Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/01/25

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: 90mm Elmar, three vs. four elements
From: "A.H.SCHMIDT" <horsts@primus.com.au>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 09:25:44 +1100
References: <B695EA90.4CA5%howard.390@osu.edu>

Martin Howard wrote:

> Dan States jotted down the following:
>
> > I have owned the 4 element LTM and found it to be amazingly sharp, but with
> > low contrast.  If you can print around the contrast issue you can get very
> > modern looking images.  This lens is nearly as good at f4.0 as it is at
> > F8.0.  I have even used it as an enlarger lens for 21/4 with fair results.
> >
> > I have NOT used the 3 element, but I know it is quite a collectors item, and
> > therefore not worth the cost for actual USERS.
>
> I have a 90mm f/4 Elmar from (I think) 1937 that I use occasionally: would
> that be a three or four element version?
>
> M.
>

The 3 element  90mm Elmar was introduced in 1964 and lasted until 1968. It
superceeded all the 4 element (tessar copies) except the collapsible Elmar. This
stayed a 4 element version and also finished 1968. The 3 element Version, (I have
the head only) Was also called the Parallel Elmar. Because the barrel was
virtually straight, and it was non rotating when focussing. -The only other 90mm
Elmar which was also non focusing was the collapsible version-. The diaphragm of
the 3 element has evenly spaced click stops, and the filter size is the standard
39mm. It is nice looking lens and of high quality manufacture. I had a play with a
complete lens. Barrel included. It is better made than the previous Elmars. The
barrel does not have the tendency to stick at both extreme ends like the 90mm
Elmar and 135mm Hector and 135mm Elmar barrels. To me a quite annoying feature.  I
use the 3 element with the bellows or the variable focusing unit on the Visoflex.

I found the quality of the 3 element Elmar to be higher than the 4 element.
especially the contrast was higher and it seems to have less flare. It is just
about as good as the f2.8 Elmarit of the same vintage. It also cost about the same
when it was released.

However, I personally believe, as a user lens, it it overpriced. A used Elmarit it
better value for the money.

Regards, Horst Schmidt

Replies: Reply from "William Larsen" <ohlen@sierratel.com> (Re: [Leica] 90mm Elmar, three vs. four elements)
In reply to: Message from Martin Howard <howard.390@osu.edu> (Re: [Leica] Re: 90mm Elmar, three vs. four elements)