raytoei@gmail.com
Veteran


Received this email today from Japanexposure.com. The cost of conversion from the Minilux Summarit 40/2.4f to M bayonet is quite expensive. But I have to say that it looks very nice on this M8, brassing and all.
Perhaps there is life after E02 error for the Minilux.
Turtle
Veteran
Interesting... I never would have thought a lens would go from compact to bayonet mount, but may I ask why bother? I mean, why not use a 35 summarit M or summicron 40 C?
I don't want to sound like I am knocking this - each to their own. Weird and wonderful things are a good rather than a bad thing!
I don't want to sound like I am knocking this - each to their own. Weird and wonderful things are a good rather than a bad thing!
It's a case of falling in love with a lens. They are all unique.
Japanexposures converted a 45/1.7 Yashinon from a Yashica GSN to Mount for an RFF member recently.
I end up using my uncoated Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm F1.5 converted to LTM more than any other lens. I love the rendition it gives.
That lens looks great, I look forward to seeing the images from it.
Japanexposures converted a 45/1.7 Yashinon from a Yashica GSN to Mount for an RFF member recently.
I end up using my uncoated Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm F1.5 converted to LTM more than any other lens. I love the rendition it gives.
That lens looks great, I look forward to seeing the images from it.
jarski
Veteran
k.a
Well-known
beutiful setup
wjlapier
Well-known
I like it. My Contax G 28/2.8 will go to Japan Exposure soon.
ulrich.von.lich
Well-known
Since Contax G lenses don't have manual focus ring, how has the issue be resolved and how is the new manual focus experience?
le vrai rdu
Well-known
Since Contax G lenses don't have manual focus ring, how has the issue be resolved and how is the new manual focus experience?
make a focus ring with with a lathe and mechanicaly connect it to the tube that hold the barrel
awilder
Alan Wilder
I'm not sure why one would want the converted 40/2.4 Summarit given the existence of the 40/2 Summicron or 40/2.8 Sonnar LTM (marketed with the Rollei 35 RF not that long ago). The Sonnar was especially nice when I owned it.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I'm not sure why one would want the converted 40/2.4 Summarit given the existence of the 40/2 Summicron or 40/2.8 Sonnar LTM (marketed with the Rollei 35 RF not that long ago). The Sonnar was especially nice when I owned it.
Because you CAN!
Also, in all fairness, perhaps because you like the results.
Cheers,
R.
zleica
Established
The IQ of the Summarit 40/2.4 is excellent - rich and deep color with exceptional center sharpness. Compared with the Rollei 40/2.8 Sonnar LTM, I like the IQ of my Leica Summarit better. Of course, this is very subjective.
Cheers,
Cheers,
awilder
Alan Wilder
I can't dispute what Zleica said about the Summarit but my experience with the Sonnar was it was exceptionally sharp at the center, even wide open, with softening at the edge of the frame, much like a good Tessar copy such as the 45/2.8 Nikkor AI-P. Peak sharpness over most of the frame was by f/4 or f/5.6. One reason it was so sharp was that DAG tweaked to focus to match Leica tolerances. Possibly some copies out their might require a similar adjustment. The Summarit 40/2.4 benefits slightly from multi-coating over the 40/2 Summicon giving images a little more punch.
Also, how do you adjust the aperture on the 40/2.4?
Also, how do you adjust the aperture on the 40/2.4?
Last edited:
zleica
Established
I can't dispute what Zleica said about the Summarit but my experience with the Sonnar was it was exceptionally sharp at the center, even wide open, with softening at the edge of the frame, much like a good Tessar copy such as the 45/2.8 Nikkor AI-P. Peak sharpness over most of the frame was by f/4 or f/5.6. One reason it was so sharp was that DAG tweaked to focus to match Leica tolerances. Possibly some copies out their might require a similar adjustment. The Summarit 40/2.4 benefits slightly from multi-coating over the 40/2 Summicon giving images a little more punch.
Also, how do you adjust the aperture on the 40/2.4?
I, too, like the Rollei 40/2.8 Sonnar LTM very much. To a certain extend, these two lenses have somewhat similar optic characteristics. I just feel that the Summarit on my Minilux is very speical, especially the color rendition.
Cheers,
timexchen
Established
I'm not sure why one would want the converted 40/2.4 Summarit given the existence of the 40/2 Summicron or 40/2.8 Sonnar LTM (marketed with the Rollei 35 RF not that long ago). The Sonnar was especially nice when I owned it.
I compared 50 summilux ASPH, 35 summicron V4 and ASPH as well as 40mm summarit converted from minilux.
The 40mm 2.4 renders sth very special on color and atmosphere. Also, its unique look and build can diversify my leica lens setup.
Nando
Well-known
Converting the Minilux's 40mm to M-mount is a nice option for those who have a Minilux with the dreaded e02 error or other electronic problem.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
but may I ask why bother? I mean, why not use a 35 summarit M or summicron 40 C?
Because he wanted to.
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
My next dead Minilux will get the conversion done.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Japanexposures converted a 45/1.7 Yashinon from a Yashica GSN to Mount for an RFF member recently.
How much would one have to pay for such a conversion?
There are a few lenses which I wouldn't mind having on the M in the long run, and another couple of weird ideas (a 35/2.8 pancake from an Olympus XA, for example).
Share:
-
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.