90mm f/4 Elmar or 100mm f/3.5 Canon?

I haven't used the Canon (though I'd love to pick one up at some point), but my experience with the Elmar 90/4 has been almost universally positive. Granted, I always shoot with a hood and I've made sure the glass is spotless, but I haven't found it to have particularly low contrast. The look is a bit old-fashioned, but that's to be expected I suppose, and I quite like it. The size and weight make it a perfect travel lens, but I understand the Canon is similar.

Just a quick sample:

7May2013-2-16_zpse129efc6.jpg
 
4160901251_1ef6b007b5_z.jpg


An alternative to the Canon 100mm f3.5 - the minuscule 100mm f4.0. Simple three element lens - not bad stopped down though.
Canon L1, Canon 100mm f4.0, Arista Premium 400 in Td 201 split developer.
 
4839656772_3c5656401b_z.jpg


Nikkor 105mm f2.5 on a Nikon S3. Arista Premium 400 in Beutler 1:8 for 11 minutes.
It is a big and rather heavy lens - but one of the best short tele's you will ever find. In screw-mount it is rather expensive though.
 
Always wanted a Canon 100mm but price shut me out. The 90 mm f4 I ended up with is old , pre-war, lens that gives me a nice soft look that can be very appealing. The cost is to me very appealing as this seems to be an extremely under-priced addition to my kit.
 
Thanks Vince for sticking up for the Elmar. As I said in earlier posts I have both lenses and I really can't see any significant difference. I like these Internet myths that down rap the Elmar, I find them hollow and maybe nonusers.
 
I have the collapsible version. except f4 slow aperture. I think it is a good lens.
 

Attachments

  • Leica M3 Elmar 90mmf4085M.jpg
    Leica M3 Elmar 90mmf4085M.jpg
    37.9 KB · Views: 0
  • Leica M3 Elmar 90mmf4093M.jpg
    Leica M3 Elmar 90mmf4093M.jpg
    35.3 KB · Views: 0
Back
Top Bottom