Rollei 40mm f2,8 Sonnar on M9

[40mm f/2]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The 35 mm frame lines of the M9 fit quite precise at larger distances the 40mm focal length and allow more accurate framing than with a 35mm lens. At 1m of course a 35mm lens will fit the frame lines.

[ho_co]

Where does this statement from Leica come from?

 

From me. My source is Leica Technical in New Jersey, specifically John Brooks and Walt Moffatt, at a time when I worked for Leitz.

[toscaninifans]

nice one !

i have a silver one, it feel solid, light weight and sharp

 

[farnz]

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.

The advantage is that the Rollei 40/.8 is a Sonnar lens with 5 elements in 4 groups, which the Summicrons, Voigtlanders et al are not. For those of us who like the Sonnar design this is a significant difference. I also like Summicrons and some Voigtlanders but at the end of the day they aren't Sonnars so the renderings they produce are fundamentally different from the Sonnars, which is the lens that the OP was asking about.

 

Giacomo, I use the Rollei 40/2.8 Sonnar HFT on my M9-P and it's a great little lens. Wide open it vignettes by, I'd guess, 1 to 2 stops but it has that out of focus Sonnar signature (although naturally less obvious at f/2.8 maximum aperture), it is typically flare resistant and produces those crisp and vivid Sonnar colours.

 

To bring up the 35mm frame lines I use mine with a 35/135 LTM to M adaptor from Jin Finance, which has the coding pits, and code it as a 353 Summicron asph.

 

Pete.