Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/01/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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)