Leica LTM why are elmar 90 prices so reasonable?

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
The 135/4.5 Hektor is also cheap. I paid $60 for my coated Hektor, and $50 for the uncoated Elmar. Telephoto lenses for Leica tend to be much less expensive than wides. That is true for RF's in general. Reminds me to try the uncoated 90 on the M9.

The coated 90/4 elmar on the M8, wide-open.

picture.php


picture.php
 
Paul: Ive been lucky to use an early 90mm Elmar (collapsible) a lot recently as a friend lent one to me. It's an M mount copy but I'm pretty sure it's the same as the LTM. Anyway, it's a really great lens IMO and DEFINITELY superb value for money. Slow teles aren't the most in demand RF lenses methinks!
 
What Brian said is pretty spot on, I think the demand for anything above a 50mm is low for classic leica lenses. The Elmars of every focal length that I've tried have produced very nice results, so it's strange that they are often the most affordable leica glass you can get.
 
3682142366_14775b9682.jpg


2322150497_e6030e37a2.jpg


Possibly, a little soft but compact and easy to use. I will say that my BessaR meter consistently over exposes all longer lenses, so I use a meter handheld with them:

Hektor 135:

2292421876_5339fa3fd7.jpg
 
There's a lot of choice in the Leica M 90mm world, and most users will gravitate to the Elmarit (a stop faster for little weight increase) or, if they can tolerate the weight and finder blockage, the Summicron. None of them are hugely expensive so there's no need to add a converter to an LTM lens.

Leica lens prices currently seem to be driven by people building up a collection for digital bodies, and a 90mm is quite tricky to focus with a 0.68x finder.
 
A better question might be, why are so many elderly and frankly mediocre Leica lenses so expensive? From a purely technical point of view, most modern Voigtländers wipe the floor with most of what Leica made before the 1960s.

I suspect it's down to people buying things on reputation and on what 'everyone knows', especially those that haven't tried things out for themselves. The 90/4 is an excellent lens, as it should be for something that simple to design and make, but it was made for a very long time (in at least two optical versions), so it's very common, and 'everybody knows' that 90mm is too long for a rangefinder (unless they've tried it -- same for 135mm).

Personally, I'd not give house-room to a Summaron (and I had them in the 70s) if I could get my hands on either a 35/1.7 Ultron or 35/2.5 Color-Skopar. The Summaron's ergonomics and build quality are better, but not the performance. Summicrons and Sumiluxes are another matter.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
to roger,

may I ask which lens are mediocre and which are good lens?

I am relatively new to leica and i wish to learn...
thanks
 
Roger Hicks said:
The Summaron's ergonomics and build quality are better, but not the performance. Summicrons and Sumiluxes are another matter.
Click to expand...

been reading contrary opinions as well, though cant link any here. its specifically performance (not just speed) Summarons seem to be under appreciated vs. other Leica lenses. modern CV vs. old Leica, its of course not fair match, like many (any?) other old vs new comparisons.
 
bfffer said:
to roger,

may I ask which lens are mediocre and which are good lens?

I am relatively new to leica and i wish to learn...
thanks
Click to expand...

Most old 35mm and 28mm wide-angles; the original 35 Summilux and 90 Summicron; most pre Summicron fast 50s; original 135 Hektors...

They were excellent for their day, and still deliver bags of 'character', but for sharpness, contrast, etc., they are all beaten hollow by more modern CV lenses.

Old/new comparisons unfair? Depends. If in the 60s and 70s you HAD to put up with some of the old (pre-60s) Leica lenses, because they were the best available and all you could afford, you probably have a different perception from those who can afford a romantic view of ancient Leica bottles against what's currently available.

Cheers,

R.
 
jarski said:
been reading contrary opinions as well, though cant link any here. its specifically performance (not just speed) Summarons seem to be under appreciated vs. other Leica lenses. modern CV vs. old Leica, its of course not fair match, like many (any?) other old vs new comparisons.
Click to expand...

Yes, but these aren't opinions I've been reading: they were formed by direct comparison and ownership. As for old/new, of course you're right in one way, but if you're buying 'em to take pictures...

Cheers,

R.
 
Sometimes you want "character" rather than a technically better lens. I'll never let the Summar go although the Summicron DR is silly-sharp and the red scale Elmar is both smaller and about 100x more resistant to flare. The Summar just gives the right results in the right conditions; Leitz used to sell it as having a "plastic" effect. This word meant something quite different in this context - more like "scuplted" - in the 1930s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom