Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/01/27

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: 90mm Elmar, three vs. four elements
From: "A.H.SCHMIDT" <horsts@primus.com.au>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 23:58:25 +1100
References: <200101252141.NAA12186@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> <3A71BDF4.569AFE6C@t-online.de>

Hans-Peter.Lammerich@t-online.de wrote:

> I think I have one, but I am not shure: scalloped focussing barrel,
> evenly aperture click stops, #2124856 (made 1965, according to the list
> in Laney's book), but definietly with rotating lens mount and it sticks
> just a little bit at both ends of the focussing range. And my sample
> absolutely looks like the one shown in Laney's book! I however can not
> compare it to an other Elmar 90 and I don't use it much. What is the
> approximate value? Lenses are clean, but the barrel has some minor signs
> of use. Laney says at the time it was only 10% cheaper (list price) than
> the 2.8 which consequently limted demand.
>
> Hans-Peter

Hans-Peter, as far as I remember, the lens mount of the 3 Element Elmar was
a non rotating mount. However I may be wrong, I only borrowed it for a short
time.

I don't think, Leitz would have made a rotating lens mount at the time when
this lens was released. Especially, when the 135mm Hector was by then in a
non rotating mount.
If they did, they should bow their heads in shame.

But if yours is definitely a 3 Element Elmar then I stand Corrected since my
lens head serial number is just below yours. It is 2123845. Maybe I am
getting old.

Regards, Horst Schmidt

In reply to: Message from Hans-Peter.Lammerich@t-online.de ([Leica] Re: 90mm Elmar, three vs. four elements)