses were multi-coated as well.
I don't think that the coating in practice makes much difference. Maybe a tiny amount of less flare around high-lights for MC lenses.
I prefer the CLE version of the lens as 40.5mm filters (if you shoot B+W you might need yellow, orange or red) are much easier and cheaper to come by than Series 5.5. Plus, I very much like the different RF cam that you see in the picture above. Not your problem, I know, but when you have more than one Leica, and (too) many lenses, it's easier to make the system compatible without strongly slanted RF cams as in 1) and 2).
BTW, long time ago I did a small test on film of several 40mm lenses, have a look if you are interested: https://ferider.smugmug.com/Technical/Tests/40mm-Tests
Roland.
PS: BTW, I'm a Minolta fan myself (Maxxum)
David Hughes
David Hughes
FWIW, I think the CLE's lens and the CL's lens are not the same although similar. Probably two different makers...
I've owned and used the CL and Summicron-C for decades and the CLE etc for a couple of weeks and think they perform in pretty much the same way. Much as I'd like to put up samples I can't as the CLE was used with slide film and I can't scan it..
Regards, David
I've owned and used the CL and Summicron-C for decades and the CLE etc for a couple of weeks and think they perform in pretty much the same way. Much as I'd like to put up samples I can't as the CLE was used with slide film and I can't scan it..
Regards, David
AidanA
Member
Wow, Roland. Thanks so much for the info, seriously that is very helpful. I looked through your lens test and found that to be really interesting and helpful as well.
I think with all that in mind, what I am probably after is the Leitz Minolta CL and the Rokkor 40 m CLE version. This probably shouldn't run me up too big of a bill (I think I said I'm on a student budget here), and it seems like a huge amount of bang for the buck. Wish me luck on finding a quality and up-kept combo
In response to your P.S. I'm very fond of Minolta. I've never used the Maxxum, but the first 35mm camera I ever bought was an X-700 and I still have it and use it very often. It's such a fun machine. I've had such a good experience with Minolta and Rokkor products that I'd imagine I'll always have a soft spot for them.
Paul T.
Veteran
I would really echo Roland's advice. The Summicron/Rokkor 40mm is a fabulous lens. I preferred mine to my 35mm Summicron, and somehow preferred the rendering to any of my VC lenses. I've come to prefer the FOV of the 40mm.
Of course, so many of these elements are intrinsically subjective, but it's also the case that using the 40mm, on a camera that's designed to take one, is simply easier!
I'm glad also no-one has tried to persuade you out of the CL, they are terrific little cameras with a charm of their own.
Of course, so many of these elements are intrinsically subjective, but it's also the case that using the 40mm, on a camera that's designed to take one, is simply easier!
I'm glad also no-one has tried to persuade you out of the CL, they are terrific little cameras with a charm of their own.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
As you are on a budget I'll offer a piece of advice; although I don't know where you live* and so can't be 100% certain of the market there.
Anyway, be patient and wait for a Leica CL with the 40mm lens, caps and rubber lens hood to be offered together. They are usually cheaper bought that way and often the instruction book and even the ERC come with them. Buying one piece at a time is usually dearer and doubles the postage etc costs.
The comment about filters is true but a lot of people would advise against buying a Leica's lens and then putting a filter in front of it. You may think differently but that's my 2d worth.
Regards, David
* But calling it the "Leitz Minolta CL" suggests Japan.
As you are on a budget I'll offer a piece of advice; although I don't know where you live* and so can't be 100% certain of the market there.
Anyway, be patient and wait for a Leica CL with the 40mm lens, caps and rubber lens hood to be offered together. They are usually cheaper bought that way and often the instruction book and even the ERC come with them. Buying one piece at a time is usually dearer and doubles the postage etc costs.
The comment about filters is true but a lot of people would advise against buying a Leica's lens and then putting a filter in front of it. You may think differently but that's my 2d worth.
Regards, David
* But calling it the "Leitz Minolta CL" suggests Japan.
Last edited:
AidanA
Member
Thanks, David!
And actually I've been intentionally saying Leitz Minolta because I spoke to Sherry Krauter earlier this week about these models and she told me that, of all the little internal changes these models saw during their short production, all but one of them occurred before the "Leitz Minolta" versions were being produced. That is, the "Leitz Minolta" models represent kind of the end of the modification period for the CLs. She seemed to think that buying one of those would be the best option to ensure reliability and build quality. Perhaps I am giving too much weight to this thought though. Who knows.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Who knows? as you say but I'll offer the point that the previous owner is now far more important, imo, given their age and what may have happened to them. I've a 1973 CL and have had it decades and it goes in to be checked, repaired and so on from time to time; meaning that it's not a matter of luck...
Anyway, I'll wish you luck finding what you want.
Regards, David
Anyway, I'll wish you luck finding what you want.
Regards, David
AidanA
Member
Ah, this is a good point, David.
And thanks! I'll be keeping a sharp eye out for a CL
And thanks! I'll be keeping a sharp eye out for a CL
Palaeoboy
Joel Matherson
Is Sherry still touting that fairy tale? I thought that myth (that she started) was put to bed over a decade ago. She has morphed a sales arrangement into some kind of modification timeline that simply isnt true. Yes through the production run of Leica CLs and Leitz Minolta CLs there were updates to the mechanisms as models improve through time and certain weaknesses are identified. In the USA when the Leica CL was discontinued sales of the Leitz Minolta version took over for a few extra years. For some reason Sherry interpreted that to mean ALL Leitz Minolta CLs were made after the Leica version and therefore all must have the mechanical improvements. This assumption is wrong however in that the Leitz Minolta CL was available from 1973 released at the exact same time as the Leica CL and received the same modifications through time. It mainly sold on the Japanese home market but Minolta also sold them in certain countries where Leica didnt have exclusivity to sell their version. The USA was one of those markets and her claim would work if you could guarantee a completely closed market where no others in the past many decades ever filtered into the US market and you could be absolutely sure it was sold new in the USA in the 70s. With the freedom of trade, escalating with internet sales, markets are now so mixed up that you could never be assured you were getting one of these cameras made 1976 to 1979 When in fact the actual production run of Leitz Minolta CLs was from 1973 to 1979.
To further muddy the waters is that firstly many of the earlier cameras were updated and any benefits of the improvements have long since been overridden by time, treatment and use. In other words a camera without the modifications treated well over the years and still working today would be a better option than a well used and abused example that has all the modifications. So the bottom line is forget about trying to get a later one because there is no guarantee you will as Sherry's assumption is wrong but rather as with any secondhand item simply buy the best condition you can within the budget that you have.
While you may hesitate at the 40mm focal length at first, it really makes for the best standard/first lens. For me 50mm is always too narrow a field of view for alot of general snaps. Just of your car or house or a group you really have to get far back to fit everything in with that focal length. 35mm is the start of what many consider a true wide angle as such and certain distortions creep in when you get close for portraits etc. In this respect 40mm is the perfect standard lens. Much wider than a 50 yet not so wide that certain distortions that begin at around 35mm. If you get one of the Leica / Minolta 40mm f2s you get a lens on wider side of the labelled 40mm's out there. 39.5mm in fact whereas the Voigtlander ones are closer to 43mm. Also the most common full wide lens of choice is often 28mm (especially back when the camera was designed). A 40mm lens gives you the perfect gap between it and the view of 28mm. Whereas the difference between a 35mm and a 28mm is often too close too warrant owning both. This was an important consideration in its design and further highlighted with its successor the CLE in incorporating 28mm framelines.
As someone mentioned above getting the camera and lens together can save a lot of money. Strangely you often see the 40mm lens being sold separately for virtually the same prices as the cameras and lenses together! Only the Summicron version has a unique series 5.5 filter thread arrangement and even then you can still use 39mm filters on it if not forced all the way without damage so Its not as big a hurdle as often implied. Given the Summicron also commands a higher price anyways its worth saving the money and getting either one of the Minolta versions if its already on the camera. Although that recommendation is made to someone on a budget I personally sway towards the Summicron version because of its hood/cap arrangement that gives and very compact clam-shell combination that is very robust and preferred. A permanently mounted Series 5.5 UV filter has no impact in the lens size with its original hood. So the odd filter size can be beneficial to some.
Many years ago when I wanted to get back into rangefinders many tried to deter me from the CL as well. I already had an M3 that just sat in the cupboard unused. It was the combination of the CL and the 40mm lens I found was a revolution and I became addicted to the focal length. That's evolved into a collection of every 40mm lens for the 35mm format, fixed lens cameras and interchangeable. The M3 still stays in the cupboard but I extended my camera usage to CLEs as well to capitalise on the 40mm lens format. I hope you will be inspired by it as I was the moment I got my first CL. If Leica comes out with an M with 40mm framelines I will consider it but until then its CLs/CLEs all the way.
Good Luck
pyeh
Member of good standing
Paleoboy, I'm a big big fan of CLs and CLEs. Some of my CLs' are needing meter service, in that when I got them the meters were working, but somehow now have suddenly stopped working. I hope these aren't permanent failures.
Is there anyone in Australia that you recommend for servicing CLs?
Is there anyone in Australia that you recommend for servicing CLs?