Search results for query: *

Thanks Brian for an, as always, interesting and useful reply. Your statement "...marking a Sonnar lens "Leica Sonnar" could have meant it was for a Leica. " holds out totally in the last picture of this thread where a similar lens says "für Leica"...

Good point, thanks Brian. It's so much easier to assume that such markings are made to decieve rather than to inform. when in fact this lens is probably just stating what it is.

Sorry to come back late on my own question. I used "Fake" in the sense that the "branding" itself is not consistent with a known "legitimate" product in that: i) Use of Leica and Sonnar together, when Sonnar is a Zeiss product (though it should be said that Leica have worked with other lens...

Agreed about the Noctilux outperforming it, it would be worrying if it didn't at that price; but looking forward to the Canon test.

Hi, I'm sure this is one for Brian; I'm just wondering what the provenance of this clearly fake lens on EBAY at the moment (401817586358); the Leica - Sonnar 5.8cm f1.5. I found a few threads in other forums but non seemed conclusive. Does anyone recognise the bits? Phil

Given that this and the Noctilux are the same basic spec and are released around about the same time it would be great to see a direct comparison though I feel the intersection between users of both lenses must be pretty small. I'm sure one of the 7A lenses is winging its way to Wetzlar as we speak

Hi Brian, I know what you mean about the Zenit body, it looks quite nice but I suppose changing the shape of the Leica M would make it less of an M. You do wonder who the Zenit will sell to (Russian Oligarchs?) but as it's built by Leica and it is only a 500 production run I think we can be...

Sorry to come late to the party but isn't the (240) M-E just a cheap knock off of the fabulous Zenit M rangefinder minus the 35mm f1.0 lens? https://zenit.camera/

Hi, from my recent experience your 450 euros estimate is possibly too high; I had the Internal Contax adapter delivered to France recently (my second Amedeo as I also have the "full" Contax) at the height of the recent troubles and although it was a little delayed, it got through. When the...

Hi Brian, as it's on topic I have another question that may be of value to the OP. For J8s is there still some value in shortening the distance between the central and rear element block (I think I saw a figure of 0.4mm mentioned for J3s) or does sample variation make this unwise? Thanks Phil W

Hi Brian, I have had a question in my head for a while and this seems a good thread for it. You say that KMZ were in continuous J8 production for its whole life but do you have any information on reformulation of the glass/spacings during this period. From you experience is it "safe" to replace...

Hi Brian, thanks a lot for this info, I think I will spend my weekend measuring and twisting on my ever-growing collection of adapters. At the end of the day the important thing is identifying which works with what I suppose, but at least it may give me an incentive to reassemble my J9...

Thanks Brian, I have followed many of your discussions and fully agree; these differences are clearly stated again and again in Soviet "passport" documents and measurements even if they are occasionally masked by quality variations and wear. However, what I am trying to understand is the...

Hi Brian, just picked one of these as back up to my Amedeo and I'm hoping to make it a permanent fixture to a Jupiter 9 and a permanently fixed and coded M adapter so your comments above are very useful, I had noticed the screws. I'm interested also about the Nikon comments; do you have a...