Leica m tele elmarit 90 f2.8 or Minolta 90 f4 Rokkor?

[Al404]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I would use the lens on A7C and is my "travel" kit with Voigtlanders and small travel lens

Since I also would like a really compact shot tele I end up with this 2 lens with 2 different price point:

- Leica m tele elmarit 90 f2.8: 68mm 225gr

- Minolta 90 f4 Rokkor: 61mm 250gr

On Minolta I read only pretty good thing on Leica... some are good and some are bad

If I found a made in Canada copy of Leica could it still has a first lens that seems good and turn foggy after some years? 

Are all made in Canada bad copies?

[Ernstk]

43 minutes ago, Al404 said:

I would use the lens on A7C and is my "travel" kit with Voigtlanders and small travel lens

Since I also would like a really compact shot tele I end up with this 2 lens with 2 different price point:

- Leica m tele elmarit 90 f2.8: 68mm 225gr

- Minolta 90 f4 Rokkor: 61mm 250gr

On Minolta I read only pretty good thing on Leica... some are good and some are bad

If I found a made in Canada copy of Leica could it still has a first lens that seems good and turn foggy after some years? 

Are all made in Canada bad copies?

I have the Leica version of the 90mm Rokkor, its the Elmar-C 90/4. It's very good and is quite light and compact.

Below is an image from it.

Ernst

[Advertisement]

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

[ianman]

48 minutes ago, Al404 said:

Are all made in Canada bad copies?

No

[a.noctilux]

I used the M-Rokkor 4/90 so long time ago, I had chosen Leica  'thin 90' in it's place for my Minolta CLE (I had the three M-Rokkor lenses kit 28/40/90), I don't even know why.

It was a good lens for me on film, nothing less than Leitz/Leica 90mm of same period.

 

Time passing, to make it short, I have had three (or four buys/sells/buys) times the Tele-Elmarit 'thin 90mm', I wasn't happy with the flare in difficult lighting.

I still use one 90mm TE thin ( Wiki link ...) having digest the flare prone things.

 

I would not be happy to use the TE thin as only 90mm lens, I prefer by far the Macro-Elmar-M 90mm (Wiki M-E-M ) or the long but light Elmar 90mm ( in Wiki ...)or older Elmarit like this

[Danner]

I have a vintage 1977 thin Tele-Elmarit, recently CLA'd by YYe, that is sparkling clear and takes excellent images.  I find that using the deep lens hood (Leica 12575) does a good job of limiting flare, which is almost never an issue for me.  I shoot B&W film only with it.

[lct]

The Rokkor 90/4 for Minolta CLE (not CL) is the better lens in my experience in that it has little to no flare issue but it is only f/4 of course. The advantage of the "thin" Tele-Elmarit is f/2.8 in a small and light package. It has no competition i know of for that. Otherwise i see no difference between my Canadian and German made copy of theT-E. BTW i said "not CL" about the Rokkor 90/4 because it was the same lens as the Elmar-C 90/4 AFAIK but i have no experience with it. I own the Elmar-C though, very good lens indeed but with more flare than the Rokkor 90/4 for CLE. BTW the 12575 hood  does little to reduce flare when strong light sources are just outside the frame in my experience. I mean on both T-E and Elmar-C. The same hood doesn't fit the Rokkor but the latter has not the same flare issue. 

 

[1joel1]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I use a fat Tele Elmarit. It is compact and a very good performer. I would highly recommend this.

Joel

[Guest]

I have the thin tele-elmarit [1984 my copy] but sadly its made in canada so its bad.

[Al404]

7 hours ago, steve 1959 said:

I have the thin tele-elmarit [1984 my copy] but sadly its made in canada so its bad.

do you mean that it got foggy?

[pgk]

21 hours ago, Al404 said:

If I found a made in Canada copy of Leica could it still has a first lens that seems good and turn foggy after some years? 

Are all made in Canada bad copies?

I have a very tatty copy which works perfectly and has no fog. Fnd a fog free copy and I would say that it is unlikely to develop fog; if it was going to do so it would have done so by now. From what I have read only a proportion of the lenses were affected and the reason remains unclear. My only complaint about the 'thin' Tele-Elmarit is that it can flare quite badly and requires a good hood (and preferably a cusomised one to minimise flare. It is extremely small and light though.

[Al404]

23 minutes ago, pgk said:

My only complaint about the 'thin' Tele-Elmarit is that it can flare quite badly and requires a good hood

I don't really like hoods but I like flares 😄 if it is a nice one that doesn't like a blob, I like warm round flares 

What kind of flare does it produce? 

[pgk]

19 minutes ago, Al404 said:

I don't really like hoods but I like flares 😄 if it is a nice one that doesn't like a blob, I like warm round flares 

What kind of flare does it produce? 

Not so nice. I'll see if I can find a sample shot. It tends to have the effect of a vignette in that a vague large central area can be light and of low contrast, or you can get areas of the image which are whited out. I didn't pay much for mine though!

[pgk]

Forced to flare, worst case scenario with the 'thin' T-E. Not helped by reflections from the sensor either.

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 August 31, 2021 by pgk

[AndreasG]

My Tele-Elmarit-M Made in Canada is from 1982 according to the serial No., bought used 1986 and now after 39 years of use no fogging, still smooth focussing, just a few dust particles inside. It never got a CLA. Only occasionally I noticed some flare, but I need to admit I never use a hood. It is a good, small and versatile lens, certainly not a top performer and the expense for a used one is reasonable.

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!

[wizard]

I own and use the Minolta Rokkor CLE 4/90 lens since many years and it has never let me down. No flare to speak of, sharp even wide-open, and contrasty rendering. It is a very good lens that is optically as good as the later Elmarit-M 2.8/90 lens (which is slightly more flare prone though).

[lct]

Re: flare with the "thin" T-E 90/2.8. You won't suffer from it if you don't shoot into the light most probably. It appears mainly when you put the sun or other strong light source just outside the frame. Now the T-E is not the only lens to do that. Both Elmar-C 90/4 and Elmarit 90/2.8 v2 do it too but to a lesser extent. As far as flare is concerned, the thin T-E It is just one of the worse with the MATE at 50mm and the Summarit 50/2.5 in special circumstances. One of the best being the Rockor 90/4 for Minolta CLE from this viewpoint.

[ianman]

They design different hoods for each lens for a reason. It's similar to the software corrections added to firmware for in-camera corrections. I'm sure all digital users have 6-bit coded lenses or at least select the correct one when attaching it the the body. So why not use the use that is specifically made to reduce flare and/or enhance contrast.

My FAT TE flares quite a bit under the wrong conditions, as does the 21mm Super-Angulon but on both, and in particular, the SA, the hood helps a lot.

Edited August 31, 2021 by ianman

[lct]

1 minute ago, ianman said:

They design different hoods for each lens for a reason.

My FAT TE flares quite a bit under the wrong conditions, as does the 21mm Super-Angulon but on both, and in particular, the SA, the hood helps a lot.

It does not or too little in the case of the thin T-E though. Only way to avoid it in my experience is to make some additional shade with the hand, a hat etc. But again the thin T-E is not alone like that.

[pgk]

14 minutes ago, ianman said:

So why not use the use that is specifically made to reduce flare and/or enhance contrast.

My 'worst case scenario' shot was taken using the long metal clip on hood which gives maximum shielding. Unfortunately the 'thin' T-E suffers from very significant flare occasionally if shooting into the light, which is where no hood currently available will help. I have used push on caps with a rectangular cutaway on hood which can help but its a lot of messing about and trial and error and still doesn't help if light sources are in the image. The 'thin' T-E can also suffer from central reflection/veiling flare in 'cloudy bright' conditions which manifests itself as a brighter central circle of lower contrast. As can the 35mm pre-aspheric Summilux. Both are great little, lightweight lenses, but I don't tend to use them if conditions are against them, if that makes sense?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ianman]

3 minutes ago, pgk said:

My 'worst case scenario' shot was taken using the long metal clip on hood which gives maximum shielding. Unfortunately the 'thin' T-E suffers from very significant flare occasionally if shooting into the light, which is where no hood currently available will help. I have used push on caps with a rectangular cutaway on hood which can help but its a lot of messing about and trial and error and still doesn't help if light sources are in the image. The 'thin' T-E can also suffer from central reflection/veiling flare in 'cloudy bright' conditions which manifests itself as a brighter central circle of lower contrast. As can the 35mm pre-aspheric Summilux. Both are great little, lightweight lenses, but I don't tend to use them if conditions are against them, if that makes sense?

Of course it makes sense not to use particular lenses in conditions where we know issues will occur. I thought it was also obvious not no hood ever built will help when shooting directly into the light  I suppose I should have added that.