Looking for advice between collapsible and rigid Elmar 9cm f/4

[Kevin in Colo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am a Leica newbie, having just received my 1958 M3 yesterday, and my 1963 5cm Elmar f/2.8 lens today. I've been looking around at classic-era 90mm lenses, and found 90mm f/4 Elmars at good prices. Is there much of a performance difference between the rigid version and the collapsible version? I really like the collapsible version's form factor, which will be great for travel. My primary use will be black and white outdoor photography, but I suspect I will use the 90mm to take some casual portraits of my kids as well (though I realize an f/2.8 or larger aperture lens would likely be better for portraits). Please let me know your thoughts, thanks.

[jaapv]

Don't worry about performance - it will be more than adequate for your purpose - Leica lenses have not earned their reputation for nothing. Reading your post, I would not hesitate to get a collapsible 90.

[earleygallery]

I have always liked the 9cm f4 Elmar. I have a rigid M mount version, late/coated lens (pretty certain that all collapsible versions will be coated). It works fine with colour film as well as B&W of course.

As with any older lens wait until you find one that is optically nice and clean.

[TomB_tx]

I have both collapsible and rigid 90 Elmars, and find the optical performance identical. The handling feels different, and I prefer the rigid, but the collapsing is handy if you carry it on the camera.

My first Leica lens (in 1968) was a 90 Tele Elmarit (ver 1 - the “fat” model). It was introduced to replace the Collapsible 90, due to its shorter Tele length. It’s an f2.8 lens, and I still have and use it.

All Leica 90s are good - it isn’t a challenging design.

You might find a good 90 Elmar C for the price of a collapsible. I find it’s performance better at close distances.

Edited August 7, 2019 by TomB_tx

[spydrxx]

I've had both and currently have only the rigid. Why? Simply because the head detaches for use on the Visoflex. Both work well, as does the 90 Elmarit, all giving a more classic rendition  than the modern 90s and much less expensive than the massive 90 Sumicron. Not sure why if you're a new user, though, why you're so anxious to build a lens collection before mastering the lens you have.

Edited August 7, 2019 by spydrxx
hit enter too soon

[otto.f]

I started my Leica life in 1990 with an M4, a Summaron 35 and the Elmar 9cm 4.0. I loved this lens and it worked so nice on TriX at that time. I can’t remember that I found it too big, but on average M lenses were much smaller at that time than nowadays. (I don’t know the collapsible from experience)

Edited August 7, 2019 by otto.f

[romanus53]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The rigid version has the aperture-blades between the second and third lens, the collapsible after the first to get it more compact. Differences in performance are now more  due to condition of the lenses. The collapsible version ist superb in building and finishing but heavy, the Elmarit offers on f-stop more, more equal performance across the field but is a little bit long for my taste. Just look on condition, price and what fits your pocket.

[LocalHero1953]

I also used the collapsible for years on an M3 and M2. I picked it so it would fit, collapsed, into the ever-ready case that I used all the time I worked out of a 4x4. My version could have done with a CLA, as extending it always took slightly more strength than I felt it should take. But even given that mine was a 'user' version, the images were fine.

[UliWer]

vor 5 Stunden schrieb TomB_tx:

I have both collapsible and rigid 90 Elmars, and find the optical performance identical.

It depends on the version of the rigid Elmar. The older ones - even if they are post-war and coated - had A 36 filters. This was changed to E 39 later approximately at the time when the collapsible appeared. The later versions (E 39 rigid and collapsible) show a little bit  more microcontrast than the earlier ones.