I have a pure trivia question, which I hope is OK for this forum.

I was reading the July 2000 issue of National Geographic, and the front section has a picture of one of their photographers, Reza. He is apparently wearing a black M6, with an auxiliary rectangular viewfinder (black)and a very large diameter lens.

What lens and what finder is he wearing? It can't be a Noctilux, or SUmmicron 90 I figured, because the old auxiliary 50mm and 90mm finders are round. Its too big to be a 35, 28. Maybe a 21?

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), July 26, 2000

Answers

It has the newer black plastic finder so it is a 21, 24 or 28. It is too wide for the 28 so that leaves the 24 or 21.

-- John Collier (jbcollier@home.com), July 27, 2000.

Its difficult to see, but the "finder" doesn't appear to be centered over the lens, as it would be if it were mounted in the accessory shoe. I think it may be just part of the statuary.

-- Joe Buechler (jbuechler@toad.net), July 27, 2000.

The accessory shoe is not centered over the lens axis on M cameras. The black plastic finders have the shoe offset to try and compensate for this but are still off to one side. The earlier metal bodied finders have no shoe offset at all and thus are even further away from the lens axis.

-- John Collier (jbcollier@home.com), July 27, 2000.

Hmmm - the shadows and my early-morning pre-coffee vision were deceiving me. It certainly is a black M6 with a black viewfinder and a square lens shade.


-- Joe Buechler (jbuechler@toad.net), July 27, 2000.

So what lens is it? The lens caught my eye, because of its large diameter. Of course, the finder need not be matched to the lens, depending on Reza's habits. He could conceivably be leaving the finder mounted while using a Noctilux or a 75 Summilux or 90 Summricron, using the eyepiece for those. His pictures inside though suggest that he uses the wide angles a lot.

Nice of you to chip in with the scan Joe!

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), July 27, 2000.

What I find interesting is the fully round chrome-like reflection of what appears to be the lens front ring. With late 21 & 24 shades, you would not see this, due to the flat upper & lower rims of the shade. You would, however, see this with a late Noctilux because the square shade is a pull-out, leaving the front ring visible. To me this eliminates the likelihood of it being a 24mm, which did not exist previously except with the recent shade. Perhaps this is an older version of the 21mm Elmarit with an early shade, or even a 21mm Super Angulon(?).

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), August 06, 2000.

I don't think it's a 75/1.4 'lux because of the square shade. I don't see how it could be a Noct. (except for the large squareish shade) because in comparison with mine, there is no front shiny ring. Or it is perhaps a Noct. and that is glare of some kind. The Noct. is truly huge when looking straight on like this. But I think his lens is an early 21mm as at least one shade for it is square. (I have a later 21mm with a square shade.)

Nice thread, by the way.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mai.com), August 06, 2000.

Has anyone though that the "shiny ring" might simply be a chrome filter on a black lens? I used this combo for a while when I started upgrading my '60's lenses to the more current vintage. It does jump out at you... the silver and black contrast.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), August 07, 2000.