40mm M.Rokkor on M8

[roberth]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello all,

My M lens kit consists of M.Rokkor lenses, 28mm f2.8, 40 f2 and 90mm f4. I handed over my cash for the M8 yesterday and went for a walk with it this morning, I found that the framelines that come up for my 40mm are 50-75.

After playing with the frame selector I found the 24-35 to be a much better choice.

Question, can I adjust my lens in some way that it brings up the 35mm frameline? Will it still bring up the 40mm frameline on my CLE after adjustment. What do I adjust if it is possible?

Thanks in advance.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[barjohn]

I had the same issue about a week ago. If you search the sight you will find the solution (consists of very carefully shaving off some metal from one of the bayonet prongs. I used a dremel and very carefully did it and now it brings up the 35mm frame lines. I also hand coded the lens and it sees it as a Leica 35mm.

[ho_co]

[John posted before I had formulated my answer. Here's just a bit more to the topic:]

 

Which frame lines are brought up is determined by the length of one of the lens bayonet lugs (the one beside the preview lever).

 

The shortest version of the lug sets the frameliness to 35/135 (24/35 on M8).

 

The next-longer version of the lug sets the framelines to 50/75.

 

The longest version of the lug sets the framelines to 28/90.

 

Thus, you could machine the bayonet lug to bring up the 24/35 frame, but doing so would also change its framing on other M cameras. If as I recall, there were no frames for lenses wider than 40mm on the Minolta cameras, then the modified lens would default to the same position it does now on those cameras.

 

Do remember that because the 40 Rokkor has a sloped focusing cam, it will not focus accurately on all M cameras and Leica therefore recommends against using it on M bodies.

 

--HC

[roberth]

thanks for the info. I will search the site.

 

So is it only the 40mm Rokkor with the sloping CAM, what about my 28 and 90? If focusing is going to be an issue the CLE kit may have to go to fund replacement lenses but I'd rather not.

[rvaubel]

I had the same issue about a week ago. If you search the sight you will find the solution (consists of very carefully shaving off some metal from one of the bayonet prongs. I used a dremel and very carefully did it and now it brings up the 35mm frame lines. I also hand coded the lens and it sees it as a Leica 35mm.

 

I have the VC 40mm f1.4 that also brings up the "wrong" framelines on the M8. Holding the selector lever to bring up the 24-35mm dislays almost perfect framing. Can the bayonet mount be dremelized to bring up 35mm framelines. I wouldn't mind doing it but would like to see a picture with the area to be removed illustrated. Or should I leave this to someone like DAG?

 

Rex

[barjohn]

The focusing cam issue is a non-issue according to Cameraquest:

 

What's the difference between Minolta CL and CLE Lenses?

Two focal lengths were made for the CL: 40/2 and 90/4. Three focal lengths were made for the CLE: 28/2.8, 40/2, and 90/4. CLE lenses are multi-coated, CL lenses are not. CLE lenses have traditional Leitz parallel focusing cams, CL 40/2 and 90/4 lenses have very angular focusing cams. No one questions the CLE lenses will work well with the Leica M cameras. Some people believe the CL lenses are not 100% compatible with the M's -- I disagree, the full story is in the CL profile. The easiest way to spot CLE lenses is their serial numbers are on the lens barrel. CL lens serial numbers are on the filter ring. The 40/2 lenses for the CL or CLE are among the sharpest lenses I have ever used.

 

The picture shown does not make it clear what needs to be filed or how much. The answer is very little needs to be removed. I was very careful, and on my lens you can't tell by looking with the naked eye. It is the rear portion of the ear, not the long wedge shaped side but the more perpendicular one. The person that did it in the photo ground off way more than he needed to. Do a little and test, repeat until the 35 frame line is the selected (actually no frame line selected equal 35 as defaul). Search for the thread and you will see the photos.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Here's where i filed the Summicron 40/2 flange in order to bring up the 35mm framelines of my film M cameras.

I did not file the Rokkor's so far but its flange is very close to the Summicron's.

FWIW

 

[finkaudio]

Hi,

 

I really like the Elmar-C 90 on the M8. I had a copy years ago and sold it with my CLE. Today I got another one and tried it out wide open.

 

Very impressive litte lens and a nice, light alternative to my 2.0/90

 

 

 

Best regards

 

 

Karl-Heinz

[ho_co]

The focusing cam issue is a non-issue according to Cameraquest:

 

What's the difference between Minolta CL and CLE Lenses?

 

Two focal lengths were made for the CL: 40/2 and 90/4. Three focal lengths were made for the CLE: 28/2.8, 40/2, and 90/4. CLE lenses are multi-coated, CL lenses are not. CLE lenses have traditional Leitz parallel focusing cams, CL 40/2 and 90/4 lenses have very angular focusing cams. No one questions the CLE lenses will work well with the Leica M cameras. Some people believe the CL lenses are not 100% compatible with the M's -- I disagree, the full story is in the CL profile.

John--

This is interesting but in error. LHSA has also published balderdash on whether CL lenses are compatible with all M cameras, claiming that if the CL lens doesn't work on a particular M body, the camera's rangefinder is out of adjustment.

 

I am not familiar with the CLE lenses; if they have a flat cam, then they can be used with all M cameras. If, like the CL 40, they have a sloping cam, then whether they will function with M bodies is determined by location of the focus tracker in the individual M body in question. Nowhere in the M8 manual does Leica say not to use CL lenses, so Leica may have changed the mounting specs of the new rangefinder mechanism. Nonetheless, when I asked Leica Technical about this some months ago, the answer I received was "Proper function of CL lenses is not guaranteed for M cameras; the M8 is an M camera."

 

The 40/2 lenses for the CL or CLE are among the sharpest lenses I have ever used.

Good for you. The 40/2 Rokkor was a Leica design built by Minolta. In comparison with the Summicron, Minolta substituted a less expensive glass for one element; stopped down, the two lenses were comparable, but nearer open aperture the Leitz lens is noticeably superior.

 

Thanks for the information on differences between the CLE complement of lenses and those for the CL. And could you tell me what is meant by "the full story is in the CL profile"?

 

--HC

[lct]

...nearer open aperture the Leitz lens is noticeably superior...

Not my experience, Howard, i must say.

Both are very close at any aperture, at least on the R-D1.

I mean the Summicron-C 40/2 and the CLE version of the M-Rokkor 40/2.

I just prefer the color rendition of the Leica, also i've got focussing issues with the Rokkor but none with the 'cron so far, so i don't use the former any more unfortunately.

[ho_co]

Again, LCT, I'm unfamiliar with the CLE lenses. My opinion goes back to the Leitz Summicron-C and the Minolta equivalent for the Leitz-Minolta CL.

 

The design is the same for both lenses. My information simply says Minolta substituted a less expensive glass for one element. Still a good lens. A lot of people (including me) were very happy with both versions.

[roberth]

so according to the camerquest site the CLE lenses have the same slope focusing cam but that may be 'balderdash'. So far focusing has not been an issue, just the frame lines. I will file away the frame line cam and see what happens.

I have always found the 40 M.Rokkor to be sharp and has a pleasant out of focus look. Whether one is sharper or not does not worry me with this 40, it does things I like and that is all that matters.

[ho_co]

so according to the camerquest site the CLE lenses have the same slope[d] focusing cam but that may be 'balderdash'.

Sorry, Robert; not what I said.

 

1) Balderdash is what LHSA published in regard to use of CL lenses on M bodies.

 

2) I have experience with CL lenses but not with CLE lenses and make no claims about the latter.

 

3) Approximately 25% of M bodies thru M6 do not focus accurately with CL lenses. As I noted above, I'm unsure whether the same figures hold with later bodies.

 

4) There are sources for accurate information on the topic--e.g. Leica.

 

Enjoy!

[roberth]

Howard,

 

sorry about misunderstanding. So far the CLE gear has done well focusing on Bessa bodies and hopefully the M8 as well, the few shots I took the other day show the 40 M.Rokkor is still a sweet unit on digital as well.

The 90 M.Rokkor showed some CA or maybe it was purple fringing but I'll work with it until I think I need better.

[ho_co]

Robert--

The lenses are all good; after all, Leica did choose to work with the folks at Minolta, and shared designs and technology with them.

 

No need to apologize. A fair number of people don't know about the differences between CL lens and M body design parameters, and then assume from limited research that their conclusions must be right.

 

Your question had to do with frame lines, and I went beyond that to warn about possible focusing problems--something you had not asked about. But I'm glad to get information on the CL vs CLE lens differences; and from your original question I probably should have assumed that you were dealing with lenses about which I know nothing.

 

Remember also, on the M8 you can hold the frame preview lever to its lens-side position to see the field of view. That might be good enough to avoid filing a few dollars of value off the 40/2?

 

At any rate, I'm sorry to have tossed a red herring into the chase, and I envy you the M8. The Rokkors will serve you well!

 

--HC

[roberth]

Howard,

I'm glad you raised the focusing issue because I had no idea there may be an issue. At least I will be aware of the possible problem if I get focus issues and not blame the camera.

Yes I am using the frame line selector manually for now and if I can train my finger to do that automatically I will not do any filing, I do not want to adversely affect what is a full and perfect CLE kit.

[luigi bertolotti]

Sorry, Robert; not what I said.

 

1) Balderdash is what LHSA published in regard to use of CL lenses on M bodies.

 

2) I have experience with CL lenses but not with CLE lenses and make no claims about the latter.

 

3) Approximately 25% of M bodies thru M6 do not focus accurately with CL lenses. As I noted above, I'm unsure whether the same figures hold with later bodies.

 

4) There are sources for accurate information on the topic--e.g. Leica.

 

Enjoy!

 

I am an avid Leitz literature reader , but I find that really there is not a definitive statement about focusing issue of Wetzlar CL lenses on M bodies: what about your statement regarding "25% of M bodies" : my only direct experience is that my 40 and 90 focus right on my M4 and M2: can you explain me something abou this "25%" You quote?

Thanks in advance

[ho_co]

I am an avid Leitz literature reader , but I find that really there is not a definitive statement about focusing issue of Wetzlar CL lenses on M bodies: what about your statement regarding "25% of M bodies" : my only direct experience is that my 40 and 90 focus right on my M4 and M2: can you explain me something abou this "25%" You quote?

I've never seen it in print either, Luigi, but I worked for Leica when the CL appeared and these are the numbers I was given.

 

It's a simple matter: Since the M lenses have a flat cam, arranging the cam-tracking roller to be in the center of the lens opening wasn't part of the camera specification. Most of the time, the focus-tracking roller is centered, but not always.

 

Since the CL lenses have a sloped cam, the focus-tracking roller on all CL bodies is centered; that way the CL cam tracker will meet the focus cam at the point for which it is adjusted.

 

The problem arises when you mount a CL lens with sloping cam on an M body whose rangefinder cam tracking roller is off center. The M body works fine with flat-cam lenses and meets specification; and the C lens works as it's designed to do with the CL. But the off-center cam roller in the body now meets a sloping cam in the lens and focus is off.

 

(This isn't a rangefinder adjustment issue since the M body specifications never required a centered focus tracking cam roller.)

 

Two of my three M bodies have off-center focus trackers. Other people (e.g. CameraQuest) seem not to have run across the phenomenon. I don't know what the actual percentage of M bodies produced with off-center focus cam rollers is, but I was told at the time that it was "about 25%."

 

I think the same figure was still cited at least at the time of the M6, but perhaps at some later time, Leica decided to start requiring that the cam tracker be centered in the M bodies. If we can find one M8 with non-centered focus cam tracker, we will know that the old design standards still hold even with the radically changed rangefinder.

 

Thanks for asking. I hope I haven't made it seem complex. It is literally a matter that you can recognize at a glance once you understand what's involved.

 

--HC

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[rvaubel]

Howard,

I'm glad you raised the focusing issue because I had no idea there may be an issue. At least I will be aware of the possible problem if I get focus issues and not blame the camera.

Yes I am using the frame line selector manually for now and if I can train my finger to do that automatically I will not do any filing, I do not want to adversely affect what is a full and perfect CLE kit.

 

The 40mm F1.4 Nokton also displays the 50mm framelines on the M8. The file trick will work on the Nokton also bringing up the 35mm lines which are almost perfect. If you don't want to get into filing your lens, one trick is to not quite fully click the bayonet mount into position. This will also display the 35mm framelines. It also indicates just how little grinding is required on the lug to modify the lens.

 

Rex

[lct]

...The problem arises when you mount a CL lens with sloping cam on an M body whose rangefinder cam tracking roller is off center. The M body works fine with flat-cam lenses and meets specification; and the C lens works as it's designed to do with the CL. But the off-center cam roller in the body now meets a sloping cam in the lens and focus is off....

Thank you Howard.

Would you mind to explain what you mean by "off-center" cam roller?

(Summicron-C 40/2, Leica M4-2)