What am I talking about? Well, I have a beautiful 1954 Summaron 35 (pre eyes) that I want to use on my M6. Problem is, the 50mm framelines come up when I attach the lens. Don't really want to use my old M3 aux. finder, so is there any way to "trick" my M6 into showing the 35 framelines? Thanks and Happy New Year to all!!

-- Steve Hoffman (shoffman2@socal.rr.com), December 29, 2000

Answers

Don't quite click it into locked position when you mount the lens. And be careful!

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), December 29, 2000.

I wouldn't try incomplete mounting of the lens, that's pretty risky. If simply holding the preview lever doesn't satisfy you, nor can you estimate the 35 frame by memory, you might try contacting Don Goldberg or Sherry Krauter or Jon VanStelten to see if they could replace the bayonet mount on the lens with one meant for a 35 or 135 lens. Unfortunately the 35/135 cam is *longer* than the 50 or 28/90 so it isn't practical to modify the existing mount as it would require soldering onto the cam and re-machining it.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), December 29, 2000.

Yes, you can easily modify the bayonet "ear" that selects the framelines. The 35/135 framelines are the default framelines, present when no lens is mounted, so you just have to remove material from the bayonet ear until it does not move the internal frameline linkage. Look closely at your lens as you mount it and it is easy to figure out where the material needs to be removed. A small file will do the trick but make sure the filings do not get into the works!

Cheers

-- John Collier (jbcollier@home.com), December 29, 2000.

PS: It is the 90/28 framelines that require a long ear. The tricky lenses to modify are the old 28mm, which brings up the 50 frameline, and the 28mm for the CLE, which brings up the 35 (I think). You have to remove the lens'mount and solder extra material on; not impossible, but tricky.

Cheers

-- John Collier (jbcollier@home.com), December 29, 2000.

Steve,

I am a bit confused. I had both the eye'ed and standard Summarons from the 1950s and '60s, and only the eye'ed version brought up the 50mm frameline, so the M3 could represent the full 35mm frame through the optics of the eyes. My non-eye'ed lenses, ( I had both the f/2.8 and f/3.5 models), brought up the correct 35mm frame. The first integrated 35mm frameline was in the 1958 M2. With your lens being from 1954, could you have an M3 lens without the eyes? Another thought, could it be a screw mount lens with an M adapter mounted? When Leica introduced the first Summicrons, they simply converted the existing screw mount lenses by adding the adapter and using a set screw to keep it in place. If it is, you could just get the correct adapter for the 35mm frame.

One other thing... If an eye'ed lens is used with the eyes removed, the focus will be off due to the cam having a different curve to adjust for the rangefinder viewing through the optics of the eyes. When I got my M2, I tried to use the M3 lens by removing the eyes. No luck, the focus was off and the 50mm lines came up.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), December 29, 2000.

Early 35/3.5 lenses brought up the 50mm frame even though they had no "eyes". They were meant to be used with a seperate viewfinder in the accessory shoe. Then came the "eyes" version, which still brought up the 50mm frame of course, and the more familiar M2 version.

Cheers

-- John Collier (jbcollier@home.com), December 29, 2000.

Another confusing factor is that many of the early non"eyed" 35/3.5s were modified as Steve is considering doing. Very easily done.

Cheers

-- John Collier (jbcollier@home.com), December 29, 2000.

Yup, John's right, the 35/135 cam is the shortie, the 28/90 the longest. I modified a 90 so it brought up the 50 (actually, for the 75 framelines, which show almost exactly what the 90 really gives on film at distances greater than about 10m).

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), December 29, 2000.

Jay, in your last post are you speaking of the full frame with the 90, or the amount showing in a slide mount? Your observation is really interesting. I didn't realize the field size relative to the finder changed significantly with distance, in normal photography. At very close distances, like in the macro range, I could see that the extended lens would deliver part of the image outside the frame boundaries, in effect limiting the angle of view. But would this change still amount to anything between, say, 3 feet and infinity? In other words, at rangefinder-relevant distances?

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 03, 2001.

Bob,

I have a couple of books on the Leica M, and they all say that there is a discrepancy between the minimum and maximum focus of about the width of three frame lines. The frames are set for minimum focus, so at infinity, you can assume more information will be rendered on film than what is represented in the finder. The books say you could "imagine" the width of the frame line multiplied by three on the outside of the actual frame,,, this would be closer to the actual picture taking angle on film.

While I have been reading this for as long as I have been using Leica M's, I can't say that it has weighed heavy in my mind. Most SLRs today have a similar disparity... so much for that WYSIWYG rhetoric. When I am composing for the utmost accuracy, I use my Nikon F, F2 or F3, and enjoy a real 100% viewfinder.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), January 04, 2001.