90mm f4 Elmar: why so cheap?

[Merkin]

I have been seeing 90mm f4 Elmar lenses in supposedly excellent condition in various places for 70 to 150 bucks. Why are these lenses so much cheaper than seemingly every other Leica lens in history? At that price, is it worth having one for the rare occasions when I might need a long lens? I did a search on flickr for "90mm f4 elmar," and the results looked surprisingly good for a 100 dollar lens. What's the deal?

 

[erikhaugsby]

Here are a few of the reasons I've found:
1. 90mm is a long lens (for an RF)
2. f/4 isn't exceptional
3. it's old/it has an LTM mount
4. it's common.

Much like some of Leica's 135mm lenses, the 90/4 has never been an expensive lens on the used market.

 

[MCTuomey]

because it's f4, i think. the 90/4 rokkor, same kind of thing. wonderful deals. i have a tele-elmarit thin myself - similarly overlooked, but a good value. if you're not always in lowlight, i agree with your comment: great to pick one up for occasional use.

 

[bcostin]

I've been seriously considering adding a 90mm LTM lens to my kit. I think it'd be a handy focal length to have for outdoors use. Particularly since they're relatively cheap.

 

[John Robertson]

Between 1931 and 1964 Leitz made 114,000 of them (Rogliatti gives fig as 113,808) so I would guess that there are quite a few left!!

 

[Rayt]

I have one of those M mount 90/4 lenses from the 50's and was quite surprised how well it performed, much better than the old uncoated LTM version I once had.

 

[benno]

I'm quite happy with my 90mm f4 Elmar in M mount.

Here's a sample:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/benhew/2789563290/

 

[dlove5]

When I want to travel light and still take 90, I go with my 90mm f4 LTM Elmar. It takes up very little room and is fine when you don't need faster than f4.

 

[payasam]

I'd say the arrival of the 90 Elmarits and Summicrons knocked out the Elmar. It remains a fine lens, handy and optically impeccable. I have done decent work with it and how have what might be called its descendant, the CV Apo Lanthar.

 

[Tom A]

The 90 Elmar f4/0 is a rather simple formula, but sometimes that works better! It is, in the later, coated form a very good lens. It got overshadowed by the faster lenses - but when there is sufficient light - it is more than good enough. It is also a good portrait lens @f4 - though a bit too sharp!
My favorite version of it is the collapsible one. Leica took a simple design and added a complex, collapsing function with interlocks and nice shiny barrel. It is a thing of beauty! One of my favorite Leica items. Heavy and "mechanical" - and not a bad performer either. I suspect that the Apo Lanthar 90 from CV is a better performer (it is certainly sharper) - but the 90f4 Elmar is more "mellow" in its contrast.

 

[Uwe_Nds]

... It is also a good portrait lens @f4 - though a bit too sharp!
...

Tom,
I fully agree!

Cheers,
Uwe

 

[Dave Wilkinson]

I've been seriously considering adding a 90mm LTM lens to my kit. I think it'd be a handy focal length to have for outdoors use. Particularly since they're relatively cheap.

Don't discount the humble 85mm - f2 J9!
Dave.

 

[yanidel]

Don't discount the humble 85mm - f2 J9!
Dave.

I agree, at the same price point than the 90mm Elmar, I think the J9 is a better alternative. Resolves better and has two stops more. It is bigger but little difference in weight.

 

[Merkin]

Thanks for the advice everyone!

At the price, i think I will pick up a 90mm elmar when I pick up the rest of my kit. I am hesitant to buy any FSU glass, even though I have heard some good things about some of the lenses, because I spent too much money on "lomography" gear before I realized how much of a marketing scam the whole thing is.

 

[Nokton48]

I'm using my collapsible Elmar on my M5 today, and I really enjoy using it. I have the original correct Elmar lenshood and reverse cap for it, and applied Dymo labeling tape on the barrel, so it can't damage my M5. Nice and light and -very- sharp. Build quality is truly amazing, absolutely a delight to me.

If I want -fast- I pack my 90mm f2 V1 Summicron, or my 85mm f1.5 Canon. Sold my J9 when I got the Canon.

 

[ZorkiKat]

Thanks for the advice everyone!
..... because I spent too much money on "lomography" gear before I realized how much of a marketing scam the whole thing is.

If those scammers ever got hold of Elmar 90 stocks, expect the prices to go up. Imagine them hoodwinking people:

"Rare Elmar lens! Was made in very limited quantities...The old Tessar formula and small f/4 aperture will guarantee long exposures for those excellent blurred shots....Yours only for $900.00..." 🙂

Good thing you saw the light, and chose the right path 😀 😀

BTW, though J-9 are good, it's easier to pick up a 9cm Elmar which is likely to work right out of the box. I like the J-9 (so much that I have 10 of them), but many suffer from focusing issues. The complexity of the J-9 is its Achilles Heel. Elmar 9cm lenses are so simple that hardly anything can go wrong with its design. J-9 and Elmar 9cm go for about the same price now.

 

[januaryman]

Don't discount the humble 85mm - f2 J9!
Dave.

Agreed. I have one too. BTW Dave, the first and third are outstanding photos!😱

 

[Dave Wilkinson]

Agreed. I have one too. BTW Dave, the first and third are outstanding photos!😱

Thanks Jim, -I must have struck lucky with my '58 example, had an Elmar too, one time, but prefer this Sonnar copy!
Happy Christmas, Dave

 

[charjohncarter]

If it hasn't been mentioned, it is a most compact 90mm lens. So, I use it which I don't with my other teles especially SLR teles.

 

[Merkin]

With this lens, how much of a difference can you tell in sharpness between an object that has been precisely focused on, and an object that is within the hyperfocal distance? In other words, if, with the aperture at f/22, i set the hyperfocal distance at infinity, would everything between infinity and 15-20 feet (a guess, i haven't gotten a good look at they hyperfocal scale on the lens) be acceptably sharp? In the past, I have used some lenses where this was the case, and some where it was not.

Thanks again for all of the great replies!