Leica LTM Leica 90/4 Why so inexpencive?

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
It's not as fast. As others have said, that's not a real disadvantage but a faster lens is an easier sell, basically.

As a side note, I have the Hasselblad 90/4 for the XPan ...a wonderful and sharp lens, and yes just perfect for travelling.
 
Another good deal, although a bit more expensive, is the Rokkor 90/4 for CLE in M-mount. A great travel lens that needs to make no apologies for performance.
 
No distortion, no vignetting, medium contrast, fast enough for a very shallow depth of field (if that's your thing), and extremely compact. Like others have said...one of the best bang for the buck 35mm lenses available.
 
PMCC said:
Another good deal, although a bit more expensive, is the Rokkor 90/4 for CLE in M-mount. A great travel lens that needs to make no apologies for performance.
Click to expand...

The M-Rokkor 90/4 is the same lens, built by Leica on the same production line, as the Elmar-C 90/4. The only differences between them are the name on the bezel and the use of a JIIS 40.5mm filter thread instead of the German DIN filter thread.

An excellent lens! Mine's made some fantastic photos.
 
It's not clear the second round of Rokkor 90s, made for the CLE, is the same. It could not have been made in Wetzlar because the lens was no longer made by Leica.

Anyway Erwin Puts raves about this lens. I find it basically flawless. I love mine. I'ma gonna get it out of the closet right now!
 
I found it to be an excellent portrait lens.

Fort10.jpg

From my first outting with a 90/4 from 1937 back in 2007
 
In 1976, Photographic Equipment Retail Price List from Leica. The 40/2 Summicron-C was cost $237 and the 90/4 Elmar-C was cost $285. Beside that, 35/2 Summicron was $270 and 50/2 Summicron was $354.
 
"In 1976, Photographic Equipment Retail Price List from Leica. The 40/2 Summicron-C was cost $237 and the 90/4 Elmar-C was cost $285. Beside that, 35/2 Summicron was $270 and 50/2 Summicron was $354."

Wow... that goes some way to finally explain why the 40mm Cron C and CLE's compare so well in performance to a 35/2 Cron despite the current huge price difference.

Maybe it also explains why my Elmar-C is such a great lens too!

Gadge
 
sparrow6224 said:
It's not clear the second round of Rokkor 90s, made for the CLE, is the same. It could not have been made in Wetzlar because the lens was no longer made by Leica.

Anyway Erwin Puts raves about this lens. I find it basically flawless. I love mine. I'ma gonna get it out of the closet right now!
Click to expand...

I don't know about the "second round", but you can tell whether it's made by Leica by looking at the inscription on the lens barrel — "Made in Germany" will indicate that it was made by Leica. If the second round was manufactured by Minolta, they'll say "Made in Japan". Mine is a "Made in Germany".

And I like the lens a lot ... 🙂

s22.b.jpeg

This is a tiny piece of the full frame image, exposure made with the M-Rokkor 90/4 fitted to Ricoh GXR-M.
 
Well I put on on sale on the 'bay. Lets see the buyers think its worth...although I feel that I just said something silly. >_<
 
Not a very well corrected lens, although 90mm and up are the more easy ones to produce.
Further there are many offered, so prices are low.
I used it only on a visoflex for macro... but you have to stop down quite a bit to get a decent photo.
 
I had a 90/4 Elmar M collapsible that was just a dandy shooter. I think I bought it a bit high, just out of CLA form DAG for $275. I made up for it with a 135/4.5 Hektor M directly from Y. Ye bought for $36 on Ebay. I think that both of these are very underestimated lenses and very cheap these days. Enjoy yours!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom