90mm f/4 "Fat" Elmar

[cobbu2]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 I just recently came into the possession of a nice 90mm f/4 :Fat" Elmar, SN 122950, which according to Leica Wiki dates it to 1930-31.

 

It has a very slight amount of dust and an even smaller amount of haze on the rear element, otherwise the glass is in good shape, no fungus or cleaning marks.

 

So I thought I'd try it out on my M8:

 

 

 

Here is an example, shot at f/4.5 (click on the image to see the original file):

 

 

 

And here's a crop of the central portion:

 

 

 

I must confess adding some contrast during post-processing, as this lens displayed very low contrast.  The lens is a little front heavy, but not excessively so, and its width makes it comfortable to use.

 

I have noticed other examples of this lens for sale, notably those with no serial number and they command a high price.  I didn't see any reference on the Leica Wiki page to this; were they produced for a time early in the run before numbers were assigned?

 

In any case, it now "lives" on my II Model D with a VIOOH finder.

 

 

A pleasing combination which I'll be taking for a spin this weekend!

 

Cheers,

 

Allan

 

 

[alan mcfall]

I assume your lens is rangefinder coupled as it is numbered, a few very early lenses were not coupled.  Exactly how many unnumbered fat elmars were made is uncertain, I believe.  The fat 90 first became available in late 1931 for use on the standardized model C. A November 1931 phamphlet lists it as a new lens. It seems Leitz was still not in the habit of numbering lenses at that time. They must have know the model D would be launched in early 1932, so the transition to rangefinder coupled came quickly; and the engraving of the serials was not too much later. Some unnumbered lenses may have a hand scribed number on the mounting flange.  By late 1932/ early 1933 the fat version was changed to a thin design. Two possible thin prototypes occur at 135,864 and 135,937. The latest fat lens I have noted is 141982. Any fat elmar over the 136xxx lot is rare. ( See Hartmut Thiele tabulation)  So, the fat production may be only 1 year or a little more.  Some authors have estimated a total volume of arrount 2400 fat lenses. I have collected them for many years and have 12, only 3 unnumbered. I have recorded about 160 serial numbered fat elmars.  Your photos are very nice. Regards and any corrections to my information is always appreciated.

[Advertisement]

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

[cobbu2]

Hi Alan, thank you for the information! Mine definitely has the rangefinder coupling and it works quite well; sometimes the focusing accuracy of 90mm Elmars can be slightly off, especially on the digital Ms as I've read here occasionally on the forums, but this example seems to work well so far.

 

Definitely a relatively short production run for the fat Elmars. Was there much difference, if any, between the fat vs. skinny versions?

[spydrxx]

I touched it with my levels control and slight sharpening, and it really popped. Nice catch.

[luigi bertolotti]

I assume your lens is rangefinder coupled as it is numbered, a few very early lenses were not coupled.  Exactly how many unnumbered fat elmars were made is uncertain, I believe.  The fat 90 first became available in late 1931 for use on the standardized model C. A November 1931 phamphlet lists it as a new lens. It seems Leitz was still not in the habit of numbering lenses at that time. They must have know the model D would be launched in early 1932, so the transition to rangefinder coupled came quickly; and the engraving of the serials was not too much later. Some unnumbered lenses may have a hand scribed number on the mounting flange.  By late 1932/ early 1933 the fat version was changed to a thin design. Two possible thin prototypes occur at 135,864 and 135,937. The latest fat lens I have noted is 141982. Any fat elmar over the 136xxx lot is rare. ( See Hartmut Thiele tabulation)  So, the fat production may be only 1 year or a little more.  Some authors have estimated a total volume of arrount 2400 fat lenses. I have collected them for many years and have 12, only 3 unnumbered. I have recorded about 160 serial numbered fat elmars.  Your photos are very nice. Regards and any corrections to my information is always appreciated.

This is the lenshead of my Fat Elmar - coupled but unnumbered : indeed, it has clearly a "164" hand engraved onto (while there is nothing engraved inside the focusing unit) ; there is also another engraving which looks a "signature" more than a number

 

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!

 

Htough VERY old, its rendering is still decent... here is a quick comparision at f 5,6 (...better to say... "between 4,5 and 6,3" on the Fat...  ) with a very recent 4 element Elmar (1.355.403, coated, BM), JPG OOC ; to be honest, pics were taken with M at 3200 ASA, which can "cover" some quality details.

first the Fat

.. then the "new"

Edited November 5, 2016 by luigi bertolotti

[cobbu2]

Thanks Luigi; it seems it's more an issue of contrast than sharpness, It appears there's little discernible difference in the center, you have to look towards the field to really see it.  This is apparent looking at the black object and the books.

 

I wonder what the optical differences were between the "Fat" Elmar vs. the first "skinny" version that replaced it?

 

Thanks again!  Allan

[jerzy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

According to Thiele all lenses until introduction of M mount have the same optical formula ( first calculation).

[Sully]

Alan,

 

Where did you get the info about the thin Elmar #135,937?  I think I have that lens.

 

I bought it many years ago from a dealer because it had an early number.

 

Any more info about it would be greatly appreciated.  I don't know how to post pixs

 

on this website.  I will have to get a computer skilled young person to help me.

 

For your records, I also have a fat Elmar, uncoupled, standardized, Ni, #94151 and a fat, coupled, Ni, 128131.

 

Ciao,  Sully

[luigi bertolotti]

....

For your records, I also have a fat Elmar, uncoupled, standardized, Ni, #94151 and a fat, coupled, Ni, 128131.

 

Ciao,  Sully

Five digits !  One day me too...

 

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!

 

.. anyway... I could held a boring controlled environment photo session and posting a boring  discussion on their subtle differences... probably to conclude that given the age and history of several of them, any result must be taken with salt depending on partial hazing of the glass, conditions of the coating etc...

[cobbu2]

I think it's a cool thing just to be able to use these old lenses on a regular basis, especially on modern M digital cameras with adapters.  In that way, they take on a new life.

Edited November 6, 2016 by cobbu2

[luigi bertolotti]

Anyway, about differences during the long life of the Elmar 90, you can easily note that the two versions of the " chrome A36 with vulcanite ring" (3rd and 4th from left, above picture... "narrow front rim" and "wide front rim") do have a different optical cell ... (close inspection reveals different curvatures of the glasses)  and if you exchange them on their respective mounts (mechanically identical) both lenses do not focus correctly anymore.

Edited November 7, 2016 by luigi bertolotti

[alan mcfall]

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!

 

Glad to see so much interest in an 85 year old lens that was only produced for a year or two at most.

 

The first photo above shows my collection of Fat Elmars, the 3 that are horizontal in the foreground are the unnumbered ones.  Two of these are rangefinder coupled and one is not. 

 

The second photo shows the uncoupled lens with three interesting features:  internally hand engraved is the number 17666 (I think), the rear flange that contacts the camera is black paint, most are nickle plated, the rear lens cap is very thin and is correct for early interchangeable lenses that were not yet coupled (1930-1931). At the lens head to focusing mount intersection also hand inscribed is 7X1. )Similar to the Luigi photo of 164.

The coupled unnumbered lenses have also hand engravings at this head to mount (not lens to camera) mount of:   11   13  (I) on one and 91 on the other. I think these engravings are for internal Leitz use during construction.

It is interesting that we have a reported numbered but not rangefinder coupled lens, see Sully post above.  I can add in addition to this lens (94151) a second uncoupled lens (94178) only 27 units away.  I do not recall the source for the early "thin" lens, 135937, but Lager shows thin lens 135864 which is close to yours (Sully).  I believe these thin lens are among the earliest made.

Regards, as always more data will help define these early lenses.

[luigi bertolotti]

Alan... there is a detail in the middle one of your 3 unnumbered items...the front engraving is "Elmar 1:4 F = 9 cm" instead of the usual "Elmar f = 9 cm 1:4" : what is your feeling about ? have you  other items like this ? I suppose it is the uncoupled, to say, the oldest of the trio... but I have seen elsewhere items uncoupled and coupled too, with this "ancient" writing

Edited November 9, 2016 by luigi bertolotti

[willeica]

Just a few random bits and pieces to add to the discussion. Hartmut Thiele records the first numbered batch for the lens as being 94092 to 94139 in 1932. I had presumed  that these would be coupled lenses, but Alan's observations above throw some doubt on this. 94151 and 94178 would have been from the second batch mentioned by Thiele, also from 1932. I have a coupled Fat Elmar from a later 1932 batch with the SN 122913. It has an engraving inside with what I think (I am not really familiar with German numbering) is 19783. It must have been for manufacturing purposes, as the only common number with the SN is the final 3. On the front it has the usual Elmar f= 9cm 1:4, as do a couple of much later Thin Elmars in my collection.

 

Just my few cents.

 

William

[Gienauer]

I also own an Elmar f=9cm 1:4, but it is not a fat one but a thin one - and it is rangefinder coupled. The No. is 454 697 and it is made in 1938. I still use the lens with my NEX7, A7R and A7R2 from Sony. The IQ is very good although I know, there are better lenses 90cm - but they are younger. But this lens has "charakter"!

 

I also use a Leitz Hektor 2,5/85mm for photography - it is a lens of the slide projector Leitz PRADO 150 which was made in the 50's. It is easy to adapt to the Sonys E Cameras because the tube of the PRADO 150 can be unscrewed and has M39 at the end. So the adaptor can be a normal "M39 to SonyE (NEX)".

 

I bought the PRADO with the lens at a Used Camera Market for EUR 20. The chinese adaptor at Ebay was less than EUR 10. So I have an exellent LEITZ-tele for EUR 30!

 

Next year I will buy a Leica M for all my Leica-R-, Leica-M- and Voigtländer-lenses.

 

Best greetings

Hans-Joachim from Hamburg/Germany.

Edited November 9, 2016 by Gienauer

[cobbu2]

I checked my example (SN 122950); it is impossible to see if there's any engraving inside, as the interior rim adjacent to the flange is covered with what appears to be an anti-reflective fiber material not unlike shutter curtain cloth.  I'm not sure I would want to remove it as it may have some benefit for interior reflection reduction.

[luigi bertolotti]

... On the front it has the usual Elmar f= 9cm 1:4, as do a couple of much later Thin Elmars in my collection.

 

Just my few cents.

 

William

Yes this has became the standard in the first '30s... the reverse version "first aperture - then focal" can be found, afaik, only on Elmars 35/50/90/135 (and Elmax + Anastigmat 50. of course) and on Hektor 50.

[alan mcfall]

A cut and paste from my data base, sorry exell does not transport exactly the same.  As noted above the first numbered lot starts with 94092.  A quick tally of what can be assumed to be definitely fat elmars comes up with approximately 1700 plus any from lots 135800 and 136xxx, which mostly have the "a" after the serial number. These two lots are not that big and they are also populated mostly by other lenses. We also have the unnumbered lenses which could be a few hundered?  As such, I believe the estimate of 2400 fat lenses made could be high. It could be more likely  1900-2200.  Anyway, its speculation I suspose.  My uncoupled lenses with the front engraved as Elmar 1:4 F=9cm  is not the uncoupled one!  There is some reasons to believe this lens was originally uncoupled and was returned for factory upgrading to coupled.  The back flange is paint not nickle and there is a unique notch at the rangefinder cam location.

 

  Could it be that in late 1931, Leitz made some uncoupled  numbered lenses for the model C, yes as why else would they make uncoupled lenses. Certainly all lenses made for the model D would be coupled.  I think the reason you see so many more uncoupled and unnumbered 135 Elmar lenses is they were available with the introduction of the C in 1930 ( first in Non standard with the 3 digit lens code, and later Standardized), while the Elmar fat 90 was not available until late 1931.The timing change of the Engraving from 1:4 first to last is still open for study.  I will see what I can find amoung the 50 Hekors and 135's.

  Lots Total Mine           Unnumbered   ? 3       94092-94139   48 1        94151-94250   100          94251-94300   Mix          96605-97050   446 2        97051-97100   Mix, mostly 90's          97101-97136   37     97929   1     97934   1             122869-123001   123 1          128001-128200   200 1          128201-128213   13 1          128216-128221   6             128225-128242   18             135001-135700   700 3           135801-136000   200 some thin            136001-136250      Mix, with 'a' suffix             156301-156350                               350, all thin? None recorded            165001-166000  

                       100, all thin?, early lot of thin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                              

[luigi bertolotti]

....  My uncoupled lenses with the front engraved as Elmar 1:4 F=9cm  is not the uncoupled one!  There is some reasons to believe this lens was originally uncoupled and was returned for factory upgrading to coupled.  The back flange is paint not nickle and there is a unique notch at the rangefinder cam location....

 

 

                              

 

Thanks Alan : me too have always had the feeling (looking at flange zone, as you say) that my unnumbered coupled was probably coupled via factory retrofit (and it too is engraved "1:4 F=9 cm")

Edited November 9, 2016 by luigi bertolotti

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[machmaphoto]

Leitz Dickes Elmar/Fat Elmar 4/9cm von 1932

on Sony A7 - RAW developed in DXO PRO 10, Preset "Without correction" ooC ISO 200.

 

I love it.

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!

Edited November 10, 2016 by machmaphoto