Macro Elmar-M 90mm hood does not reverse

[RoyB]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello All, 

I bought a Macro Elmar-M 90mm, part no. 11670 (new version). Seems the shape of the hood is not compatible with the lens shape for reverse mounting. Is this correct or am I missing something? 

Anybody found a way to reverse mount? 

If I put in a filter, the hood teeth could bite the gap between the filter and the lens outer edge. But doesn't look like a robust solution. Not sure if I'm missing something here and asked the customer services at Leica. However, no reply yet. 

Appreciate the responses. Cheers. 

[lct]

Only way to reverse the 12575 clip-on metal hood is to get the first version of the lens (11633) i fear. Problem is not the mount per se but the diameter of the aperture ring. The latter's more handy to change aperture when the lens is collapsed 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!

 

Edited November 22, 2021 by lct

[Gobert]

I use a cheap -made in China or worse- always mounted rubber hood

[FDS]

I had the same problem and found two solutions. One is to use the the collapsible rubber hood number 11250 that came with later-made 90mm Tele-Elmarit lenses. When stored, cover with cap number 11252.  

Another possibility is the short metal hood number 12550 made for the 50mm Elmarit-M. This can also be left on the lens for storage and covered using cap number 14268.    

The 90mm Macro-Elmar is highly prone to flaring if a strong point source of light is just outside the image frame (but within the image circle of the lens). Not even the number 12575 hood will help in some situations.

All of these items can be found secondhand without too much difficulty. 

 

 

[Kl@usW.]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb RoyB:

Hello All, 

I bought a Macro Elmar-M 90mm, part no. 11670 (new version). Seems the shape of the hood is not compatible with the lens shape for reverse mounting. Is this correct or am I missing something? 

Anybody found a way to reverse mount? 

If I put in a filter, the hood teeth could bite the gap between the filter and the lens outer edge. But doesn't look like a robust solution. Not sure if I'm missing something here and asked the customer services at Leica. However, no reply yet. 

Appreciate the responses. Cheers. 

Roy, I can understand your frustration, I have been there. After putting up with that stupid engineering for one year, i decided to sell the lens--despite the fact that it´s one of the best optics in the Leica M stable... But the awkward handling ruins it for me. The next thing is the fact, that you have to use the aperture ring if you want to extend the lens...  I really wonder who green lighted that design in Wetzlar. 

I´m told, the previous version of the Makro Elmar is better in that respect. 

[lct]

As i suggested above the 90/4 v2's design is more handy to turn the aperture ring when the lens is collapsed. v1 can be used this way too but one has to expand the barrel a bit to turn the aperture ring and to collapse it again before taking each photo. Smarter design of v2 from this view point but the disadvantage is that you cannot use the 12575 hood in reverse position. BTW for amateurs of rubber hoods, here are those of Tele-Elmarit "thin" 90/2.8 (left), Elmar-C 90/4 (center) and Heliopan (right).

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!

[RoyB]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks everyone for the responses. 

Terribly disappointed at whoever was responsible for releasing this product to the market, to say the least. While at the same time, trying to hold back the urge to write down some favorite expletives.

I consider this a serious design flaw, which Leica should rectify with the product's customers. Unless there's some secret lens design magic Leica is withholding to the owners of the lens.

I'll make sure that my view is heard by customer services at the least and communicated to (hopefully) the people that can take action. Such a shame as the optics are superb, with the exception of the ease at which the lens flares without the hood. One could argue though, that flaring can be used to 'soften' the super sharp rendering when used for portraits. That's the only excuse I can think of in favor of leaving the hood at home. 

[lct]

22 minutes ago, RoyB said:

I consider this a serious design flaw, which Leica should rectify with the product's customers. Unless there's some secret lens design magic Leica is withholding to the owners of the lens.

Excuse me but what flaw are you referring to? Specs don't say that the hood is reversible, or are they? Just asking as i only own v1 but i may be missing something. BTW v2 is a 7 years old version if memory serves and this hood issue (or feature) has been reported on the LUFsince then, including here:

... and here:

 

Edited November 22, 2021 by lct

[Jeff S]

I don’t own the lens, but am well aware of differences between v.1 and v.2 (not just the hood issue) as a result of numerous discussions and reviews here and elsewhere over many years. Sorry, but up to the buyer to consider basic research before an expensive lens purchase. Asking Leica for improvements is another matter.

Jeff

[RoyB]

28 minutes ago, lct said:

Excuse me but what flaw are you referring to? Specs don't say that the hood is reversible, or are they? Just asking as i only own v1 but i may be missing something. BTW v2 is a 7 years old version if memory serves and this hood issue (or feature) has been reported on the LUFsince then, including here:

... and here:

 

Thanks for asking. 

[NigelG]

I use the chrome 50 Elmar hood/cap on my chrome v1 MEM.
It allows it to be “always ready”, it still takes little space in the bag, it provides some flare resistance, it protects the front element and it’s much less faff than the proper hood…(and FWIW you can’t get a chrome version of that hood).
I had that hood with the thin tele-Elmarit 90 and found it tedious to keep reversing/mounting/reversing it to keep the size down and still got flare sometimes.

IMHO sometimes hood “convenience” trumps absolute hood “effectiveness”. YMMV if you shoot a lot with the sun/lights just out of frame…

[Jean-Michel]

I have the version one, but without the close-up attachment.  It is a great lens. I gather that version two was redesigned to work with the new macro adapter. With this adapter it is important that the f/stop ring work easily with the lens collapsed and in LV, so that must be a reason for the new design. Version one when collapsed just turns around and setting the f/Stop when on a new adapter would be a bit of a pain.