Jump to content

Bought a "new" SL2 with 50mm 1.4


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Picked it up just before the weekend, what a wonderfull piece of engineering this is, it's buttery smooth, feels solid, is certainly not as quiet as my M4 but certainly as smooth. The lens is great and this what my question is about.

 

Is the R 1.4 a similar build to the M-Lux ? for I have shot various images at 1.4 and they seem to have more depth and contrast than the M .....

 

as for the batteries, I received 4 mercuries with the purchase, this should last me a lifetime.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Johannes,

 

The R Summilux is a of a different design from the Summilux M. Main reason - lens mount to film plane distance is greater on the reflex cameras and the rear element of the Summilux R has to sit further forward to clear the mirror.

 

Which Summilux M do you have? The Summilux R should be better than the original Summilux M, as it is a more modern design. I don't believe in a second though, that the latest Summilux M Asph would be inferior to any lens and that includes the 'lux R.

 

Congratulation on yur purchase and enjoy!

 

Jan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice buy, Johannes, nice buy indeed: I have always resisted the temptation to buy a SL or (like better) a SL2, owing to my excess of passion for lenses: I know I would start to chase R lenses as I did for years with LTMs & BMs... that would be dangerous for my pockets... oh the nice 19 (and the present 15 too), mmh the robust 250... and using a SLR is a pity not to enjoy the capability of zooms...

anyway, I sigh anytime put in my hands a SL2...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Luigi, this is exactly the thing .... I'v actually never looked twice at an SL(2) only seen from on pictures and in other peoples hands, and never thought much about it...... until you pick one up and fondle it, love at first feel so to speak.

 

I actually like cameras without electronics, well just for lightmeter thats ok, I wanted an SLR for reasonably affordable wide angle and telelenses, I thought about an R8/R9 but decided that the electronics are overpowering. the 6.2 which I would of prefered was way out of budget..... the SL2 suits me fine at this point in time

Link to post
Share on other sites

Luigi, this is exactly the thing .... I'v actually never looked twice at an SL(2) only seen from on pictures and in other peoples hands, and never thought much about it...... until you pick one up and fondle it, love at first feel so to speak.

 

I actually like cameras without electronics, well just for lightmeter thats ok, I wanted an SLR for reasonably affordable wide angle and telelenses, I thought about an R8/R9 but decided that the electronics are overpowering. the 6.2 which I would of prefered was way out of budget..... the SL2 suits me fine at this point in time

 

congratulation on the camera!..:) the SL2 is still the best ...;) .and very cheap today..:D

 

regards,

Jan

Link to post
Share on other sites

congratulation on the camera!..:) the SL2 is still the best ...;) .and very cheap today..:D

 

I agree! As far as I'm concerned my R8 is a digital-only camera; when I use film I'd much rather use the SL or SL2.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlike the SL2MOT, the SL2 is fitted internally with Minolta parts, I assume in an attempt to reduce cost at a time when Leitz was bordering on insolvent. The MOT however had to be made to Leitz standards to cope with the torque of the massive motor drive.

 

A Feinmechaniker once showed me the internals of an SL and an SL2 that were apart on his bench. The SL was his preference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlike the SL2MOT, the SL2 is fitted internally with Minolta parts, I assume in an attempt to reduce cost at a time when Leitz was bordering on insolvent. The MOT however had to be made to Leitz standards to cope with the torque of the massive motor drive.

 

A Feinmechaniker once showed me the internals of an SL and an SL2 that were apart on his bench. The SL was his preference.

 

:confused: :confused: :confused: ..that is not true !...you mean the R3, R4 , R 5, R6, R6.2..they are kameras build on Minolta constuctions...;)

 

regards,

Jan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Upon my internet quest into the SL2 I read many posts about shutter speed disorders ... apparantly 500 up to 2000 are way off .....

 

I tested my camera with high shutter speed values up to 2000, developed and printed them and they look fine to me, not that I ever use anything over 125th anyway but just wanted to be sure. Should/can I take precautions towards avoiding this problem in a later stage, is it a very common problem or just internet brabbel ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Upon my internet quest into the SL2 I read many posts about shutter speed disorders ... apparantly 500 up to 2000 are way off .....\

 

I also had one with problematic fast shutter speeds. The camera was well overdue for a CLA, which fixed the problem. No problems at all with my other two SL2 bodies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlike the SL2MOT, the SL2 is fitted internally with Minolta parts, I assume in an attempt to reduce cost at a time when Leitz was bordering on insolvent.

 

Justin, are you sure this is true? While the SL2MOT may have some parts different from the normal SL2 to cope with the additional strains imposed by the motor drive, Leica at that time wasn't "in bed" with Minolta and I can't think of any Minolta model of the time that would have been suited as acting as a part source for the SL2. Instead, the SL2 was entirely constructed and built by Leitz, as was the SL, and so I doubt it very much that you will find ANY Minolta part in an SL2. Things changed with the R3, however, as Jan has correctly pointed out.

 

Cheers,

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Leica at that time wasn't "in bed" with Minolta

 

Leitz was very much involved with Minolta at the time. I have no knowledge of Minolta parts in the SL2 however the SL2's mirror was re-pivoted to allow lenses with less mirror clearance - Minolta-spec clearance - to be used. There were 3 lenses introduced with the SL2 that could not be used on the SL or Leicaflex Standard for this reason: the 16mm Fisheye-Elmarit-R, the 24mm Elmarit-R, and the 80-200mm f/4.5 VARIO-Elmar--R. These three lenses were made for Leitz by Minolta.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"telyt" is right, that those three lenses were constuctions of Minolta and also the the 8/800 Minolta lens for the SL2. But the SL2 was an absolute product of Leitz/Leica. But the CL, which was sold at that time, was a produkt of the cooreation of Leitz and Minolta. The bodies after the SL2 (R3, R4...R7) were also products of the cooperation, but not before.

Greets from CZ

czfrosch

P.S. my SL2 and SL2mot have no problems with the fast shutter speeds, but they were uesed all the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Justin, are you sure this is true? While the SL2MOT may have some parts different from the normal SL2 to cope with the additional strains imposed by the motor drive, Leica at that time wasn't "in bed" with Minolta and I can't think of any Minolta model of the time that would have been suited as acting as a part source for the SL2. Instead, the SL2 was entirely constructed and built by Leitz, as was the SL, and so I doubt it very much that you will find ANY Minolta part in an SL2. Things changed with the R3, however, as Jan has correctly pointed out.

 

Cheers,

 

Andy

 

Dear Andy,

 

Doug Herr [Telyt] would be in a better position to comment. What I remember is being in the Leica workshop in Germany and the technician showing me the internal differences between the SL2 and the SL2MOT and it was more than steel gears to cope with the torque of the motor drive. The Leicaflex SL was his preference, he had two when the R7 was the current model. I was thereby motivated to part trade my SL2 on an SL MOT.

 

Sincerely,

 

Justin

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've yet to dissect an SL2 or SL2 MOT (is anyone offering a sacrifice body?) but I'm very impressed with 99.9% of the SL's construction. Leitz made a few boo-boos with early SL production but there was nothing that couldn't be fixed easily and inexpensively. For example early SLs were made with a plastic cam to adjust the anti-return mechanism (keeps the shutter capped if you cock the shutter partway) . This cam would eventually distort and not hold its adjustment. The replacement metal cam is a direct replacement for the plastic part and the repair takes 5 minutes or so with the proper tools.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, Doug and Justin, thanks for your insight. I wasn't aware the cooperation between Leitz and Minolta started that early. I know feel almost a little discouraged to buy an SL2, whereas up to now i always thought the SL2 is the "better" SL (better meter etc.).

 

Best,

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

we need a repair-shop information on this interesting question....:D;) ..

 

regards,

Jan

 

I just called at a great repair-shop for Leicaflex in Germany..and they don't know anything about Minolta parts in a SL2.....

 

..could it be, that you mean the R6 / R6.2..?....they have parts in...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know feel almost a little discouraged to buy an SL2, whereas up to now i always thought the SL2 is the "better" SL (better meter etc.).

 

This is probably more a matter of taste than of real-world superiority of one over the other. I think this discussion is one of which camera is more perfect. I had used the SL for 20 years before using or even handling an SL2. Both have been very reliable for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...