Cl and CLE lenses

[volkerhopf]

Hi,
I was wondering if any body can help me. I am interested in the CL/CLE cameras and their lenses, especially in the lenses. I own 3 different 90 mm lenses, the Elmar C made by Leitz, the M-Rokkor made by Leitz and the M-Rokkor made be Minolta.
The first question is - is the M-Rokkor made by Leitz also multicoated like the M-Rokkor made by Minolta?
The second questions is - is there also a 40 mm M-Rokkor made by Leitz or generally - how many different varieties are there of these lenses.
Any link to some enlightening literature would be very much appreciated.
Regards
Volker

[luigi bertolotti]

Originally Posted by volkerhopf

Hi,
I was wondering if any body can help me. I am interested in the CL/CLE cameras and their lenses, especially in the lenses. I own 3 different 90 mm lenses, the Elmar C made by Leitz, the M-Rokkor made by Leitz and the M-Rokkor made be Minolta.
The first question is - is the M-Rokkor made by Leitz also multicoated like the M-Rokkor made by Minolta?
The second questions is - is there also a 40 mm M-Rokkor made by Leitz or generally - how many different varieties are there of these lenses.
Any link to some enlightening literature would be very much appreciated.
Regards
Volker

The defintive books in my opinion are :

- Lager (3 big volumes, the second dedicated to lenses: costly, but worthy)
- Van Hasbroeck (a single volume)

Both cover well also CL issues, even if they do not go in depth towards the "Minolta Editions" of this nice camera.
I have no specific evidence on coating of the 90s, but given that the design is identical, I see no reason for a different coating process would have been set up for the three "brandings" of a single lens.
It seems to remember that a 40mm M-Rokkor "made by Leitz" does exists : also it, is exactly the Summicron C 40 renamed ; on the contrary, the M Rokkor 28 mm f2,8 for CLE was an original Rokkor Lens, even if I have read someone arguing it is a Leitz Elmarit design made by Minolta : I have never seen the optical schema of Rokkor 28... cannot check with the well-published schemas of the various Elmarit 28.
And do not forget that another 40 mm lens for CL exists, it is the very rare Elmarit 40 2,8, supercompact, Leitz optics assembled in Romania into the lens body: it had a design error ( the aperture lever COVERED the viewfinder in some position) and was not marketed besides a batch of few hundreds (3-400 ?), seems mainly in France... it is undoubtely the rarest item regards the CL... I have seen (rarely) some of them in marketplaces : high prices...

[volkerhopf]

Originally Posted by luigi bertolotti

The defintive books in my opinion are :

- Lager (3 big volumes, the second dedicated to lenses: costly, but worthy)
- Van Hasbroeck (a single volume)

Both cover well also CL issues, even if they do not go in depth towards the "Minolta Editions" of this nice camera.
I have no specific evidence on coating of the 90s, but given that the design is identical, I see no reason for a different coating process would have been set up for the three "brandings" of a single lens.
It seems to remember that a 40mm M-Rokkor "made by Leitz" does exists : also it, is exactly the Summicron C 40 renamed ; on the contrary, the M Rokkor 28 mm f2,8 for CLE was an original Rokkor Lens, even if I have read someone arguing it is a Leitz Elmarit design made by Minolta : I have never seen the optical schema of Rokkor 28... cannot check with the well-published schemas of the various Elmarit 28.
And do not forget that another 40 mm lens for CL exists, it is the very rare Elmarit 40 2,8, supercompact, Leitz optics assembled in Romania into the lens body: it had a design error ( the aperture lever COVERED the viewfinder in some position) and was not marketed besides a batch of few hundreds (3-400 ?), seems mainly in France... it is undoubtely the rarest item regards the CL... I have seen (rarely) some of them in marketplaces : high prices...

Thank you very much Luigi for your info. I will put these books on my list.
As to the coating - at Cameraquest it was mentioned that the Leitz C lenses were single coated.
I am aware of the 40mm Elmarit I even did some bidding on a beautiful piece at ebay but I quit at 600US. It eventually went for $us 1000. Would have been nice to own one, but since I use all the lenses I buy I would have always been worried with a unique piece like that.
Ciao
Volker

[ChadHahn]

I can't remember where I read it but it was on the internet so it must be true:

Before Pentax (I think) started advertising their lenses as Super Multi Coated Leica didn't think of upgrading the coatings on their lenses as a selling point. The unremembered said that the Leitz lenses had the same coatings as the Minolta lenses. The Minolta lenses just came along after the "coating wars" had begun.

Chad

[volkerhopf]

Thanks Chad, this is very interesting. I will check that. These little marketing ideas are very amusing.
Best regards
Volker

[wizard]

Volker,

the coating on the Rokkor-M 4/90 for the CLE certainly isn't the same as on the Elmar-C 4/90. I have seen quite a few samples of the Elmar-C 4/90, the coating is the usual Leitz coating of its days with purple color, and I own a Rokkor-M 4/90. Its coating looks a lot different, colors are green, purple and bluish, as you would expect from a multicoated lens. I am there fore quite sure that the Leica lens is not multicoated, at least not to the degree the Minolta lens is.

Andy

[luigi bertolotti]

Originally Posted by wizard

Volker,

the coating on the Rokkor-M 4/90 for the CLE certainly isn't the same as on the Elmar-C 4/90. I have seen quite a few samples of the Elmar-C 4/90, the coating is the usual Leitz coating of its days with purple color, and I own a Rokkor-M 4/90. Its coating looks a lot different, colors are green, purple and bluish, as you would expect from a multicoated lens. I am there fore quite sure that the Leica lens is not multicoated, at least not to the degree the Minolta lens is.

Andy

Interesting... did you notice some different in practical results from the two lenses ?: I have an ELmar C 90 and find nice: curious to see if the Minolta version is something better...
Incidentally, this means that the Rokkor-M was COMPLETELY made in Japan, included the glass group: I had imagined that the glass had came from Wetzlar to be assembled in Minolta factory... but now seems clear is NOT so.

[wizard]

Luigi,

I believe the M-Rokkor 4/90 for the Leitz-Minolta CL, which was marketed alongside the Leica CL, was actually made in Germany by Leitz and was identical to the Elmar-C 4/90, except for the engraving.

However, the later Rokkor-M 4/90 for the Minolta CLE says "Made in Japan" on it, and was I believe manufactured entirely in Japan, using Minolta glass, although the optical computation seems to be very similar to the Elmar-C. It is a very good lens, sharp, contrasty and vivid colors. I mainly use it when hiking in the mountains, as it is small and lightweight. Optical quality according to my personal experience is almost indistinguishable from the current Elmarit-M 2.8/90, although the Rokkor-M 4/90 shows a little vignetting when fully open. Another lens, which shows the same optical quality, but no vignetting, is the Elmar 4/90 3-element, which I have been using since about 30 years now (at the time it was my father's lens) and still enjoy using.

I have never owned an Elmar-C 4/90 myself, and so can not say how it performs in relation to the Minolta lens.

Regards,

Andy

[luigi bertolotti]

Eh eh, that is the same for me... when mountaineering, lightness is important (and also the risk to seriously DAMAGE precious items...) : so I often take on CL + 40 + 90 in mountain (also in skiing: pockets are sufficient for transport....); agree also on your judgement about the 3 elements Elmar 90: fine lens, but I seldom use it: my one is BM, and my Tele Elmarit 90 2,8 (chrome, very first version) is SO SHARP SO SMALL SO NICE that prefer to carry it...
Anyway : 90 is a sort of ideal focal for lot of situations.... I am worried that when I will have my M8, there is not a real equivalent... I do not have a 75 at the moment ... buying M8 PLUS Summicron 75 is a lot of money, and ... well.. maybe my Hektor 73 1,9 of 1932 could result not so good onto M8....

[volkerhopf]

Originally Posted by wizard

Luigi,

I believe the M-Rokkor 4/90 for the Leitz-Minolta CL, which was marketed alongside the Leica CL, was actually made in Germany by Leitz and was identical to the Elmar-C 4/90, except for the engraving.

However, the later Rokkor-M 4/90 for the Minolta CLE says "Made in Japan" on it, and was I believe manufactured entirely in Japan, using Minolta glass, although the optical computation seems to be very similar to the Elmar-C. It is a very good lens, sharp, contrasty and vivid colors. I mainly use it when hiking in the mountains, as it is small and lightweight. Optical quality according to my personal experience is almost indistinguishable from the current Elmarit-M 2.8/90, although the Rokkor-M 4/90 shows a little vignetting when fully open. Another lens, which shows the same optical quality, but no vignetting, is the Elmar 4/90 3-element, which I have been using since about 30 years now (at the time it was my father's lens) and still enjoy using.

I have never owned an Elmar-C 4/90 myself, and so can not say how it performs in relation to the Minolta lens.

Regards,

Andy

Hi Andy,
The M-Rokkor made by Leitz is not identical to the Elmar-C in one point. The filter thread of the Elmar-C is 39mm while the M-Rookor has a 40.5 mm thread, quite annoying because I had to buy a 40.5 mm IR cut filter. The M-Rokkor made in Japan has also the standard Minolta filter thread 40.5 and it is actually written inside the lens rim where the name of the lens is.
I wonder if these are the only 3 variants of the lens.
Sofar after only very unscientific testing I like the M-Rokkor made by Leitz best. Next week I get the M-Rokkor made in Japan - I am curious if it is any different.
Regards
Volker

[wizard]

Originally Posted by volkerhopf

I am curious if it is any different.

I am curious, too. Let us know once you have had time to find out!

Cheers,

Andy

P.S.: You are of course correct on the filter thread differences you mentioned.