90mm Elmar - C on ZI?

[tedwin]

Hello

I am on the look out for a cheap, compact, nicely performing lens to use with the 85mm framelines on my ZI. I have spotted a 90mm Elmar - C for sale locally to me, at what appears to be a good price. From the serial number I think it was manufactured in 1973.
Some reports suggest that the CL lenses sometimes have problems on some M mount bodies, has anyone used one on the ZI? Any problems?

I am new to rangefinders in general and would also appreciate any input on the lens. Example pictures would be nice if you're feeling generous or have something that you are particularly proud of and can't resist posting with the smallest excuse 🙂

I would use the lens for portraits and landscapes, I don't mind the f4 max aperture provided it is usable, ie not too much softer than f5.6 in the centre.

Thanks in advance.

Ted.

 

[noimmunity]

I cannot say anything about the Elmar in question. (I think there is one version you need to be careful about).
A 90 will work fine with the 85 frames.
The Nikkor 85/2 is also a fine candidate for your needs. The chrome version can be had for $2-400. It is excellent for portraits, especially in B&W; stopped down it is also good for landscapes. For landscapes, especially colour, the CV 90/3.5 is your best deal (the colours are true and the lens is razor sharp at infinity); for portraits at close distance it seems too harsh to me, but a softar filter might fix that. My personal feeling is that portraits are better done with shorter lenses like a 75 (CV makes a great one), or with 135, instead of 90s.

There are plenty of options. Enjoy your search!

 

[tedwin]

Thank you seems like lots of options, I also like the idea of the Hexanon if I can find a cheap one.

So no one actually tried this combination?

 

[scottwallick]

I have both the Leitz Elmar-C 90mm f/4 and Minolta M-Rokkor 90mm f/4. Both bring up the 85mm framelines on my ZI.

I would suggest the M-Rokkor over the Elmar-C. First, the Elmar-C has an oddly pitched filter screw (Series 5,5). Second, the Elmar-C is known for suffering from flare excessively. Third, the M-Rokkor will be 80% the cost because it doesn't have "Leitz" engraved in block type across the barrel.

You're not going to be able to find hoods for the Elmar-C outside of the rubber Leica hood. This hood disintegrates after a year of use. They are no longer made, i.e., each must be ≥30 yrs old.

The M-Rokkor takes sensible 40.5mm screw-in filters/hoods are, in my experience, are more easily found in near mint condition.

I can post a pic upon request.

 

[photo4ls]

The 90 Elmar is a flare monster😱 w/out a hood, otherwise
fairly sharp. I bought my hood from this person on e-bay
(old_cam) and he seems to ship pretty quick. You may
want to shoot in open shade whenever possible.

Nelson

 

[scottwallick]

I bought my hood from this person on e-bay (old_cam) and he seems to ship pretty quick.

Does that hood screw-in completely? Or does it sort of screw-in? The Elmar-C has the 0.75-pitched thread. See these posts for more on the CL lenses.

 

[Al Kaplan]

If you can locate one of those old fashioned Series VI hoods and still have the tattered remains of the rubber hood trim off the rubber. You can then slide it into the rear of the hood. A bit of epoxy will secure it.

The 90mm Rokkor-CLE made for the later Minolta CLE is multi-coated and made by Minolta. The earlier Rokkor-C made for the Minolta CL is single coated, but it was made in Germany by Leitz. The only difference between it and the Elmar-C is the filter thread size.

The 85mm f/2 Nikkor is a great lens. It's also an extremely heavy lens.

 

[monopix]

As I'm sat here reading this, I have this sat beside me...

Not sure it's the same Elmar you're thinking of but, anyway...

I would recommend it. Maybe I haven't used all the other lenses suggested so can't compare, but I've never had any complaints of the Elmar. I don't use a hood with it and I've never noticed any real problems with flare. I like it for it's compactness when carrying.

Here's one picture I took recently with it though, as a small jpg it won't tell you very much I guess.