I have a 90mm elmar from the 1960s. The negatives(prints) I get with it often seem to have low contrast. And strangely sometimes in zone 6 there isnt much detail. I am more worried about this loss of detail than the low contrast. Normally I would blame flare but I have a nice hood I use with it. What can it be? Is this normal for these lenses? Can I correct with overexposing or overdeveloping? Also my lens has a weird half-shaven-off mounting tab. This is one of the four tabs that twist and grip onto the mount. But it's still half on and seems to mount nevertheless. I dont think this is the cause of the problems though as I dont see how this can effect the optics...

-- Russell Brooks (russell@ebrooks.org), October 15, 2001

Answers

Your lens could be fogged, which will cause the effect you describe. For more info check out the Cameraquest site on "Fogging".

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), October 15, 2001.

The common way people check to see if glass is "clean & clear" is to hold the lens up and look through it while pointing towards a window. This will only show if the lens is in an extremely bad condition, and won't reveal the haze I find in nearly all vintage Leica lenses that kills the contrast and makes flare in any backlit situation. I see this "clean and clear" for lenses in the description on ebay all the time, but when I ask them to check the lens carefully with a flashlight, they e-mail me back that there is indeed a significant amount of fog inside. You have to shine a flashlight into the lens at full aperture and closely examine the inner elements. I do it from the front and back. The haze can often be cleaned by a technician after totally taking the lens apart at a cost of $75 to $100, but sometimes it can be that the coatings have failed and have become slightly opaque. Then the lens is bascially beyond economical repair. A lens hood will not solve the problem if the elements are fogged up.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), October 15, 2001.

I forgot to mention that it isnt fogged. I dont have a flashlight but i do hold it close to a light blub to look. Also that the coating must be very "thin" or something because I only see a slight blue tint to the glass.
What I guess I am asking is for other people who have this lens to make comments on what their experience has been... Thanks

-- Russell Brooks (russell@ebrooks.org), October 16, 2001.

This both images were made with a 90/4 elmar (1957). this a usual bad print, but you can see detail, bricks to the very corner can print very well, but not in this copy, this picture most be made at f/11 (I guess).

Next is to probe how useful can be point a master with a M3 and a Elmar, can you guess who´s him?

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), October 16, 2001.

I forgot to say;I shoot Mr. Bravo at f/4.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), October 16, 2001.

The early Leica lenses have very soft lens coatings that wear off through cleaning and also arent multi coated so if you loose the front lens coating they can flare quite badly. Athough Japanese lenses of the same period do have harder coatings and dont wear and scratch like the early Leica lenses its just something that has to be accepted and cant really be compared with modern multi coated lenses. I have read on previous threads about getting lenses recoated? I dont know the results but Im certain it may cost alot in relation to the lens value.

-- Joel Matherson (joel_2000@hotmail.com), October 16, 2001.

The cost of re-coating the front elelement of most (small front element) lenses is now about $150.00. The 90 Elmar wasn't the sharpest 90 Leitz made, but they still are cabable of high resolution, contrasty images if the glass is good. I am still not convinved the inside is free of fog. Holding it up to a bulb may not show it up. Something about a small point light source like a flashlight really gives a better look at the internals of a lens.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), October 16, 2001.

Ok, let me try the point light source idea. But I will say that I looked at maybe 15 different examples of the 90mm elmar and this was the one that looked the best... I really like the idea of a small, lightweight, "slow" 90mm lens so in a way I am hoping that it's just my copy - but then I'm out the bucks. I also guess that I will give a bit more development time to bring the contrast back - but I dont think the details will come back. The densitometer seems to show that the contrast range is about .1 less than my newer lenses.

-- Russell Brooks (russell@ebrooks.org), October 17, 2001.

My 90/4 Elmar Collapsible also has low contrast and flare. I was also wondering if this is normal.

-- Leslie Tseng (lhtseng@math.fcu.edu.tw), October 28, 2001.

I have a M-Minolta 90mmf4, this lens is very light and small and I have read somewhere that this actually is more or less made by Leica. The lens is quite capable of some nice images and this might be another option for a very light M-90. (The focus also very fast due to silky smooth and short rotation).

Kaj

-- Kaj Froling (kf@draupnir.dk), October 28, 2001.

I was talking to someone who shot these lenses in the 60s. He seems to remember that the advise at the time was to shoot the film at the 1/2 the speed. That sounds like it might make sense since then you would get a denser negative.

-- Russell Brooks (russell@ebrooks.org), October 29, 2001.