Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/12/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
> Why is the Elmar 90/4 so inexpensive used? Was this lens an
> unimpressive performer? Can anyone compare it directly to the Jupiter
> 85/2? On the Kiev page (http://users.aol.com/kievrpt/35rf.htm), all
> these ex-Soviet LTM lenses show up with surprisingly low resolution
> numbers in line pairs/mm, yet I hear great things about them. Were
> the old Elmars sharper than the new Jupiters at equivalent apertures?
Hello Patrick,
I bought a black 2.0/85 a month ago for $60,-, for this money it is a
great lens. At widest aperture it doesn't seem to have much contrast
but I'm still testing this. At smaller apertures this does improve a
lot off course and from 4.0 it is very good. but you don't buy a 2.0
to use it at 4.0. The Elmar 90 is a very good performer and
especcialy with portraits will show more of the leica glow than the
jupiter. A post war coated elmar can be bought in europe for about
$200,- thats more than the jupiter but it is better built and much
smaller. With leica lenses you will have a better position towards
the seller if something is wrong with the lens but there never seems
to be a problen with these lenses. With the Jupiter you will never
know wat you buy until you use it. I have also a chrome 2.0/85 wich
suffers from so much flare that I can't use it.
When you buy a jupiter which works well, I think you will have the
same value for money compared to the elmar 4.0.
Nevertheless I advice a Leicalens.The 4.0/90 is good but I would buy
a first design 2.8/90 if you have the money. When money is not a
problem at all and you really need the 2.0 buy a summicron.
Otherwise buy the jupiter but make sure to test it before you really
buy it.
Greetings,
Michiel.