Elmar-C and M-Rokkor 90/4 image quality

[blueade7]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm a Fuji user looking for a compact prime lens in the range 85 to 100mm, with an emphasis on the "compact". Such lenses barely seem to exist anymore - available options are fast and consequently too big and heavy on my small X-E3 (e.g. the Fuji 90/2, which I owned until recently).

Due to its small flange focal distance, the M-mount adapter is tiny. So I've been looking at the 90/4 Elmar-C, 90/4 Minolta M-Rokkor and Tele-Elmarit-M 90mm f/2.8. I've pretty much ruled out the latter due to a seemingly high frequency of these lenses developing haze problems and flaring profusely - seems too risky a proposition. The 90/4 macro is (way!) out of my price range.

This leaves me with the similar though not identical Elmar-C and M-Rokkor. Has anyone shot with both these lenses? If so can they comment on differences in image quality?

One post on this forum suggested that the Elmar-C is sharper in the middle of the frame, whilst the Minolta is sharper in the corners. Since the corners will be cropped out by my Fuji (on which a 90 mm angle of view equates to that of a full frame 135 mm), this would be a plus for the Elmar-C, which also seems currently to be a little cheaper than the Minolta. On the other hand, I've also read suggestions that the Minolta may be more flare resistant and perhaps more contrasty (??). It also has a standard thread, as opposed to the Elmar-C's Series 5.5 filter (for which there is this: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Adapter-Ring-Leica-E39-Filter-to-Summicron-C-40-2-39mm-S5-5-f-2-0-Lens-camera/173852268913 , but still not ideal). So my query is with regards image quality - are there appreciable differences?... How significant are the differences, if any, in centre sharpness, flaring and contrast? Any other differences?

Edited June 15, 2020 by blueade7

[blueade7]

Also, are there any differences between the early CL and later CLE versions of the M-Rokkor?

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

Welcome to the forum
I have both lenses i.e. Elmar-C 90/4 and M-Rokkor 90/4 for Minolta CLE. Both are nicely made. The Elmar-C has a sloping cam, which could be an issue on M bodies but i haven't got any problem with that. Another problem is Series 5.5 filters on the Elmar-C but besides adapters i have never tried, one can use regular E39 filters on the lens provided they are not screwed too tight. I would not recommend that to newbies or hard users though. IQ wise i haven't found significant differences to the point where i can hardly tell which is which except when strong light sources like the sun are just outside the frame. In such cases the Elmar-C flares significantly more than the M-Rokkor. Not as much as the "thin" Tele-Elmarit 90/2.8 but enough so to be a problem on rangefinders. On mirrorless the flare is visible in the EVF so it is not difficult to avoid. Can also be reduced by cupping the hand around the lens but neither the regular 12517 rubber hood nor the metal 12575 clip-on hood are tall enough to solve the issue alone.
Below: Elmar-C 90/4 on Leica digital CL, f/4, rubber hood on, without and with my left hand cupped around the lens. Light source was a halogen lamp outside of the frame.

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!

[giannis]

On 6/15/2020 at 2:03 PM, blueade7 said:

I'm a Fuji user looking for a compact prime lens in the range 85 to 100mm, with an emphasis on the "compact". Such lenses barely seem to exist anymore - available options are fast and consequently too big and heavy on my small X-E3 (e.g. the Fuji 90/2, which I owned until recently).

Due to its small flange focal distance, the M-mount adapter is tiny. So I've been looking at the 90/4 Elmar-C, 90/4 Minolta M-Rokkor and Tele-Elmarit-M 90mm f/2.8. I've pretty much ruled out the latter due to a seemingly high frequency of these lenses developing haze problems and flaring profusely - seems too risky a proposition. The 90/4 macro is (way!) out of my price range.

This leaves me with the similar though not identical Elmar-C and M-Rokkor. Has anyone shot with both these lenses? If so can they comment on differences in image quality?

One post on this forum suggested that the Elmar-C is sharper in the middle of the frame, whilst the Minolta is sharper in the corners. Since the corners will be cropped out by my Fuji (on which a 90 mm angle of view equates to that of a full frame 135 mm), this would be a plus for the Elmar-C, which also seems currently to be a little cheaper than the Minolta. On the other hand, I've also read suggestions that the Minolta may be more flare resistant and perhaps more contrasty (??). It also has a standard thread, as opposed to the Elmar-C's Series 5.5 filter (for which there is this: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Adapter-Ring-Leica-E39-Filter-to-Summicron-C-40-2-39mm-S5-5-f-2-0-Lens-camera/173852268913 , but still not ideal). So my query is with regards image quality - are there appreciable differences?... How significant are the differences, if any, in centre sharpness, flaring and contrast? Any other differences?

As a suggestion, have you looked into SLR short teles? When it comes to longer focals, rangefinder lenses on principle are not any more compact than SLR ones. Sometimes the opposite even, because on rangefinders you might get traditional long focus designs (that are longer), while on SLRs the more compact tele designs are more popular. Also, rf lenses carry a premium and don't focus as close, so I'm not sure what benefits are left (if any) on a camera that doesn't need rf coupling for focusing.

Personally, I can recommend the Olympus OM 100mm f/2.8. It's especially compact for its focal length and aperture (like most Olympus OM lenses), it takes 49mm filters (like a compact 50mm f/1.8 lens). It performs well, focuses as close as the m-rokkor and a bit closer (a hair under 1m), and can be had for roughly €100. I use one on an OM body, and it's like a slightly longer 50mm f/1.8 in size.

[lct]

2 hours ago, giannis said:

When it comes to longer focals, rangefinder lenses on principle are not any more compact than SLR ones.

One must use thicker adapter with SLR lenses. I like much my OM lenses though. 

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!

[giannis]

14 hours ago, lct said:

One must use thicker adapter with SLR lenses. I like much my OM lenses though. 

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!

Yeah you're right, but for focals over 70mm or so, it's not much of a difference, because even on SLRs they don't need to clear the mirror box. So the extra length of the adapter for an SLR lens is already kinda "built in" in the RF glass. The adpater starts adding bulk in lenses <40mm imo.

And I agree, Olympus glass is amazing when it comes to compactness. A single digit OM body with a "typical" lens is tiny by SLR standards. Especially the wideangles. Or the rare as hen's teeth 40mm f/2, which is almost a pancake.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, giannis said:

Yeah you're right, but for focals over 70mm or so, it's not much of a difference, because even on SLRs they don't need to clear the mirror box. So the extra length of the adapter for an SLR lens is already kinda "built in" in the RF glass. The adpater starts adding bulk in lenses <40mm imo.

And I agree, Olympus glass is amazing when it comes to compactness. A single digit OM body with a "typical" lens is tiny by SLR standards. Especially the wideangles. Or the rare as hen's teeth 40mm f/2, which is almost a pancake.

It is the same adapter for any SLR lens with the same mount of course. I have no Olympus adapter on hand but my Leica R to M one must be about 20mm thick. Add to this about 50mm for a Zuiko 100/2.8 and the overall length will still be taller than a Tele-Elmarit 90/2.8 (62mm) let alone a Macro-Elmar 90/4 (59mm). Same calculation for a Zuiko 40/2 (25 + 20 = 45mm) compared to the Summicron 40/2 (less than 25mm). And this to get an adapted lens unable to focus in RF mode on M cameras...  

Edited June 17, 2020 by lct

[blueade7]

Thanks for the suggestions. Funnily enough I was considering this Olympus 100mm f/2.8, and also the (slightly bigger and heavier, but with integrated hood) Minolta MD 100 mm f/2.5, before I started looking into M-mount. Another option I've considered is the Canon 100mm f3.5 (vn2). I've heard good things about it IQ-wise and its somehow much lighter (by 65 g) than the 90/4s, but it's longer and seems a little difficult to come by. Its a pity the "thin" Tele-Elmarit seems so susceptible to haze and flaring, otherwise that would be the clear choice, with the option for wider apertures and so lightweight... but then it would probably be much pricier.

As no doubt you're aware, the thickness of an adapter can be calculated as the difference between the flange focal distance of the lens mount and that of your camera's mount. So a Olympus to Fuji mount is 4.6-1.77 = 2.83 cm. For Leica M its 2.78-1.77 = 1 cm. With the different adapters required, as lct reports, I still make the Olympus slightly heavier (by ~35 g), wider in diameter (by 1 cm) and longer (by 7 mm) than the 90/4s. Yes, I am being fussy... but my best photos come from the lenses I carry most often, which - experience has taught me - is always my smallest ones... image quality is important but secondary. Case in point, the Fuji 90mm/f2 - premium IQ, too big, too heavy, barely ever used it! My most used lenses currently are my native pancake 27/2.8 and also tiny 35/1.4, which happily are lenses I also like in terms of IQ. A few years ago it was my 18/2, which I was never actually that keen on, but for its tiny size.

So between the two 90/4 lenses, it seems the difference in flare is the most notable. That, together with the standard thread has swayed me to the M-Rokkor... just waiting for a suitable one to pop up. But perhaps I'll also keep an eye out for a Canon 100/3.5 II.

Edited June 17, 2020 by blueade7

[lct]

38 minutes ago, blueade7 said:

 Its a pity the "thin" Tele-Elmarit seems so susceptible to haze and flaring, otherwise that would be the clear choice, with the option for wider apertures and so lightweight..

With the "thin" Tele-Elmarit 90/2.8, flare in only an issue when strong light sources are outside the frame . It is less of a problem on mirrorless cameras because you see the flare in the EVF.