60mm Macro - Elmarit-R or Macro Planar?

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I do a fair bit of archival and copying work. I used to use an Elmar 65/3.5 V2 with a Visoflex plus bellows on my M8 and M9. Sadly this lens was stolen by a bunch of schoolkids while I was working in a museum. I could not at the time find another V2 and bought a V1 65 Elmar. This is not a good lens and has to be stopped down to f8 or f11 for decent results. As I try to use natural light where possible for natural colours, this is a bit limiting.

 

I have therefore decided with the focusing flexibility conferred by the M240, to buy a 60mm Macro SLR lens. As I have both R to M and Contax CX/Y to M adapters and the price of the lenses is similar, I have to make a choice between the Leica Macro-Elmarit-R 60/2.8 or one or other of the two Contax Lenses, the 60mm/2.8 Macro Planar S or the 60/2.8 Macro Planar C. The S provides up to 1:1 magnification whereas the smaller/half the weight C only goes to 1:2.

 

Has anyone any thoughts on one or other of these lenses. I have found the MTF figures for both lenses and there seems to be nothing to choose between them. For the jobs I am thinking of, ultimate definition really matters. The MTF figures of all three lenses, are in any case, a country mile better than the Elmar 65/3.5 V1.

 

Wilson

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[bill]

Wilson, I can only speak for the Elmarit-R. I used it in the past on my R7, and more recently on my Nikon FM3a and F700 and Fuji X-E1. It is a well balanced lens with, as the charts imply, exceptional performance. True, you have to rack it in and out a bit, but that's the same with any Macro lens. I suspect it will be a bit easier to find a good example, too.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[wlaidlaw]

Wilson, I can only speak for the Elmarit-R. I used it in the past on my R7, and more recently on my Nikon FM3a and F700 and Fuji X-E1. It is a well balanced lens with, as the charts imply, exceptional performance. True, you have to rack it in and out a bit, but that's the same with any Macro lens. I suspect it will be a bit easier to find a good example, too.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Many thanks Bill for the information. There are about equal numbers of Leica/Zeiss on Fleabay at the moment. There is a Macro Planar S for sale in Austria currently at a reasonable price of €150 with two days to go. I will put a bid in for that but if I don't get it, will probably go for a Macro Elmarit, as they seem to come up a fraction cheaper than the Zeiss lenses. I am not so interested in the macro facility but more in a flat field when focused at 1 to 1.5 metres and high definition. The Elmar 65mm's field is noticeably curved, which is just one of the reasons you have to stop it down so much.

 

Wilson

[algrove]

Wilson, Now you've given me pause. I do not often copy, but for fleabay listings I might have to look at what I am doing. I really got my R macros for flowers closeup shots which I seem to put on the back burned as I am finding landscape and street work more satisfying for the time being.

[tobey bilek]

Sorry to hear about the black 65. They are not replaceable.

 

My 65 2,8 R now has a Leitax mount and works brilliantly with full frame Nikons.

 

I am sure both Contax lenses are nice. Get a 25 mm tube and the 1:2 model.

[wlaidlaw]

Sorry to hear about the black 65. They are not replaceable.

 

My 65 2,8 R now has a Leitax mount and works brilliantly with full frame Nikons.

 

I am sure both Contax lenses are nice. Get a 25 mm tube and the 1:2 model.

 

Tobey,

 

Is that a recent Leitax Mount? David had withdrawn them from sale, when I discovered that the coding grooves were in the wrong place and even with a 28/90 male bayonet, could not be made to activate the R lens menu. I too really like the concept of the permanently mounted conversion, especially for longer lenses like my 80-200 Vario Elmar (where I had the incorrect Leitax mounted).

 

Wilson

[kanzlr]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When I moved from Contax to Leica R I replaced the Macro Planar S with the Elmarit-R and apart from more heft, they are pretty similar in image quality, pretty much flawless.

 

but I never did copy work so I am not sure on the flatness of field with the Elmarit-R.

[farnz]

Wilson,

 

Sorry to hear about your lens being stolen.

 

I have both the 60/2.8 Macro-Elmarit-R and the 65/3.5 Elmar-V v2 (black) and in my experience the Elmarit out-performs the Elmar although I've not done any copying work. My Elmar is surplus to requirements now so if you'd like to replace yours please PM me.

 

I'm afraid I have no knowledge of the Contax lens.

 

Pete.

[tobey bilek]

Tobey,

 

Is that a recent Leitax Mount? David had withdrawn them from sale, when I discovered that the coding grooves were in the wrong place and even with a 28/90 male bayonet, could not be made to activate the R lens menu. I too really like the concept of the permanently mounted conversion, especially for longer lenses like my 80-200 Vario Elmar (where I had the incorrect Leitax mounted).

 

Wilson

 

Leitax for Nikon, not the M240

 

I would rater have an optical VF.

 

I am collecting payment for my R gear tomorrow. I kept 5 lenses, 21 SA, 28 and 35 pc, 60 2.8, and 100 APO and they are all fitted to Nikon.

[dkCambridgeshire]

For copying, any late 6 element quality enlarging lens (39mm thread) on a bellows will probably out-perform amy marque macro lens - and if buying secondhand could be a more cost effective option. Many of the lads on the Photomacrography Forum (where much innovative and groundbreaking photomacrography is practiced, documented and illustrated) use enlarging lenses in preference to marque macro lenses for their low magnification work.

http://www.photomacrography.net

Two of the best and most popular enlarging lenses for low magnfication work up to 1:1 (and high mag. when reversed) are the El Nikkor 50/2.8 and Schneider Componon S 50/2.8.

 

Late Leica Focotar enlarging lenses are also worth considering for copying work - but they might have been made by Schneider for Leica.

 

Few people believe that expensive marque macro lenses can be bettered performance-wise by relatively simple construction (no focusing mount) enlarging lenses - but it's a fact. Enlarging lenses are designed purely for close focus whereas marque macro lenses have to cover eg infinity to 0.5 mag or 1.0 mag ... and as such performance is compromised at either the shorter or longer focusing distances ... which is not necessarily apparent in MTF data unless same is documented for various lens to subject distances.

 

dunk

[wlaidlaw]

Dunk,

 

Thanks for the thoughts. The macro work is actually quite a small part of the archival work I do. The majority of it is taken at around 4 to 5 feet distance. Typically I am copying old documents, often in double foolscap (17" x 27") size or pages of old books often printed on Imperial (22" x 30" i.e. 22"H x 15"W for each page). I have at times used a Leitz Focotar II or Rodenstock Rodogar on my Novoflex bellows but the results were nothing to write home about. With both of those lenses, CA and coma was an issue at the edges of the frame.

 

Wilson

[wlaidlaw]

Dunk,

 

I was going through a chest of drawers that lives in one of our attic bedrooms, looking for a Contax body cap, that I knew I had somewhere. Not only did I find the Contax body cap but I also found three L39 enlarger lenses, that must have last seen the light of day in the mid 1980's when we moved to our current house. They must be left over from some of my father's darkroom equipment, most of which my mother had had put in the dustbin but I did find a couple of shoe boxes she had missed. There are two 50mm's, a very poor condition 2" Wray, with fungus and bubbles and an almost new looking Rollei plus a 75mm Schneider, still wrapped up in tissue paper in its box with the original papers. I will give them a try as macro lenses and see how I get on.

 

Wilson

[dkCambridgeshire]

Dunk,

 

I was going through a chest of drawers that lives in one of our attic bedrooms, looking for a Contax body cap, that I knew I had somewhere. Not only did I find the Contax body cap but I also found three L39 enlarger lenses, that must have last seen the light of day in the mid 1980's when we moved to our current house. They must be left over from some of my father's darkroom equipment, most of which my mother had had put in the dustbin but I did find a couple of shoe boxes she had missed. There are two 50mm's, a very poor condition 2" Wray, with fungus and bubbles and an almost new looking Rollei plus a 75mm Schneider, still wrapped up in tissue paper in its box with the original papers. I will give them a try as macro lenses and see how I get on.

 

Wilson

 

Wilson, I hope you obtain some good results; I wonder which company made the Rollei enlarging lens? Look forward to hearing whether the lenses prove to be worthwhile using.

 

Best wishes

 

dunk

[farnz]

I was going through a chest of drawers that lives in one of our attic bedrooms, looking for a Contax body cap, that I knew I had somewhere. Not only did I find the Contax body cap but I also found three L39 enlarger lenses ...

Christmas Day at the Laidlaws?

 

Pete.

[wlaidlaw]

Christmas Day at the Laidlaws?

 

Pete.

 

Pete,

 

Finding my old Summilux 50 V.1 bought second hand in 1967, would have been much more exciting. It disappeared along with a whole lot of other stuff during our move to our current house in 1983. As our solicitor cocked up the purchase, everything had to go into storage for three weeks, while we stayed with friends. When all the packing cases arrived at our new house, it was obvious that every tea chest had been gone through. Luckily we had put a lot of our valuables in suitcases and taken them with us.

 

I was actually getting excited when I opened up this old shoe box and found a lens wrapped up in tissue paper. A Schneider 75mm Companon enlarging lens was I am afraid, a bit of a come down.

 

Wilson

[wlaidlaw]

Dunk,

 

I believe that the Rolleinar enlarger lenses from the 1960's were made for them by Schneider (later ones may have been made by Minolta). It does not look externally, to be particularly high quality piece of equipment and Schneider's own branded Companon looks somewhat superior. I think my father bought the Rollei after I had given him a ticking off for using his Leica Summar as an enlarging lens. When I had Wallace Heaton rebuild it along with his IIIA in around 1963, they said they could see from the bubbles in the Canada Balsam, that the lens had been used for enlarging and overheated. They strongly suggested that my father desist.

 

Wilson