Leitz Wetzler Elmarit 90mm f/2.8 lens from 1965 (Mandler design)

[La_sure]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for your quick answers and photos.

@jaapv, I had doubt only about the tendency of the lens to generate flare, not about the other qualities of the lens. A little flare can be seen in the second photo of @UliWer(left part of the roof) but it can be easily corrected in post. The first photo of @lct shows also a little flare, but much less than the second with the tele-elmarit-M.

So I am afraid @UliWer is right, it is a not very good lens.

 

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

I beg to differ - a bit of flare does not  make a lens "not very good".  It is but one aspect of lens performance, it is up to the photographer to know the properties of a lens and use it for the result he aims at - and this one can produce quite good images. Especially when talking about vintage lenses. A few decades make a real difference,  not only - but not so much- in lens quality, but  in rendering  as well. It is with good reason that many of us use various lenses of different eras to get the images we like. 

[lct]

24 minutes ago, La_sure said:

Thanks for your quick answers and photos.

@jaapv, I had doubt only about the tendency of the lens to generate flare, not about the other qualities of the lens. A little flare can be seen in the second photo of @UliWer(left part of the roof) but it can be easily corrected in post. The first photo of @lct shows also a little flare, but much less than the second with the tele-elmarit-M.

So I am afraid @UliWer is right, it is a not very good lens.

If resistance to flare is what you are interested in in the first place you could be disappointed by Leica. None of my 90mm M and R Leica lenses can be considered totally flare less actually. For Leica users flare makes part of photography than one is supposed to practice to improve but it can be a problem on rangefinders admittedly because you don't see it in the viewfinder. Even with 30+ years of experience with those lenses i'm still surprised by the way some of then can flare actually. For less problems from this viewpoint you may wish to consider two excellent non Leica lenses, the superb but rather big Tele-Tessar 85/4 and the inexpensive and compact Rokkor 90/4 for Minolta CLE.

[La_sure]

9 hours ago, lct said:

If resistance to flare is what you are interested in in the first place you could be disappointed by Leica. None of my 90mm M and R Leica lenses can be considered totally flare less actually. For Leica users flare makes part of photography than one is supposed to practice to improve but it can be a problem on rangefinders admittedly because you don't see it in the viewfinder. Even with 30+ years of experience with those lenses i'm still surprised by the way some of then can flare actually. For less problems from this viewpoint you may wish to consider two excellent non Leica lenses, the superb but rather big Tele-Tessar 85/4 and the inexpensive and compact Rokkor 90/4 for Minolta CLE.

Thanks. I asked only about flare, because it was not mentioned in the thread, and the only information I could find was the Ken Rockwell site page linked by adan. The posted photos are quite reassuring. As for the lens, I'm looking for a lens that is not too contrasty, and light (lighter than the newer elmarit-M). Both tele-elmarits (fat and thin) and the CLE rokkor 90/4 are other possibilties.

[TomB_tx]

I have both the FAT TE (bought in 1968) and the 90 Elmar C (designed for the CL). Both are surprisingly good. The Elmar C has the sloped focus cam of the CL lenses, but works fine on my M9 & 10 also. Best value for the money. 

[lct]

The sloped focus cam of the Elmar-C 90/4 is not a problem on the M11 either but the lens flares more than the Rokkor 90/4 for Minolta CLE which has a regular focus cam and 40.5mm filters vs Series 5.5 for the Elmar.  Similar IQ otherwise.

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As a 'rule of thumb', the more recent the design, the better the wide open performance. That said, compactness may also require compromises. I've had a lot of 90s over the years and the rule of thumb is fairly accurate.

[lct]

Hard to beat superb lenses like Summicron 90/2 v2 and Tele-Tessar 85/4 but compact they are not. BTW the little Apo-Skopar 90/2.8 is very interesting for a compromise lens. Sharp since f/2.8, little flare, vignetting and distortion, it suffers a bit from color fringing but it does hardly worse there than its Leica counterparts. I would give it a try before ordering anything else compact personally.