>>I recently acquired a 40 mm f/2 lens. No, not the Zuiko! It's a 40 mm
>>f/2 Minolta Rokkor, in the Leica M mount. This is one of those rare
>>occasions when the lens for a Leica costs less than the lens for an
>>Olympus!
>
>You know how when you use a lens on your OM that is not a Zuiko and
>you wish it was. Well, even more so with a Minolta on an M3.
>>I could use the lens on my Leica M3, but it triggers the 50 mm
>>framelines, so more will be in the picture than I composed. Also, the
>>M3 has no meter, and I was looking forward to a built-in meter. See the
>>fun you miss out on when you use a SLR?
>
>You could push the frame selector for 35mm on the Leica by hand to
>get an idea. Much closer to 40mm than 50mm. How about an MR meter
>and a used Leica 35mm.
>Winsor Crosby
AFAIK the Minolta M-Rokkor 40/2 for the CLE was identical to the earlier
Summicron on the CL except that it has multicoating :) and a more sensible
filter/hood arrangement. It's a debateable point as the relationship was a
bit mysterious. No-one is quite sure who did what with the CLE lenses. The
CL and CLE have a good rep. partly because they represent Minolta's
improvements on the Leica (TTL metering - eek!)
A 40mm view on an M3 should be close to the whole visible frame - ignore
the brightline? Some people use a 35mm lens on a CL in this way.
Or you could sell the Rokkor and buy one of those old Zuiko leica screw
mount Elmar copies that comes up on ebay occasionally and mount it on the
M3 with a bayonet adaptor - that'd be much more correct, no?
AndrewF
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|