Leica LTM Elmar 9cm f4

[fotomeow]

I have the 9cm/f4 1950s 3 element design. I compared it side-by-side to my Summi 90/2 preAsph. Of course the latter was sharper, and it had nice contrast and color saturation. The Elmar, however, had less saturation, less sharpness, and less contrast.
For color, Summi is the winner. However, for B&W, on a sunny day, the Elmar was the one I preferred. Because of the lower contrast, it was able to give more detail in shadows and more detail in the upper zone highlights. Certainly an oft overlooked lens, especially for B&W.

 

[DanBachmann]

While this is an old thread, it was the best I could find on the Internet about a 3rd party lens hood for the 9cm Elmar. I went to JackTheHat and found he now has a special hood and cap just for this lens!

http://www.jackthehat.co.uk/lens-hood-leitz-elmar-p-492.html

I've placed an order - it should arrive with in a week.

My Elmar is from 1935, thus pre-war/uncoated. I've just done a few wide open comparisons vs the CV Lanthar 90mm using an M9 and the Canon 85mm f/1.8 @ f/4 with a Canon 5D. The results are what you'd expect. The CV Lanthar wins on sharpness, the Canon is not far behind in sharpness and the old Elmar wins on bokeh due to the contrast which is very low.

 

[Photo_Smith]

It's a great lens, under rated IMHO ƒ5,6-8 is as sharp as you could wish.

M4-p 90mm Elmar

You can count the bricks in the building behind, and see the writing on the beer can. I have printed this shot to 12x16 and it's sharp...

 

[l.mar]

I've got a silver and black one from 1950, and it's a great lens --- an often overlooked treasure, as previously mentioned. Here's a close-up shot taken with the 90mm Elmar and an M3 (Tri-X in D-76) --- very nice o.o.f. rendition.

 

[traveler_101]

I want one. I suppose coated is better than uncoated?

 

[philipus]

Edit: I just realised how ancient this thread is 🙄 but I'll leave the below just in case it is of assistance.

As for size comparison, here are two images I made once fwiw. Left to right:

135/3.5 Canon (uncertain year)
Summitar coated 10-blade (1950)
9cm Elmar painted (1934)
8,5cm f2 Nikkor-P.C (uncertain year)
50 Summilux Asph
90 Elmarit-M
35 Summilux 35 Asph II
50 f1.4 Canon EF

 

[philipus]

I want one. I suppose coated is better than uncoated?

You can find them for very little almost everywhere. I am very pleased with my 1934 uncoated. For me as a film user it is a perfect daytime photography travel lens. Here's an example, warm classic rendering:

 

[traveler_101]

Edit: I just realised how ancient this thread is 🙄 but I'll leave the below just in case it is of assistance.

Thanks for taking the time. Actually, DanBachmann should get the credit for reviving the thread 2 days ago.

As for size comparison, here are two images I made once fwiw. Left to right:

135/3.5 Canon (uncertain year)
Summitar coated 10-blade (1950)
9cm Elmar painted (1934)
8,5cm f2 Nikkor-P.C (uncertain year)
50 Summilux Asph
90 Elmarit-M
35 Summilux 35 Asph II
50 f1.4 Canon EF

The Elmar 9cm is a pretty large lens, it seems. I think I might use it on my Bessa T which is a much larger camera than the IIIf. Anyone try using it on a III? Does it make holding the camera somewhat more difficult?

 

[Red Robin]

Len use

Len use

My 9cm/4 sees service on a Canon P and sometimes a Bessa R. My copy hails from 1938/9 era it's a bit front heavy to leave on so I let it take turns with a Jupiter 12 and a CZJ 5cm 1.5 .

 

[ottluuk]

Well, the LTM version looks downright small on an M body so it's all relative. It is quite long, but very thin. Mine is coated, from 1953, IIRC. The lens is a bit mushy wide open (good for portraits, I guess) but becomes sharp from f/5.6 and seems to improve somewhat all the way to f/11. OOF rendering is excellent, especially in combination with good center sharpness at the middle apertures. Contrast is good - it's only a 4-element lens after all.

The biggest problem with the 9cm Elmar seems to be its annoying tendency to flare. It's kind of unpredictable mix of heavy veiling and light blobs. Stopping down doesn't help much. Part of it is definitely because I don't have a decent hood for it - I should remedy that soon.

Due to cheap price, excellent pocketability and nice, if vintage, look - highly recommended!