Leica 90mm lens options

[outwest]

Here's a very rare Elmar.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Can please someone prevent me from buying a bargain 90mm collapsible?Its risky to use on a digital M, and I own enough unused 90mm lenses for the rest of my life.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Can please someone prevent me from buying a bargain 90mm collapsible?Its risky to use on a digital M, and I own enough unused 90mm lenses for the rest of my life.

When I owned a M2 and M3DS My standard carry was a 35mm f2.8 Summaron, 50mm f2.8 collapsible Elmar and a 90mm f4 collapsible Elmar. I was tickled pink with all of them. No complaints whatsoever! There, did that talk you out of buying the 90mm f4 collapsible?

 

[RezaLoghme]

If I buy a chrome lens, I should also buy a chrome M body!

 

[mshchem]

If I buy a chrome lens, I should also buy a chrome M body!

YES! THAT'S A FOOLISH QUESTION!

 

[bjorke]

The thin and fat Elmarits are the same optical formula, iirc. Still great on the latest sensors. Get a good hood though, they flare.

 

[davela]

I like the Fat Elmarit 90mm F2.8 in Leica M - a real gem IMO. By Leica standards it's not excessively expensive. I think it was one of Leica's best efforts and just beautifully crafted. The slower Minolta 90mm F4 used to be a good more economical choice. Most are sold out of Japan now however, so tariffs have driven up their cost significantly.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Most of the 90s can be picked up for quite small amounts.

 

[davela]

Can please someone prevent me from buying a bargain 90mm collapsible?Its risky to use on a digital M, and I own enough unused 90mm lenses for the rest of my life.

No I can't stop you, and it's an exquisitely crafted lens IMO. Enjoy it!

 

[John Wiegerink]

I think the 90mm Leica / Leitz lenses were a sweet spot in the lineup. I had the rigid Elmar and collapsible Elmar for my M-series cameras and both were superb. I had a nice petite 90mm Elmar for my M39 cameras and one 90mm Wollensak that was even excellent. I currently have the 90mm f2 Summicron and the 90mm f2.8 Elmarit for my R-series. The 90mm Summicron is nice for portraits and fast shooting, but I prefer the 90mm Elmarit myself. The 90mm R Elmarit is a flawless lens in all respects.

 

[Arthurwg]

The thin and fat Elmarits are the same optical formula,

That was my question as well. So optical performance is identical?

 

[Radost]

Minolta F4 90mm great coating and lens

 

[bjorke]

That was my question as well. So optical performance is identical?

You know, I think I was wrong there, the fat has one more element. The flare part is real though. I used my thin lens just the other day and had left my hood behind. A mistake! Fortunately was using the M EV1 and could see the flare, so shaded the lens with my hand.

 

[RezaLoghme]

I can only talk about the 90mm lenses I own - 4/90 Elmar-C, the chrome 90mm/2.0 and the 1990s 90/2.8 They all do their jobs well, with the chrome one being a bit flat, not strong on contrasts.

It seems that some 90mm lenses have a flare issue - then they should be avoided, as there are so many altenatives around.

 

[Radost]

All 90mm should be perfect lenses with hood.
I love my Minolta CLE 90/4 because it has the least flares compared to my other 90 including Canadian 90mm F2.8

 

[Craig]

I have the 90 Summicron Canadian version and I find it very difficult to accurately focus. The only way I have ever been able to get consistently tack sharp focus is with a friends M10 and the new electronic visoflex attachment that reads focus directly off the sensor. With a film body I can't get the focus perfect.

Personally, I think that anything much longer than a 50 is better on an SLR than a rangefinder.

 

[RezaLoghme]

I have the 90 Summicron Canadian version and I find it very difficult to accurately focus. The only way I have ever been able to get consistently tack sharp focus is with a friends M10 and the new electronic visoflex attachment that reads focus directly off the sensor. With a film body I can't get the focus perfect.

Personally, I think that anything much longer than a 50 is better on an SLR than a rangefinder.

I fully agree.

 

[GregY]

I have the 90 Summicron Canadian version and I find it very difficult to accurately focus. The only way I have ever been able to get consistently tack sharp focus is with a friends M10 and the new electronic visoflex attachment that reads focus directly off the sensor. With a film body I can't get the focus perfect.

Personally, I think that anything much longer than a 50 is better on an SLR than a rangefinder.

Craig are you talking about wide-open focus accuracy? I have owned the 90 Summicron (2 copies) & don't use digital. If i ever had focus problems on M cameras, it was either due to subject movement or operator error....

 

[Alex Varas]

Recently and after taking a look of many pics on Flickr and reviews around I bought a Tele-Tessar 85mm f/4, still I didn’t try it, hopefully soon.
it’s ‘only’ f/4 but I usually travel with tripod.

 

[Craig]

Craig are you talking about wide-open focus accuracy? I have owned the 90 Summicron (2 copies) & don't use digital. If i ever had focus problems on M cameras, it was either due to subject movement or operator error....

I forget the details, but I think it was either F4 or 5.6. It wasn't wide open as I almost never shoot wide open unless I need to due to low light levels. It wasn't a moving subject, so I had plenty of time to rack the focus back and forth to find the optimum on the rangefinder patch.

This was on a Bessa R3 that I had trouble, but other Leica lenses on that body were in focus, so I don't think the rangefinder was out of alignment.

 

[GregY]

I forget the details, but I think it was either F4 or 5.6. It wasn't wide open as I almost never shoot wide open unless I need to due to low light levels. It wasn't a moving subject, so I had plenty of time to rack the focus back and forth to find the optimum on the rangefinder patch.

This was on a Bessa R3 that I had trouble, but other Leica lenses on that body were in focus, so I don't think the rangefinder was out of alignment.

Thanks....

 

[RezaLoghme]

Spent an afternoon in a city with my 1961 Ref. 11129. Yes, it is quite flare-y. Even the lens hood (I have the orginal black one) did not help much, so it is key to have the sun in your back.

Interestingly, my 135mm Elmar from 1961 performed better, in the same city, same light conditions.

 

[RezaLoghme]

And some days ago, I had a session with my 1990s Elmarit-M 2.8/90 (11807 ref.) Again, one of the M lenses which so far failed to attract a lot of applause and attention from the fanboys.

To me, it gives a modern, neutral image, nothing remarkable. Maybe a good lens to use with digital bodies. For my M6, I found it too heavy. I picked up mine from an Ebay seller (pro, not private seller) without any accessories, booklets etc., and paid about 50% of what Leica Classic is typically asking for a mint example. To me, it is not worth more than I have paid.

Having said that, mine is mint-y and the long smooth lens hood and the general charm is appealing. Leica design at its best.

 

[outwest]

Gee, no one commented on the pic of my 90, er, the blank CM. Post #26. It really is blank, no funny business. Was it a bad day at quality control? Or, the morning after an all-nighter? Anyway, it got out of the factory without the 9 in front of the CM. It is still a great lens and a favorite on my IIIF red dial.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Gee, no one commented on the pic of my 90, er, the blank CM. Post #26. It really is blank, no funny business. Was it a bad day at quality control? Or, the morning after an all-nighter? Anyway, it got out of the factory without the 9 in front of the CM. It is still a great lens and a favorite on my IIIF red dial.

As focal length is zero/unknown, DoF is infinite eternal.