Re: Good Tele M Lens--M-Rokkor variants

[Stephen <cameras@jetlink.net>]

So far as I know, the easiest way to identify a CLE  40/2 or 90/4 is the
"40.5" marking  on the filter ring.  CL type lenses, or at least all
that I have seen, do not have it.

All I can do is report my own experience.  I did not perform the type of
testing that a camera magazine would do.  Some people have the patience
for that, but personally I do not.

Regards,

Stephen Gandy



Tom Kline wrote:

> Some very interesting comments from Stephen and Hans, but here is some
> serial # weirdness...
>
>
> I agree that this is a good field lens and have it with me at work
> since it was in my rucksack which I carry around on a daily basis (and
> with an M inside!) since it is quite lightweight. I, however, have not
> made the performance comparisons like you have and so am further
> intrigued.
> regards
> Tom
>
> >Simon Ogilvie wrote:
> >
> >> Stephen,
> >> I was interested in your comments about the 90/4 Rokkor lens.
> >> I've just bought an old 90/4 Elmar screw-mount lens with a
> >> screw-to-M adaptor.  I assume that the Rokkor is considered
> >> optically superior to this Elmar?
> >>
> >
> >The 90/4 Elmar screw mount design dates from the 30's, although it
> did
> >gain coating after the war.  There are TWO 90/4 Rokkors.  The first
> was
> >for the CL and is the same optically as the 90/4 Elmar for the CL.
> The
> >later CLE 90/4 Rokkor has a slightly different optical design and has
>
> >standard Leica parallel RF coupling, and UNLIKE the earlier version,
> is
> >multicoated.  I find it to be a great lens, although I have not
> compared
> >it to the current 90/2.8 which many people rate very highly.  Because
> so
> >many people confuse the CLE 90/4  with the earlier version for the
> CL,
> >it sells cheaply, usually for the same price as the CL
> lens($300-400).
> >Thus its usually an underpriced bargain.
> >
> >I believe the CLE 90/4 Rokkor is a better performer than the 90/4 for
>
> >the CL, the older 90/4 Elmar screw mount, the 90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit,
> the
> >older version of the 90/2.8 Elmarit, and even slightly better than
> the
> >90/2 Summicron.   Exactly how it compares to the current 90/2.8
> Elmarit
> >I am not sure, but I would expect that the performance of the two
> lenses
> >to be very close.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Stephen
>
> From: "Hans Pahlen" <hans.pahlen@mark.komvux.se>
> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
> Subject: Re: Good Tele M Lens
> Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 22:26:59 +0100
>
> The M-Rokkor 90/4,0 is a good lens, but I think Stephen, that you are
> going
> a bit too far stating that it is a better performer than many of the
> older
> Leica 90 mm lenses.
> I am using this CLE-lens together with an old 90/2,8 Elmarit (1960),
> and I
> would rather rate the Leica lens as a bit sharper. I have compared the
> two
> lenses side by side using Velvia at f/4,0, and I think that the Leica
> lens
> resolves the finest details a little bit better. I also noticed that
> the
> Leica lens has more contrast.
> I have only tried one sample (my M-Rokkor is No. 2006053).
>
> I bought the M-Rokkor at a bargain price, and it was my only 90 mm
> lens
> during May-August. However, after seeing the practical results from 35
> rolls
> during my vacation, I felt that something was missing as I saw the 90
> mm
> pictures together with those made by my Leica lenses. This experience
> made
> me decide to get another old Elmarit 90/2,8, as I regard this lens to
> be one
> of the best 90 mm lenses, often at a bargain price too. My simple test
> was
> just a way to confirm my feelings into facts.
> Yes, the M-Rokkor is very compact and pocketable, but is it really
> that good
> compared to the Leica lenses?
> I would say no. Well, at least not mine...
>
> Regards, Hans
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -