Late thin elmar 4/90

[UliWer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The entry in the „Gesamtkatalog“ from June 1963 only refers to the rigid M-version (E39 filters) no. 11830 R. So the collapsible (11631) seems to be out of production at this time. The collapsible already wasn‘t listed in a brochure „Leica-Objektive“ from I/62, which still had the LTM rigid version. So it seems that the collapsible went out of production in 1961, whilst the LTM version was still made in 1962 and perhaps the first months of 1963. 

Though dealing with Leica items always means coping with inconsistencies: a pricelist (10-5a) from Jan. 65 still lists the collapsible version 11631M for 296,-DM, the rigid version 11830R was 258,-DM. The latter must have been the 3-elements, as they didn’t give this new version a new number. Perhaps the entries in pricelists can be explained by the fact that quite a lot of copies were still on the shelves in Wetzlar or at the dealers, so even when an item was not produced any more you could regularly buy it. 
 

P.S.: even the pricelist 10-5q from Febr. 1966 still has the entry for the collapsible for 296,-DM. 

Edited July 10, 2021 by UliWer

[Pecole]

Your obsevation is right, Augusto : the 1920084 was a "3-elements", as confirmed in my archives.

[Advertisement]

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

[Pecole]

Your obsevation is right, Augusto : the 1920084 was a "3-elements", as confirmed in my archives. Something I discovered when investigating : the code is given as 11830 or 11730. I could not investigate further.

[luigi bertolotti]

On 7/9/2021 at 10:15 PM, UliWer said:

 

There is another mistery about the well-known 90mm Elmar. It seems to be general consent that its optical design was never changed, only coating being introduced after the war. Though there are some doubts: When I compare my collapsible version with my older rigid version which has A36-filters I see a difference: The newer lens is sharper and overall contrast is better. The difference is not as striking as for the three elements Elmar, but I think it is obvious (I never could see any differences between the "redscale" and any version of a "blackscale" 3.5/50mm Elmar...) The front lenses curvature seems also to be different for the collapsible version. 

 

That's an intersting topic : having all the Elmars I have made a simple test exchanging their lensheads (not possible with the rectractable, of course) : all ok EXCEPT for the E39 : mounted on previous barrels RF focus is inconsistent.

[tranquilo67]

On 7/10/2021 at 1:26 PM, UliWer said:

The entry in the „Gesamtkatalog“ from June 1963 only refers to the rigid M-version (E39 filters) no. 11830 R. So the collapsible (11631) seems to be out of production at this time. The collapsible already wasn‘t listed in a brochure „Leica-Objektive“ from I/62, which still had the LTM rigid version. So it seems that the collapsible went out of production in 1961, whilst the LTM version was still made in 1962 and perhaps the first months of 1963. 

Though dealing with Leica items always means coping with inconsistencies: a pricelist (10-5a) from Jan. 65 still lists the collapsible version 11631M for 296,-DM, the rigid version 11830R was 258,-DM. The latter must have been the 3-elements, as they didn’t give this new version a new number. Perhaps the entries in pricelists can be explained by the fact that quite a lot of copies were still on the shelves in Wetzlar or at the dealers, so even when an item was not produced any more you could regularly buy it. 
 

P.S.: even the pricelist 10-5q from Febr. 1966 still has the entry for the collapsible for 296,-DM. 

Really interesting indeed. It seems there's material for an interesting article there.

There is a really valid point that is a different topic is when the lens production ceased and when it was drop from the catalogs due to the stocks on the shelves.

23 hours ago, Pecole said:

Your obsevation is right, Augusto : the 1920084 was a "3-elements", as confirmed in my archives. Something I discovered when investigating : the code is given as 11830 or 11730. I could not investigate further.

Thank you very much for the confirmation!!! That means that one of the in-doubt batches (1.920.001 to 1.921.000) is made of 3 Elements (or at least has already 3-Elements samples). That, once more, confirms the theory that the 3-Elements was not introduced in 1964, but in 1962 like I suspected.

12 hours ago, luigi bertolotti said:

That's an intersting topic : having all the Elmars I have made a simple test exchanging their lensheads (not possible with the rectractable, of course) : all ok EXCEPT for the E39 : mounted on previous barrels RF focus is inconsistent.

Hi Luigi, that was exactly the warning that Jerzy gave me when searching for a late screw mount 4 elements. The lenshead could have been exchanged and in that case the RF focusing was going to be off. That was the reason for the immediate checking the matching scratched number in the barrel.

Anyway and to you all, thank you very much for the information that you've provided. Once more, I'm currently thinking on writing a short article about this topic after getting properly documented.

Personally, my only pending aspect is to understand if in the 1962 batches, apart from the 3 elements (confirmed), is there still any 4 elements. Something like what it happened in it's introduction when there were samples of "thin" Elmars in the 135.xxx serial numbers, as part of a batch of "fat" ones.

Best wishes,

Augusto

Edited July 12, 2021 by tranquilo67

[UliWer]

14 hours ago, luigi bertolotti said:

That's an intersting topic : having all the Elmars I have made a simple test exchanging their lensheads (not possible with the rectractable, of course) : all ok EXCEPT for the E39 : mounted on previous barrels RF focus is inconsistent.

Norbert Oertel describes in his VIDOM-article that he measured a different distance from rear lens to film for the E39 version. 

[luigi bertolotti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, tranquilo67 said:

Personally, my only pending aspect is to understand if in the 1962 batches, apart from the 3 elements (confirmed), is there still any 4 elements. Something like what it happened in it's introduction when there were samples of "thin" Elmars in the 135.xxx serial numbers, as part of a batch of "fat" ones.

Best wishes,

Augusto

Well, considering that the collapsible (4 elements) was still listed in 1964 (see US catalog : 108$ for the 3 el - 140$ for the collapsible) , it's quite probable that some were manufactured in 1962... as always, the matching between allocated batch numbers and actual year of built can be vague... 

[UliWer]

Anybody knows whether there was a different price for the 3-elements compared to the last rigid version of the 4-elements? The catalogue number didn‘t change: it was 11830 or 11730 (in feet).

[Pyrogallol]

This is from an April 1962 price list if it is any help.

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!

[tranquilo67]

Thank you very much @Pyrogallol. All information from those years is really appreciated.

Let me share the information in Thiele's book about those last 90/4 batches (unfortunately it spreads into 2 pages):

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!

So as you can see:

- Codes ELANG, ELANG-M and ELANG-S go up to 1.830.000 with together with optical configuration 4/3 (year 1961)

- From 1962 to 1965 the codes are 11.830 and 11.730 and the optical configuration is 3/3

I know lists are not 100% correct and specially this one could have some reliability issues, but for these concrete batches, all the serial numbers provided by @alan mcfall, @Pyrogallol, @Pecole and @jc_braconi perfectly match the batches and the type of lenses (4 or 3 elements).

Best wishes,

Augusto

[luigi bertolotti]

15 hours ago, UliWer said:

Anybody knows whether there was a different price for the 3-elements compared to the last rigid version of the 4-elements? The catalogue number didn‘t change: it was 11830 or 11730 (in feet).

You'd need to compare various pricelists... between the ones that I have, the nearest comparision I can make is based on US$ retail prices - tax included - in 1956 and 1964 : I add some other items to have a view on prices' trend : I report only BM items

1956

Elmar 50 (3,5)                    66 US$

Summicron 50 (coll.)      159 US$

Elmar 90 (4 el. - E39)        99 US$

Elmar 90 (coll.)                158 US$

Hektor 135                        141 US$

1964

Elmar 50 (2,8)                   66 US$

Summicron 50 (rigid)    150 US$

Elmar 90 (3 el.)               108 US$

Elmar 90 (coll.)               141 US$

Elmar 135                        157 US$

 

 

 

 

 

[UliWer]

The German prices in DM from June 1963 and January 1965 were:

Elmar 50 (1:2.8)                                    159,-                     172,-

Summicron 50 (rigid, chrome).          360,-                      392,-

Elmar 90 (rigid)                                    237,-                     258,-

Elmar 90 (collapsible)                        315,-                      296,-

Elmar 135                                              389,-                       432,-

The catalogue from 1963 describes the 90mm Elmar with 4 lenses and only shows the M-mount version; my list from 1965 doesn't name the number of lenses.

So we see a "normal" price increase for the different lenses - no significant increase for the rigid 90mm Elmar which could indicate a new and "better" lens. Only the collapsible version became cheaper, which I take as a sign that they sold the rest of production which was still on the shelves. 

I am still unsure whether Leitz ever advertised the 3-lens-version as a "new" or "improved" lens, or wether they just introduced it "by the way" making no explicit distinction from the older version. 

P.S. In the web I saw another pricelist from October 1964. It has the rigid Elmar 90mm 11830 R for M-mount as well as the 11830 U for LTM both for 267,- DM (higher than in January of the next year...), the collapsible for 315,- DM.

So I try to sum up:

The catalogue from 1963 only lists the 4-elements version and no LTM-version. The pricelist from fall 1964 again has an LTM-version, but already the next list from January 1965 only shows the M-mount version. The collapsible is constantly listed between 1963 and 1966, though with a price decrease from 1965 onwards. For the rigid version there was a sudden increase between 1963 and 1964, but a surprising decrease some months later in January 1965. 

 

Edited July 13, 2021 by UliWer

[tranquilo67]

49 minutes ago, UliWer said:

...

I am still unsure whether Leitz ever advertised the 3-lens-version as a "new" or "improved" lens, or wether they just introduced it "by the way" making no explicit distinction from the older version. 

 

Yes, I also believe in the "by the way" decommission of the 4/3 and introduction of the 3 Elements.

[tranquilo67]

23 hours ago, UliWer said:

The catalogue from 1963 only lists the 4-elements version and no LTM-version. The pricelist from fall 1964 again has an LTM-version, but already the next list from January 1965 only shows the M-mount version. The collapsible is constantly listed between 1963 and 1966, though with a price decrease from 1965 onwards. For the rigid version there was a sudden increase between 1963 and 1964, but a surprising decrease some months later in January 1965. 

Hi,

Just a comment. Are you sure that the price lists from 1963 and 1964 refer to the rigid thin 4 elements? According to serial numbers/production that I shared from 1962 onward, the only version produced was the 3 elements.

Once more, thank you and best wishes,

Augusto

[luigi bertolotti]

23 hours ago, tranquilo67 said:

Yes, I also believe in the "by the way" decommission of the 4/3 and introduction of the 3 Elements.

Me too.. the lens was surely "announced" (and a proper code assigned) but I think wasn't so much emphasized... maybe they thought that declaring too "loud" a new 3 elements design (instead of 4) could be interpreted as a "lower the cost" choice... 😉 and they had more profitable 90s (2,8 and 2) to deal with...