Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/01/25

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] 90mm Elmar, three vs. four elements
From: "William Larsen" <ohlen@sierratel.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 19:38:34 -0800
References: <B695EA90.4CA5%howard.390@osu.edu> <3A70A7E8.60C8856A@primus.com.au>

Dan States declares:

> > > I have NOT used the 3 element, but I know it is quite
a collectors item, and
> > > therefore not worth the cost for actual USERS.

Why would a lens that is of interest to collectors not be
worth the cost to "actual" users?  I have the m-mount
version and use it quite a bit.  I am not interested in
selling it because I don't know what would replace it and do
the same job.

Horst Schmidt describes the lens thusly:

> The 3 element  90mm Elmar was introduced in 1964 and
lasted until 1968. It
> superceeded all the 4 element (tessar copies) except the
collapsible Elmar. This
> stayed a 4 element version and also finished 1968. The 3
element Version, (I have
> the head only) Was also called the Parallel Elmar. Because
the barrel was
> virtually straight, and it was non rotating when
focussing. -The only other 90mm
> Elmar which was also non focusing was the collapsible
version-. The diaphragm of
> the 3 element has evenly spaced click stops, and the
filter size is the standard
> 39mm. It is nice looking lens and of high quality
manufacture. I had a play with a
> complete lens. Barrel included. It is better made than the
previous Elmars. The
> barrel does not have the tendency to stick at both extreme
ends like the 90mm
> Elmar and 135mm Hector and 135mm Elmar barrels. To me a
quite annoying feature.  I
> use the 3 element with the bellows or the variable
focusing unit on the Visoflex.

Good description.  According to Hove's Leica Pocket Book,
there were 5,947 produced in bayonet mount.  This is an R-5
(rare) according to the Price Guide.  However, there were
only 543 produced in the screw mount (all in 1964) which is
an R8 (exhibition item) according to the Price Guide.  Too
bad mine is not a screw mount converted to an bayonet ;-)

The scalloped focusing ring is extremely comfortable and
efficient.  Focusing is very smooth.  I also use the lens
head with the bellows.  As with the 65 Elmar you can get
infinity focusing, but is also a very efficient lens for
photographing a flat field as well as the usual macro
applications.  The click stops are half clicks.  Works like
a dream on the M6.

Horst continues:

> I found the quality of the 3 element Elmar to be higher
than the 4 element.
> especially the contrast was higher and it seems to have
less flare. It is just
> about as good as the f2.8 Elmarit of the same vintage. It
also cost about the same
> when it was released.

Personally, I like it better than the 2.8, which sometimes
had a problem with internal fogging (whale grease or
balsam - I think the archives should have something).  But
that's why you sometimes get choices.  My price list (1968)
shows the 2.8 at DM329.  It doesn't list the 90 Elmar.  But
I paid DM189 new (about US $48).

I thought about selling mine when I first joined the LUG.
But then calculated that I really wouldn't be cashing in on
a bonus by the time I replaced its functionality.  And I
have grown accustomed to it.

Bill Larsen
from California's Heartland (where like LA, the sky is
sometimes blue, but more often gray with a yellowish cast)

In reply to: Message from Martin Howard <howard.390@osu.edu> (Re: [Leica] Re: 90mm Elmar, three vs. four elements)
Message from "A.H.SCHMIDT" <horsts@primus.com.au> (Re: [Leica] Re: 90mm Elmar, three vs. four elements)