90mm f/4 Elmar

[rramesh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Seek you thoughts on using a 90mm f/4 Elmar (fixed lens) from the 50s on an M9. It's cheap but I am not sure if its a good enough lens to use for portraits.

[gbealnz]

I had a brief fling with a 90 Elmar-C, might be a different lens to what you are asking about, but it was small, light and sharp, too sharp for the portraits I took to play with it.

Younger face possibly would have helped, if you get my drift.

Gary

[johnloumiles]

I bought the 90 Elmar for the same reasons you gave. As the individual stated before me it is a very sharp lens that isn't particularly great for portraits. It's very hit and miss but what I have learned from using it is that you have to take your time if you want consistent results. If you use Auto shutter you will almost certainly get a blown out photograph. All that said when you do nail a shot its really awesome and sharp as a tack.

[asmith]

There is more than one version. The three element, so called light Elmar is quite good.

Alwyn

[rramesh]

I understand there are different models made over time. 3 elements vs 4 elements, M mount vs screw mount, all chrome and semi chrome, coated vs uncoated. Is there a specific model that renders best?

[giordano]

As long as it's in good condition, any 90mm Elmar can give you very good results for portaiture, even an uncoated pre-war one. The last, 3-element, version is generally said to be the sharpest and most contrasty of the "classic" Elmars - but biting sharpness and contrast aren't necessarily what one most wants in a portrait lens.

 

The 90mm Elmar-C, made for the Leica CL camera, also has a very good reputation, but it's rangefinder coupling was not designed to be 100% compatible with M bodies and it seems to be a matter of chance whether it works OK on any given body. The current Macro Elmar-M seems to be the sharpest and best corrected of them all and can certainly be used to make good portraits.

[UliWer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Some examples (all at f:/4, M9 with lens detection for the f:4/90 Makro-Elmar and "auto" for the Summicron-AA):

 

4/9cm Elmar (4 elements coated post-war version:

 

[ATTACH]303485[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]303486[/ATTACH]

 

 

 

4/90 Elmar (3 elements)

 

[ATTACH]303478[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]303482[/ATTACH]

 

 

2.8/90 Elmarit (first version)

 

[ATTACH]303480[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]303481[/ATTACH]

 

 

 

2.0/90 Summicron-M Apo.Asph

 

[ATTACH]303483[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]303484[/ATTACH]

 

 

So, on short distances (here 1.75m) differences between the older lenses are rather small.

 

On bigger distances the 3-elements Elmar is considerably better than its 4-elements precedessor and I think even better than the Elmarit (first version), which dates from the same time. The 3-elements Elmar is rather rare and therefore much more expensive than the old 4-elements version 8which is the chepo of all Leica lenses) and also than the first version of the Elmarit.

[UliWer]

He some examples for bigger distances (all at f:4):

 

4/9cm Elmar (4 elements):

 

[ATTACH]303488[/ATTACH]

 

 

4/90 Elmar (3 elements).

 

[ATTACH]303489[/ATTACH]

 

 

2.8/90 Elmarit (1. version)

 

[ATTACH]303490[/ATTACH]

[tobey bilek]

That lens is nice for portraits if you use a shade. 4.0 nice, but not razor sharp.

 

5.6/8/11 are all good enough for portraits and like other lenses of the period. Leica sold this for 30 years.

 

If you want the absolute most critical sharpness which I think makes an ugly portrait, 90 4.0 macro is the best modern 90 at 5/7 feet and closer. Learn to retouch or keep your work to kids under 10 years. It is much like the 100 APO R which would pick up skin texture on my 5 year old girl, the 90 Summicron R would not in same studio lighting set up.