differences in 9cm f4 Elmars

[yossarian123]

Hello all. I'm pretty much a noob to RFF, I've been shooting Nikon most of my life but now I'm trying to build a small, relatively inexpensive SM kit. I've got a IIIa, 50/2 summitar, 50/3.5 FED, 21/4 voigtlander, and I'm now thinking about getting my hands on a 90/4 Elmar. from my limited research, I've found out the prewar Elmars are uncoated while anything after that is coated. I also see variants with a 36mm filter size and a 39mm filter size. What are the differences between the different variants? Anyone care to educate me? I was able to get my hands on a couple of copies today (local shop), seems the 36 was the smaller (prewar?) and the 39 was the coated. The 39 also was a combination of chrome and leather (at the bottom). BTW, the shop I looked at had the smaller Elmar for $150 (with HEAVY brassing and a severely dented filter ring) and the chrome for $180 (some brassing and a fairly moderate amount of internal haze). I passed them up, thinking the price was too high. Was I right? Sam

 

[Rico]

The 4-element Elmar 90 had a long run from 1930 to the 1960s without change of design, according to E Puts, although postwar coating did boost the contrast. The postwar barrel designs vary, with the vulcanite band appearing in 1950, and the standard E39 thread two years later. E39 is handy for the readily available lens caps and IUFOO hood. Even in these inflationary times, you should score a user-grade postwar with good action and no haze for $100. I love the postwar Elmar and have three in M mount: late rigid, collapsible, and 3-element. Am currently looking for a late rigid LTM.

 

[yossarian123]

thanks for the help. Kind of disconcerting - the lens itself seems to be really inexpensive, but getting the right lens hood for it will probably add $100-200 to the total price. But I assume it's probably necessary, especially with an uncoated lens.

I'll keep my eyes out for a good deal. I was leaning towards the prewar version only because of the smaller size. After lugging around so much SLR gear for years, I'm really wanting a tiny 3-4 lens kit...

 

[Ronald M]

Uncoated lenses will give a flat pastel look to the colors. Coating is a big step forward unless you want the old look.

All the old ones are not the same design, but work about the same. There were some slight glass changes. 4 is a little soft. 5.6 is quite sharp. Buy a lens shade.

39mm filter are all bayonet, unsuitable for you. Performance is no better unless you get the three element or even better the the current collapsible which is so different it only shares the name.

The very best in screw mount is CV 90 3.5 APO.

 

[FrankS]

The M39 screw in filter (12550) for the recently discontinued 50f2.8 Elmar lens makes a nice lens hood for the 90f4 Elmar.

 

[colyn]

39mm filter are all bayonet, unsuitable for you.

There were some 39mm filter mount 9cm f/4 Elmars made in screwmount. However you'll pay more for them since most owners seem to think they are gold..

 

[rbiemer]

I own a 1937 9cm Elmar and it is my favorite short tele.
Uncoated and I did find an adapter so I can use screw in filters/hood.
That is the SOOGZ and it was just about the same price as the Elmar but I consider it money well spent; I can use it on a few of my other lenses and[more importantly] I can share filters between them--CV 21, CV 35, Leica 50 Elmar, and the 9cm Elmar.
The prices your local shop asks seem a bit high to me, you might see what KEH or MW Classics has on offer.
Rob

 

[yossarian123]

So is the FIKUS hood for the 36mm filter versions and the IUFOO for the 39s?

 

[Rico]

So is the FIKUS hood for the 36mm filter versions and the IUFOO for the 39s?

Correct. A user-grade IUFOO should cost under $50. Feel free to use no hood - I rarely do. Simply minimize your shooting into the sun.