Rollei 40mm f2,8 Sonnar on M9

[Giacomo.B]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello everyone, I wanted to know if anyone has tried a Rollei 40mm f2,8 lens on M9, i read that is a good lens, produced in Japan by Cosina and assembled in Germany..

What do you think of it?

 

Ciao

 

Giacomo

[Advertisement]

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

[Bill W]

I guess it is not the norm. Rollei on an M is not talked about here that I recall. Unless there are cost savings, I would say why not just get a used 50. The 40 would not be coded and not relate to any frame lines. It might be a great lens but I really do not see the advantage. Just my $.02 worth.

[Deeman]

I would suggest you get the Voigtlander f1.4/40mm in preference. Both it and the Rollei are made by Cosina and you will find the extra two stops useful.

A simple modification to the lens brings up the 35mm framelines on my M9 and they match 40mm almost exactly. See: summilux.net :: Voir le sujet - Modification Nokton 40mm 1,4

I did the modification myself with no problems - and I am the world's worst DIYer!

I am totally happy with the performance of this lens and use it as my standard on the M9.

Hope this helps

 

Ivan

[Dougg]

Some like to try the Rollei's Sonnar formula lens for its perceived attributes. The 40mm glass is the same as used in the little Rollei 35 camera, not made by Cosina. It's the LTM focusing mount in which to use that glass that was made by Cosina... to partner with the Rollei-branded version of Cosina's Voigtlander Bessa body.

 

The 80mm lens offered as an option is the Planar from the Rollei TLR, again in a Cosina focusing mount.

[Giacomo.B]

I know little of this lens, i found one at a rasonable price (350 euros) and I wondered if it was good or not with M9.

I expected better performance than my Voigtlander 35mm f1,4sc, but at this point i will buy a

40mm Summicron.

 

Ciao

 

Giacomo

[Dougg]

Giacomo, I think there's only one good reason not to use any 40mm lens on the M9, and that's the lack of 40mm framelines in the viewfinder. That's my preference; I know others do it. A 40mm lens is made to automatically bring up the camera's 50mm framelines, not very convenient. So some owners file down that one lens lug to make the camera show 35mm framelines instead. Now of course the lens is ruined for use on the original camera body, but that may not matter. It matters to me, because I would want to use the 40mm lens on my Minolta CLE bodies.

 

In this respect, the Rollei lens has an advantage over the 40 Summicron, because the Rollei 40 is a screw-mount lens, supplied with a screw-to-bayonet adapter. So you could simply use a 35-135 adapter instead of the supplied 50-75.

 

Personally, I would suggest using 35mm and 50mm lenses on the M9, and leave the 40mm lenses for those cameras having 40mm viewfinder framelines... Unless you are interested in the particular optical characteristics of a certain 40mm lens.

 

The Voigtlander 35 f/1.4 Nokton is said to render similarly to the pre-ASPH Summilux but with a bit more contrast for a little more modern look. I have used the Nokton on M8 and M9, but not the early Summilux, so I don't know. The Nokton's 8-element optical design looks very similar to the version 1 Summicron 8-element, however.

 

Good luck and best wishes!

[bherman01545]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Giacomo;

 

I've used this lens extensively on the M8 with excellent results. The 40mm F2.8 Sonnar is actually available in LTM and is typically coupled with a Leica M adapter. The one that I used was the 35-135 LTM-M Adpater, which brought up the 35mm framelines.

 

It is not made by CV, it is made by Rollei in Germany. It is stamped "Madein Germany". It's a heavy little lens for its size, as it is made out of brass. I comes with a crappy, small, almost unusable lens shade. I opted for the Voigtlander LH-2 shade, which works much better.

 

The Rollei lens renders beautifully. Different from a Leica though. I think that they're great, and wish that I still had mine.

 

-Brad

[ho_co]

... i will buy a 40mm Summicron.

 

Remember that the 40 Summicron C is not recommended for the M camera because of its sloped focusing cam.

[jaapv]

Which, in actual use, performs just fine.

[Ario Arioldi]

Which, in actual use, performs just fine.

+1 a small wonderful lens.

[jdlaing]

+1

[tele_player]

What problems does it cause?

I have a Summicron-C 40, and I haven't noticed any problem on my M9.

 

-robert

 

 

Remember that the 40 Summicron C is not recommended for the M camera because of its sloped focusing cam.

[giordano]

What problems does it cause?

I have a Summicron-C 40, and I haven't noticed any problem on my M9.

 

There's a subtle incompatibility in the rangefinder adjustment mechanisms between the M cameras and the CL cameras (I explained it in detail in a recent post). The effect is that some correctly-adjusted M bodies may not focus absolutely accurately with correctly adjusted C lenses.

 

Hard data seems to be lacking. From posts here, almost everyone who's tried has found that the C lenses work perfectly satisfactorily on their M bodies - but not everyone. And of course Leitz wouldn't have warned about the incompatibility if it wasn't potentially an issue (unless you believe that they'd lie to their customers in the hope of selling a few more lenses).

[250swb]

With regard to filing down the flange to bring the 35mm frame lines up on an M camera, it doesn't affect the continuing use of the same lens on a CL. As the CL frameline default is 40 anyway, and the camera doesn't have a wider frameline, it still shows the 40mm/50mm framelines with a modified lens.

 

Steve

[ho_co]

What problems does it cause?

 

John's explanation is correct, Robert. When Leica introduced the Summicron-C 40, they said that about 25% of M cameras would not work correctly with it due to the sloped cam.

 

Most folks who use the 40mm on an M camera have no problem. Those who have a problem have a big problem in that the camera rangefinder doesn't track accurately.

[Robert_M]

Regarding the Summicron-C:

 

This discussion seems to come back over and over. My distillation of the recurring discourse:

 

Hard Facts:

 

1) The list price in the USA in Oct 1974:

- summicron-c $210

- summicron 50mm $330 (57% higher)

- summicron 35mm $270 (29% higher)

 

I've posted price lists (USA) of Leica for 1974 and 1975 in the historic section if you do a search.

 

2) The only official written statement (that I am aware of) about this issue from Leica is leaflet # 120-50 issues in 8/1973. It is 2 pages about compatibility of lenses to the Leica CL. Only about 1/6 of this leaflet addresses this issue. Actually, the statement is contained in only 4 sentences (granted, German translated to English can be longer than normal English sentences). I posted a copy of this already under another thread.

 

Observations:

 

1) The standard M camera has access to Infinity zero point adjustment (the cam) and gain (cam adjusting the length of the arm). With the CL, I only see a zero point adjustment. The length of the arm is fixed.

 

2) If the length of the arm is fixed, and it meets specs (more relaxed for the CL) then it is possible to use a slopped cam without error.

 

3) A properly adjusted M camera will have the length of the arm also at the correct length! However, it is possible to adjust this length to fine tune for more critical lenses. In other words, it is possible to fine tune the length finer than is normal with mass production techniques. Mass production is fine for the length of the arm in the CL given those spec requirements. But the M should be more precise and allow for tuning the length into spec (finer than fast machining).

 

4) A properly tuned M camera should have the same arm length as required.if tuned up correctly. The lenses are all set up with a specific movement versus distance. I.E. there is no reason (that I can see) that a properly tuned M camera should have a problem with any lens which assumes a specific arm length (i.e. a C lens).

 

5) There may be some difference with the M3 versus all models that came after. I don't have one to compare. But I have read that the range finder was redesigned after the M3 (and made simpler).

 

6) It may be possible to readjust the M rangefinder arm (the 2 adjustments) for some error in the connections internal with the mirrors. I'm not sure about this point. I haven't taken one apart. So, it is possible that sometimes the arm length is wrong to compensate for a problem elsewhere.

 

7) My M9 rangefinder adjustment was just fine (factory issue) until I tried 135mm lenses, especially the APO-Telyt 135/3.4. Since that is much more critical, I found that it was off in both zero offset (infinity adjustment of the cam) and the arm length (ie gain). I've readjusted both and all of my lenses are much better. I suspect that the original adjustment was within factory tolerances.

 

8) I have had absolutely no problem using my 40mm cron-C on the M9 nor any problem using the 90/4-C on the M9. And, I have checked carefully with focus tests at infinity, 10m, 3m, 1m, closest focus (with ruled focus).

 

 

My opinions:

 

1) This was a marketing nightmare for Leica distributors. The 40mm is rated by Puts as between the vers 3 and vers 4 35 cron but the ver4 cron didn't come out until 1979. So the implication is that the 40-c was better than the 35mm-M at the time but much lower in cost. In addition, I recall that the CL and their lenses were being discounted in the USA by mail order sales while the M lenses not so much. Sorry, I don't have hard literature to support that only my recollection as a buyer at the time.

 

2) Reviews indicate that the 40-c was comparable to the 50/2 (of that era) in performance. Remember, the 50/2 wasn't redesigned until 1979.

 

3) In practice, I have never seen ANY reason for concern to use the 90-C or the especially the 40-C lens on an M9 body. They focus just fine! In fact, it is the 135mm APO-Telyt that let me into the path of tuning up the rangefinder NOT any C lens.

 

4) I have seen endless discussion of this issue on forums. Usually citing rumors rather than actual facts. I have yet to hear anyone actually have a problem using a 40-C lens on an M camera. If there is such an instance, please correct me! All I have heard is rumor and repeat of supposed official dictum.

 

5) There seem to be 3 camps on this issue. (a) Those who have used the lenses and find no issue. ( those who repeat "official Leica knowledge"and repeat the theoretical problems. But I observe that this group genrally has no first had experimental knowledge. © Those who asked the question about the 40mm-c and unknowingly set off the same discussion again.

 

6) Someone (JaapV????) should put in an entry in the FAQ about this. I'd be happy to contribute text if needed.

 

RM

[Robert_M]

John's explanation is correct, Robert. When Leica introduced the Summicron-C 40, they said that about 25% of M cameras would not work correctly with it due to the sloped cam.

 

Most folks who use the 40mm on an M camera have no problem. Those who have a problem have a big problem in that the camera rangefinder doesn't track accurately.

 

Do you have any reference for this statement that "25% of the M cameras would not work correctly with..."? Where does this statement from Leica come from?

 

RM

[jaques]

this account tallies with my own experience- having tested 3 summicron 40 lenses and one of the Minolta 40 lenses- they all focused well on my m9.

 

this conversation reminds me about the Konica Hexar camera. There is a theory that lenses are not cross compatible and there is the reality that they are.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jaapv]

Feel free to put an entry into the FAQ. It is open to all members to post their FAQ in, welcome to in fact. It is moderated to keep it a non-discussion thread and on topic, and to keep the typography of the posts similar, that is all.

[lct]

…I have yet to hear anyone actually have a problem using a 40-C lens on an M camera…

So have i. I happen to have 3 samples of the 40/2 for uninteresting reasons. They've always worked flawlessly with my 4 M bodies and 2 R-D1s. Aside from their interest in selling M lenses instead of C ones, Leica could have warned about possible compatibility problems due to the sloping cam of the lens, by pure precaution. But it is the peremptory wording of leaflet 120-50 that i have always found suspect. Stating that C lenses "do not provide precise coupling" or (in the French version of same) that accurate focusing on M bodies is "not possible" is simply contrary to the facts.