Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Educate me here please.   I have previously owned a copy of this lens as illustrated by the first image.  While perusing eBay today I noticed copy shown in the second image.  Specifically regarding the wider polished band and lack of a griping surface near the mount, could someone please advise me of the difference between these two lenses.  Something obvious I'm sure, but I'm missing it.  Forum searches failed to illuminate anything.

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!

Edited by Good To Be Retired
Link to post
Share on other sites

The second one in the photo, which came earlier, was made in Germany by Leitz for the fIlm CL. Hence the Leitz paperwork.  I used to have one, and liked it a lot on the CL  Liked it much less on the M240.

The top one was made by Minolta. Not sure if this was designed for their CLE, or produced during the production period of the CL as well. Said to have better coatings. 

Edited by graphlex
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the top one was made by Minolta for the CLE in the eighties while the bottom one was a clone to the Elmar-C 90/4 in the seventies. I like much the Elmar-C but prefer the Minolta CLE's for its better resistance to flare, especially when strong light sources like the sun are outside the frame. Both are sharp lenses otherwise with less acutance at f/4 than modern 90mm lenses like the Macro-Elmar 90/4 or the Summarit 90/2.4.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...