I have a 90 mm collapsible elmar that I use on my M3. I was considering getting an uncoated pre war screwmount 90mm elmar.

Has anyone compared the two types of lenses. Your comments would be appreciated.

Regards,

Tony Salce

-- Tony Salce (NadinaTony@bigpond.com), November 04, 2001

Answers

Tony, were you going to use this lens instead of your present 90? It is more compact--that collapsible 90 is a bit bulky-- but without coating, it has to be low in contrast, & flare prone. So it might be fine for portraits, but a bit limited for all-around shooting. If you're after compactness, what about the Rokkor/Elmar-C?

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), November 04, 2001.

I'm waiting for someone to say it, but I guess it's not going to happen. The 90mm Elmar isn't particularly expensive, in any instance-- rather than getting an uncoated one, why not buy a LTM coated one?

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), November 04, 2001.

This is a Tessar type lens with only 6 air/glass surfaces, and only the central portion of the image is used. I don't think you'll notice much difference as long as you're not pointing it directly at the light.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), November 04, 2001.

Michael, Thanks for your reply. I have a coated elmar. The reason for getting a coated one is because I heard that they are quite nice for portraiture. I was hoping to get some feedback about its qualities in this regard.

Regards,

Tony Salce

-- Tony Salce (NadinaTony@bigpond.com), November 05, 2001.

Well, at least the experiment won't cost you much, in relative Leica dollars. :-)

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), November 05, 2001.