Re: [Leica] 90mm Elmar, three vs. four elements

["Dan States" <dstate1@hotmail.com>]

Considering that a mint 3 element, if you can find one, would go for nearly 
as much as a NEW Elmarit of much higher performance I would say that USERS 
would find their money better spent on the newer equipment. Collectors, on 
the other hand may find the Elmar a good investment, if they don't let it 
get dinged up...I do declare.

Dan

>
>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)
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com