Which 90mm for occasional use?

[patrickallo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all,

 

I've been an avid user of the M since last summer. Right now I have an M2, with a 50mm cron (last version) and a 35mm cron (version III).

 

In most cases, this is all I need. Yet, every now and then I'd like something longer for landscape/cityscape use, which means I don't need larger apertures. (my framelines tell me 90 would be a nice addition).

 

What would be the best option:

 

- an elmar C

- an older chrome elmar

- some version of the tele-emarit

- anything else from leica like the more recent elmarit M, or an older cron (even if heavier).

- other brand

 

From what I'v read most of the cheaper options are rather sensible to flare. Can anyone confirm this? Also, what would match my other lenses?

 

Any thoughts?

 

ps: I'm only looking at used lenses; otherwise the new summarit would perhaps be a winner.

[UliWer]

For the M2 (or due to the larger finder magnification even better for the M3) the first version of the 2.8/90 Elmarit is the one to go. It is not expensive on the second hand market, not big or heavy and still delivering very good results.

[luigi bertolotti]

1st choice is the recent Elmarit-M... a superb 90 in any sense, which has the only limitation of being no cheap - a very good item can cost not too far from a new Summarit, even if good user ones can be found at more reasonable prices (example : https://www.leicashop.com/vintage/elmaritm-11807-2890mm-p-290.html)

To stay under for cost, probably the Elmar C is the best option... personally I like a lot also the last Elmar f4 "three elements", but it has a certain aura of "rarity" (indeed it is NOT so uncommon in Bayonet Mount) and so is a bit "premium-priced".

Elmars (C or 3 element) are significantly lighter / smaller than the Elmarit-M, a factor that has to be valued : they are really - practically - pocketable.

 

Tele Elmarits are fantastically compact, but this is their only real advantage.. the "nano" is a someway low-contrast lens... and the last (styled like the Elmar C) typically suffers of a strange problem of hazing in the last glass element.

 

For occasional use, my suggestion is to stay away from Summicrons : they are rather heavy (expecially the oldest) and often problematic to use at f2, which is their only plus; a good Elmarit first type, on the contary can cost less than an Elmar 90 3 elements and has anyway the advantage of 1 stop... personally (as you see... ... I like a lot 90s - and have really many of them... ) is a 90 that I have never "loved"... but if in good shape can be a valid choice.

[wda]

For value and performance, you should consider the 90mm Summarit. Excellent performance; modest weight and generally widely available. Do get the lens hood to protect and avoid flare. It reverses for compactness when not in use.

[freusen]

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/market/listing/3593/Minolta_f40__90mm_Lens_for_LeicaM_near_Mint.html

____________

FrankR

[lct]

The first Elmarit (# 11129) is a bit tall but is built like a tank and is a very good lens indeed (pic below). Otherwise, if flare is a concern i would stay away from the old Elmar as well as the 'thin' Tele-Elmarit.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[!Nomad64]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A late Elmarit M 90/2.8 is a safe choice. It delivers the same quality of the 'cron 90 Apo ASPH and costs about 1/3 if not slightly less. It's built like a tank and conveys greater a sense of solidity than the AASPH. Its only drawback is that it's quite sensible to flare. Mine at least.

Otherwise a Summarit 90 2.5 might do as well albeit the mechanics are probably inferior. I can't speak for direct experience for the latter whilst I own both the Elmarit M and the AASPH. I know that two 90s are redundant but I can't resolve to sell any of the two.

 

Cheers,

Bruno

[lct]

Flare samples at full aperture.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[patrickallo]

Thanks for all the useful feedback!

 

Since I think it would be odd to spend more on a 90mm than on my other lenses (which I expect to use more), I think the more recent elmarit-M as well as the summarit are too expensive (I paid no more than 750€ for my 35 and 50).

 

Also, since I'd like to steer clear from flare as much as possible, the older elmar's are not an option either.

 

This leaves me with the original Elmarit (an option I hadn't thought of) and the Elmar C as the two main contenders. I guess it's time to visit some shops and see how they feel.

[christer]

..... and see how they feel.

 

Yes, that's very important. Made me change my 90s twice.

[mike_j]

Consider the Minolta Rokkor 90mm f1.4.

 

Made for the CLE, very nice lens and reasonable price.

[earleygallery]

I very rarely use anything longer than 50mm on my M, I've got good telephoto/zooms for my R. But it's nice to have something a bit longer when travelling just in case. Mine is a bog standard old style 9cm f4 Elmar. I paid under £100 for mine and it's mint condition optically. Does a job.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/landscape-travel/51159-paris-pere-lachaise.html

 

You could also consider the Voigtlander lens which should be a fine performer if their others are anything to go by.

[250swb]

Another vote here for a late model Elmarit M whether its for occasional use or serious use. A superb lens, one of Leica's best for the way it renders a scene or portrait.

 

Steve

[bill]

Er,

 

Can I turn this on it's head?

 

I fully appreciate cost being a concern, but can I suggest you look at this from exactly what you want to use the 90 for and then work from there to one that fits your budget? Thus if compactness is a priority the choice is different to that if you value sharpness above all else, ditto speed.

 

That said, I can speak highly of a late-model Elmarit-M, as others have done, also the 90mm f4 Collapsible if you can find a good one. If you find a hazy one, btw you can often clean it yourself with the help of a bit of rubber tubing and some circlip pliers. I don't rate the Voigtlander, btw. It is sharp, but it is very bulky and heavy for the focal length (particularly once the hood is in place). At 3.5 it is also slow for anything other than use in decent light.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[wizard]

...since I'd like to steer clear from flare as much as possible, the older elmar's are not an option either.

 

The 3-element Elmar has no flare issues at all, it is extremely flare resistant. Plus it is tack sharp. And compact and lightweight as well. If f4 is sufficient, that's one hell of a lens. The 90mm Minolta made for the CLE is very good, too.

 

Andy

[freusen]

...........the 90mm Minolta made for the CLE is very good, too...........

 

The Minolta Rokkor-M lenses (40/90mm) are of the same design as the Leica CL lenses but the Minoltas have a multi-coating and the same rangefinder cam as the Leica-M cameras contrary to the Leica CL lenses which have a single coating and a different rangefinder cam (which can give problems with focussing). The quality of these Minolta lenses is equal or better to the Leica CL lenses.

___________

FrankR

[scsambrook]

Bill wrote that

"I don't rate the Voigtlander, btw. It is sharp, but it is very bulky and heavy for the focal length (particularly once the hood is in place). At 3.5 it is also slow for anything other than use in decent light."

 

but I must disagree about the size and weight. It's scarcely any longer than the original Tele Elmarit, nor is it any wider. With its hood in place, it's actually shorter than a Tele Elmarit with the 12 575 hood in place. And it's lighter as well - about the same as the original Elmarit. It's certainly sharp (at least, mine is) and for anyone shopping on a limited budget it has to win the value for money contest.

 

I bought mine recently for less than the typical price of an M fitting 90mm Elmar. In fact it was the price that tempted me as I already had an original chrome Tele Elmarit and didn't actually "need" it. I find it's got more "bite" at apertures wider than f5.6, and at f3.5 it's also sharper than the Tele Elmarit is at f2.8 and f4.

 

As for being slow . . . well, with an ISO400 film in your M2 you can certainly take pictures when the light's far from decent. Bill's been around long enough to remember when ISO100 was thought to be "fast" (it was 125 ASA then) and many of us shot ISO25 Kodachromes on dull days with a 3.5 Elmar. Maybe the dull days are duller now . . .

[bill]

To each their own. It's the only lens that I have ever sold on within a month I could have forgiven the lack of speed if it had had another redeeming quality, but since I already had the 2.8 (I bought the CV predominantly for Barnack use, but also for M) I got rid of it very quickly indeed. I have, by the way, hung on to my CV 75 2.5 through thick and thin - a superb little "long standard".

 

On the other hand, I love both my Elmarit-M and my Collapsible Elmar, both of which have their (different) uses. My Elmar does indeed go nicely with my M2, although currently it is hanging around under my MP

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Regards,

 

Bill