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

[rjschell]

Which would you suggest?

 

[Classique]

I would actually suggest Nikkor 10.5cm 2.5. Sonnar formula like earlier nikon AI mount in LTM mount (I believe LTM came first). Amazing build, standard 52mm filter size and most have build in tripod mount. I use it with the 90mm frame line and compensate by tighter framing.

Optical quality is exceptional with creamy bokeh and tack sharp in focus plane - as what you would expect from a sonnar tele. Similar to Contax G 90mm 2.8 but not as clinical looking and more natural.

 

[mdarnton]

That's a good suggestion! In my experience, the 90 Elmar, and I've had three, just ain't that good.

 

[charjohncarter]

That's a good suggestion! In my experience, the 90 Elmar, and I've had three, just ain't that good.

I'll agree with this, too. I have the 90mm Elmar and the 100mm Canon Serenar, which is f4, and I find the Serenar better. I use the Elmar more because of its compact size. And my serenar needs to have the grease in the rangefinder probe loosened up. It only focuses to 7-8 feet.

This is the best I've ever done with the Elmar:

 

[rhl-oregon]

I like my Serenar 100 3.5. It's light as a meringue compared to the first generation chromed brass f4.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

I liked my 90mm Elmar but loved my 10.5cm Nikkor as suggested. The issue is, if I were traveling, I would take the 90mm Elmar simply because its size is fantastic for travel. Half the weight of the Nikkor and a bit shorter as well.

Phil Forrest

 

[Krosya]

Canon is a superb lens. Elmar is just OK, IMO.

 

[uhoh7]

proper comp to nikkor 10.5 is the canon 100/2 which is the better lens IMHO, they are both far more expensive than the 100/3.5 which is fantastic really.

canon 100/3.5 + nex5n

not till the tele-elmarit was it possible to have such performance in so small a package. the canon is still far lighter.

 

[Spicy]

Love my 100/3.5. Tiny and a true featherweight. Great for travel, and fast enough for most stuff except early evening shooting (end of a daylight ISO 100 roll, not really a problem with B&W 1600).

If I could change 1 thing about it I would make the focus faster... It's quite long throw.m click-stops for the aperture would be nice, but it's not really a problem.

 

[Bingley]

The 90 Elmar will give you a softer, lower contrast look, with colors rendered in a more pastel-like hue. The Canon 100/3.5 is sharp with higher contrast and will provide a more modern look; it's a fantastic little lens.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Do be careful, a lot of young and not so young ladies prefer the soft pastel look when being photographed. Harsh is the word they use for sharp contrasty lenses...

Regards, David

 

[philipus]

I agree the Elmar will be pretty soft not only wide open but probably until f8 or so. But it gets significantly better stopped down. Here's one shot at f8-ish. It also depends on the quality of the lenses. Some Elmars are really worn down. MIne's from 1934 and in good shape.

Not sure if it is of interest, and I don't mean to hijack the thread but just to offer a further alternative, but I used to have a Nippon Kogaku 8,5cm which was a nice portrait lens. It's quite heavy and badly balanced with loads of glass at the front of the barrel. Plus the aperture ring rotates with the focus which is annoying. Sounds like a terrible lens to use. But it isn't: provided one accepts its quirks it has a very nice and creamy bokeh and is not overly sharp wide open, which is often nice.

Tender moment | Flickr

 

[charjohncarter]

Hi,

Do be careful, a lot of young and not so young ladies prefer the soft pastel look when being photographed. Harsh is the word they use for sharp contrasty lenses...

Regards, david

This is so true that I made a Polaroid plastic lens for my Pentax 6x7. I did it just for portraits. Here is the Polaroid shot that sold me on the soft look:

 

[uhoh7]

Hi,

Do be careful, a lot of young and not so young ladies prefer the soft pastel look when being photographed. Harsh is the word they use for sharp contrasty lenses...

Regards, david

Point taken. my copy has less contrast than more modern stuff---has slight haze, like the 100/2 even, but files are so friggin sharp that if shot digitally, they can be adjusted as needed.

My sample is also shot in very brilliant March Sun, crystal clear skies. E.g. harsh light.

But the elmar may be a better portrait lens as you imply.

 

[charjohncarter]

When all else fails do a test. Here are images from a Pentax DSLR (APS-C) which makes it only center for the Elmar and the Serenar. The four images are two at f4 and two at f8 for each lens, and they are macro shots. I would say that the Serenar is slightly but not easy to tell sharper, and the Serenar has just very slightly more contrast. You be the judge. Here is the Flickr link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/carter3john/10540719243/ Click on the arrow at right to see the other images.

100mm Serenar at f8

100mm Serenar at f4

90mm Elmar at f8

90mm Elmar at f4

 

[rhl-oregon]

Well well, there's my heavy/light Serenar pair. Nice to see the original product sheet. If the 100 3.5 were a Harry Potter, though, the 85 1.9 is Hagrid.😉

proper comp to nikkor 10.5 is the canon 100/2 which is the better lens IMHO, they are both far more expensive than the 100/3.5 which is fantastic really.

 

[dct]

Hi,

Do be careful, a lot of young and not so young ladies prefer the soft pastel look when being photographed. Harsh is the word they use for sharp contrasty lenses...

Regards, David

I use the Elmar exactly because of it soft/pastel rendering.

 

[aoresteen]

I've had all three - 90mm Elmar, 100mm 3.5 Serenar, and the 105mm 2.5 Nikkor.

I sold them all and got a nice 90mm f/2.8 Tele-Elmarit. Great little lens.

Of the three the Nikkor was the best but was larger & heavier.

I still have a Nikor 105mm f/2.5 that I use with my Contax IIa ('C' engraved).

 

[rjschell]

I just bought a very clean Canon 100mm f/3.5 on ebay for $100. I have come full circle, since I owned one in the late 60's. Sharpness is on par w. my 90 Elmar (I'm not a sharpness freak). However, the Canon is far more flare resistant.
Thanks to all who posted on this thread.

 

[goamules]

I haven't done an extensive test yet, but the prewar Fed 100mm/ F6.3 is a very sharp lens, and of course, even smaller. I had an Elmar 90 or two....sold them. I'm keeping the Fed and the Canon 85 and 135.