I have the Voigtlander Super-Dynaret 135mm f/4.0.
I am attempting to use it on a Sony E mount camera. Do you have any recommendations? B&H thinks it can be done, but can not find any information.
have a look at the focus ring, there should be three tiny screws which might be set to strong or uneven, you can unscrew them 1-2 rounds or só and set the ring with a little distance to the alu ring and fix the screws again, you can’t damage anything, worst case your cat steels the tiny screws haha
Another top quality lens by Leitz for the reflex range, now discontinued. Build quality was amazing in the day and clearly shows us the attention to detail that the Germans are capable of. I’ve had a 100/4 Macro for a while and pix from this can be contrasted with those I took with a Nikon 105/2.5 early ‘scalloped’ lens on Nikon F/F2. I began using Leicaflex SL bodies around four years ago. I noticed the Chinese were making adapters to enable the R series lenses to be used on modern digital cameras. I got cracking and bought as many of the lenses I could find at reasonable prices. This was one of them as I felt it was a good replacement for the 105/2.5. Although a stop slower, as I don’t take portraits inside or use flash (vulgar), the f4 is irrelevant. Outside in good light, this lens is first class for my purposes . Very occasionally someone accompanying the sitter will ask about my gear. When I say ‘Leica’ that’s enough. My gear dates from late 60s- early 70s and my 100/4 1980. My gear is digital as the negs (Tri-X) are scanned to disc.
So, if you have one or more of the Leicaflex trio, I suggest that you get cracking and buy some lenses before “digital Johnny’s “ get their hands on them. Prices have risen considerably since I started buying them in 2016.
The problem is that the information about the model 6-4 is missing from the Canon brochures and camera instruction manuals and is incomplete for the model 6-5, so the only thing left to count on is the Canon Museum. But there may be mistakes in it. Therefore, I tend to agree with you. I have also just found out that the weight of the model 6-5 is stated as 285g in the “Select Canon Interchangeable Lenses for Your Camera” brochure (which I have in my possession), so I have added that information to the specification. I have also added your information about the weight of the lens. Thank you.
I am totally agree with you that model I is in fact the SECOND version, and model II is in fact the THIRD version of the FL 50mm F/1.4. However, at our website version numbers are stated strictly according to the Canon Museum. Another reason why model 7-6 is “version II” is its direct indication as VERSION II in the “Canon interchangeable lenses FL instructions” (page 21, table of interchangeable lenses for Canon Single Lens Reflex Cameras), which I have in my possession. That instructions booklet is most likely from 1966-1967 because it mentions Canon Pellix QL and FT QL cameras introduced in 1966, but not the Canon TL introduced in 1968.
Who am I to argue with Canon?..
Another reason I decided to keep the Canon’s version numbering is to avoid confusing users. Imagine if I assigned version I to model 6-4, version II to model 6-5 and version III to model 7-6, despite the fact that Canon indicates version II for model 7-6 in the Canon Museum and booklets. Confusing users is the last thing I want…