Hi! I saw an Elmar 90/4.0 LSM on eBay which seems beautiful optically and mechanically. Is this lens good for portrait photography and worth buying ? Thanks Chih-Chien Lin

-- Chih-Chien Lin (chihchienlintw@yahoo.com.tw), December 07, 2001

Answers

Very very good lens. In fact, just as you speak I have it on my FED 2 camera. I used it to shoot some legal photographs for a lawyer who wanted some building damage photos for a lawsuit so it's still a winner not a dog. A lot of people here will agree with me on the nice quality of this Elmar.

If you want, I can post some pictures next week of shots taken with it :)

By the way, I heard a statement that "Real men (women too) shoot Elmar." I took that advice home with me.

Alfie

Alfie

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), December 07, 2001.

Hello, A simple straightforward answer to your enquiry is YES, the 90/f4 Elmar is a superb lens perfectly suited for portrature.

-- David Seaman (Lincolnshire,England) (david@leicam.freeserve.co.uk), December 07, 2001.

Lin: The above answer is overly simplistic because there were 4 different LTM versions from 1931-1968, all with different optical formulae and the earliest were un-coated. What is the catalog # and/or serial # of this particular lens?

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), December 07, 2001.

Hello Jay: It is a 1951 Elmar 90/4.0. No 879734. The seller described the lens as having very slight "haze". What does that mean ? Does "haze" have adverse effect on pictures ? Thanks Chih-Chien

-- Chih-Chien Lin (chihchienlintw@yahoo.com.tw), December 07, 2001.

Yes,haze will have a significant impact on the images. Contrast will be lower, and the lens will flare very easily. I laugh when people describe something on ebay as "beautiful optically" and than mention it has hazy inner elements later in their description. If the price is right after factoring another $75.00 or so for a good cleaning, and you don't mind the f4.0 aperture, it could be a useful addition to your lens line up.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), December 07, 2001.

Also, if you don't mind the f/4 aperture, and you need a screw mount, you might look at a brand new Cosina Voigtlander 90mm f/3.5. At least you'll be guaranteed that there's no haze.

-- John Morris (jtmorris@slb.com), December 07, 2001.

Hello Andrew: I really appreciate your advice. But there are something that I don't understand. Is there difference between "haze", "fogging", and "dust"? Most important is: can those "dirts" be cleaned? Mr. Morris adviced me to buy a Voigtlander 90/3.5. I know that the new Voigtlander lens well be a more reasonable and safer choice. However, I just want to own an old Leica lens and I want to enjoy the fun of using old equipments. Thank you very much. Chih-Chien Lin

-- Chih-Chien Lin (chihchienlintw@yahoo.com.tw), December 07, 2001.

I think it depends on how much haze or cleaning marks there are. I have this same lens, a late 40's model. When you look thru it under normal light it is totally crystal clear. However as in many cases with these vintage lenses when I look thru it with a strong light source and kind of angle the lens back and fourth I can see a very lite haze evenly covering one of the elements and a small amount of very fine hairline cleaning marks on the front element. I don't however think these "defects" have any effect on the images (I guess the only way to tell would be a side by side test with a pristene example)I have been getting. The saturation and contrast seems comparable, although less than a modern lens, to my coated Elmar 50/3.5 which has no haze and not enough cleaning marks to mention. Also I don't notice any excessive flair. I find I have to stop it down to 5.6 or more for ideal sharpness but at 4.0 has a little softness which is nice for portraits. The Bokah is exceptional.

-- Gerry Widen (gwiden@alliancepartners.org), December 07, 2001.

Lin: I have the same type of lens, had it since 1968. Very decent performance for its day, very small and nice to handle. Mine has never gotten hazy. However, you must be willing in this case to trust the opinion of the seller as to whether the lens has haze, or perhaps also some fungus, which in many cases can not be cleaned off.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), December 07, 2001.

I have 2 examples of the collapsible version of the 90/4 Elmar (M-mount)& they're fine performers (I believe the Elmars are a variation of the classic Tessar design--not fast, but very sharp on account of the small # of elements). Haze obviously doesn't help, but a small amount isn't likely to have a huge impact on your shots; if it is a problem, cleaning the lens is not too difficult or expensive a task for any qualified repairperson.

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), December 07, 2001.

That light haze or fog you often see in older lenses, especially Leica ones, does have an affect on image quality in my experience. I was able to notice an increase in contrast, especially at wide apertures, and also less problem with flare, especially in strong backlit situation). I came to this conclusion after having a couple of lenses cleaned (135mm Tele elmar, 35mm Summaron) and noticing the difference in before and after images. These lenses were only lightly fogged by the way, and appeared clear under a casual glance. I will have to also say that stopped down to f8, and used with a lens shade under normal circumstances, the difference in results after the cleaning was less noticeable if at all.

One thing I have mentioned before here is that most of that "light haze"is just 50 years of pollution and vapors from the lubricants, etc, and can be cleaned for a modest sum. But I have also had the coatings go bad and become slightly opaque inside my DR 50 where it could not be just cleaned. Same thing happened in an old Zeiss Sonnar. I'm not trying to freak anyone out here from ever buying any of the vintage lenses, but also don't want the problem to seem down played like sellers often do. Dust and bubbles do not seem to have the adverse affect that an overall haze does.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), December 07, 2001.

Jay and Chih-Chien

To my knowledge, there were only two different optical formulas used for the 90/4.0 Elmar (1932-1968), the original 4-element design introduced in 1932 and the "parallel mount" 3-element design from 1964-1968. However, there were many variations in the finish of the lens (first black paint glossy, then matte black during the war, and then chrome post-war) as well as various different barrel configurations. The latter include the "fat elmar" (1932-33 only), the thin version (most numerous), the collapsible version (only in BM), and of course the last 3-element version.

These variations are all pictured in Jim Lager's Volume II, an excellent reference. As far as the optics, of course all of the post was Elmars are factory coated, whereas the pre-war and wartime versions will be uncoated, unless they were sent in for coating after the war. The best version optically is the latest 3-element design, but these are hard to find and costly (more so in SM than in BM). There is also a difference in the coating immediately after the war (very blue mono-coating) and later on (multi-coating). The early post war versions may produce a slightly bluish image.

The regular 4-element lens from 1951 ought to produce a good quality image, though as others have noted, the haze commonly observed in lenses of this image can cause some degradation of contrast and some flare. This is a popular lens, because it can be obtained at a reasonable price, much less than any of the current lenses.

The terms fog and haze are used interchangeably, but to me should be distinguished from fungus (which can be localized or diffuse and can etch the glass). Advanced fungus and separation of the lens elements (which can have different appearances) are harder to fix than a small amount of haze that accumulates as these lenses "age". For this reason, you will usually have to pay a premium if the optics are truly in perfect condition.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), December 07, 2001.

Chih: I have a 3 element Elmar, 1965 vintage that I just got back from Focal Point Camera. John did a CLA for $85.00 and turned it around in 4 weeks. I have not done any shots since getting it back, but the lens looks good. If the price is right, buy it. My lens I purchased in 1974 and had a haze inside of it when viewed with a flashlight. Good luck.

MJ

-- Mark A. Johnson (logic@gci.net), December 09, 2001.

I have used a coated 4 element Elmar from 1962 or thereabouts on the M, and it produced marvellous images - I think it is a lens definitely worth buying if in optically good condition and is coated. The three element version from 1965 is even better.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), December 10, 2001.

FWIW - According to this web site, there are indeed a lot of barrel designs, but only 2 optical layouts - in either LTM or M mount.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), December 10, 2001.

Jay-

What do you mean by different optical formulae? Please see my recent post: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00907A

-- adam lang (aglang@hotmail.com), May 06, 2002.

C-C. IMO, the 90/4.0 Elmar (4-element lens last produced in the mid- 1960s) was a decent lens in its day but is at best mediocre by modern standards. The 90/2.8 Elmarit (original Wetzlar version) which replaced the Elmar, however, is a superb lens, especially the later black Elmarit from the early 70s (but the chrome versions are also good). This lens was better than the Tele-Elmarit and capable of producing breathtaking images. That's the one I would go for rather than the 90/4 Elmar.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), May 07, 2002.