Rob MacKillop
Established
First three at home...
First day with the Leitz 90mm f4 on a Monochrom Typ 246
- Thread starter Rob MacKillop
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 19
- Views 550
Rob MacKillop
Established
Second three out and about, starting with a selfie: "Antique Legs":
Thoughts: I love the lens, but need to improve my critical focussing. Having a cataract in my usual focussing eye doesn't help! I like the film-like feel of the outdoor shots. More experimenting will follow.
Thoughts: I love the lens, but need to improve my critical focussing. Having a cataract in my usual focussing eye doesn't help! I like the film-like feel of the outdoor shots. More experimenting will follow.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Did you get an LTM or M mount one, Rob?
I find I'm way more accurate with the 90mm Elmar on a IIIf, especially at longer distances - the magnified rangefinder helps a lot.
But if you're using LTM ones on an M body, you have to make sure you have a good quality adapter. A lot of the cheaper ones (like the Urth ones on Amazon) really don't cut it.
I find I'm way more accurate with the 90mm Elmar on a IIIf, especially at longer distances - the magnified rangefinder helps a lot.
But if you're using LTM ones on an M body, you have to make sure you have a good quality adapter. A lot of the cheaper ones (like the Urth ones on Amazon) really don't cut it.
splitimageview
Administrator
Yes which 90?
Rob MacKillop
Established
Embarrassing confession time: I thought I bought the LTM version for my IIIf, but the M version turned up instead. I checked with Park Cameras, and their ad did say M-Mount. Doh! I could return it, but it’s such a clean copy, and only cost £90, I think I’ll keep it, and maybe get the LTM as well sometime.
I was contemplating getting an adapter for my other LTMs, and even looked at the Urth, so it would be good to get your opinion on which to buy.
I was contemplating getting an adapter for my other LTMs, and even looked at the Urth, so it would be good to get your opinion on which to buy.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Yeah, for £90, it's worth holding onto if it doesn't have any haze at all. Can't really go wrong at that price.
I've tried a couple of LTM-to-M adapters. The biggest problem is rotational alignment - some, like Urth, try to land the lens so that the index mark for focusing is at 12 o'clock. This really doesn't work with any lens that has a partial/tongue-shaped or "shrouded" cam; they should be positioned with the index mark at 1 o'clock, and as a result, the lens either won't interact with the viewfinder at all at some focusing distances (like on the 35mm Summaron), or will focus incorrectly at all distances (any 135mm lens, the 90mm Elmarit).
You should probably also make sure you get ones that have the small cut-out like the one on the right here:
Yes, it means you can't "code" the lenses so that a digital M detects them automatically, but a lot of infinity locks get stuck on the style on the left.
Anyway, it's well worth spending the money on the Voigtlander or Leitz ones, because they'll always work. A lot of other ones will work just fine... until you find a lens where they won't work at all.
I've tried a couple of LTM-to-M adapters. The biggest problem is rotational alignment - some, like Urth, try to land the lens so that the index mark for focusing is at 12 o'clock. This really doesn't work with any lens that has a partial/tongue-shaped or "shrouded" cam; they should be positioned with the index mark at 1 o'clock, and as a result, the lens either won't interact with the viewfinder at all at some focusing distances (like on the 35mm Summaron), or will focus incorrectly at all distances (any 135mm lens, the 90mm Elmarit).
You should probably also make sure you get ones that have the small cut-out like the one on the right here:
Yes, it means you can't "code" the lenses so that a digital M detects them automatically, but a lot of infinity locks get stuck on the style on the left.
Anyway, it's well worth spending the money on the Voigtlander or Leitz ones, because they'll always work. A lot of other ones will work just fine... until you find a lens where they won't work at all.
Duofold RF
Well-known
If your 90mm f/4 Elmar is the three‑element version, it would be a good buy.
Richard G
Veteran
My 90s work very nicely with the original Monochrom. Yours has nice contrast.
Rob MacKillop
Established
I did have the original Monochrom, second hand, but after a year the sensor became unusable. Great pity, as I loved that camera. I was in the wilderness for a while, trying other cameras, but the moment I took my first shot with the Typ 246, I knew I was home and dry. Love it. The original and the 246 are closer to film than the 10 and 11, so I’m not lusting after them.
Rob MacKillop
Established
Is there a way I can find that out?
Richard G
Veteran
Look up 90 Elmars for M mount. There will be pictures. Then look up yours in particular and the third site you visit (?) will tell you the element configuration or even give a diagram.
Is this it?
Leica 9cm f4 Elmar (Type I, Rigid) (ELANG-M / ELGAM / 11830 / 11130)
Leica 9cm f4 Elmar (Type I, Rigid) (ELANG-M / ELGAM / 11830 / 11130) Manual focus telephoto lens made for M-mount rangefinder cameras introduced by Leica in 1954. Leica made three different versions of this lens. This is the "Rigid" first version of the lens. It has a removable front lens head...
kamerastore.com
Last edited:
lynnb
Veteran
Very nice results Rob. You’re giving me GAS for an LTM version.
Rob MacKillop
Established
Cheers, Lynn. I must say I’m very pleased with it.
brusby
Well-known
Rob MacKillop
Established
Look up 90 Elmars for M mount. There will be pictures. Then look up yours in particular and the third site you visit (?) will tell you the element configuration or even give a diagram.
Is this it?
Leica 9cm f4 Elmar (Type I, Rigid) (ELANG-M / ELGAM / 11830 / 11130)
Leica 9cm f4 Elmar (Type I, Rigid) (ELANG-M / ELGAM / 11830 / 11130) Manual focus telephoto lens made for M-mount rangefinder cameras introduced by Leica in 1954. Leica made three different versions of this lens. This is the "Rigid" first version of the lens. It has a removable front lens head...
No, Richard, this is it:
Could you please give more clear instructions of where to find out what mine is?
brusby
Well-known
That's not the 3 element version. I believe yours is the higher production f4 Elmar. I have that one too and really like it. But don't be deceived by its low price. If it's clean and without the common time-related problems that can diminish image quality - such as fog, haze, scratches and/or separation -- it is very capable of making wonderful images.
Many people gravitate towards faster lenses, but the designer's task of minimizing aberrations becomes much more difficult, I think exponentially so, as lens speed increases. So, whenever it's important to maximize image quality, I usually tend to favor their smaller, faster brethren, like the one you have and the 3 element version.
Plus it's soooo nice to be able to pack 4 or 5 tiny lenses in a small, light weight camera bag for trekking around the countryside.
Many people gravitate towards faster lenses, but the designer's task of minimizing aberrations becomes much more difficult, I think exponentially so, as lens speed increases. So, whenever it's important to maximize image quality, I usually tend to favor their smaller, faster brethren, like the one you have and the 3 element version.
Plus it's soooo nice to be able to pack 4 or 5 tiny lenses in a small, light weight camera bag for trekking around the countryside.
Last edited:
Rob MacKillop
Established
Thanks, brusby. I'm really surprised at the quality for the price I paid, even if I got lucky there. It's definitely a keeper, and might push out my Minolta M-Rokkor 90mm F4, though I really like that lens too. No harm in keeping both. Further experiments will find which would be best for any given circumstance.
Duofold RF
Well-known
David Murphy
Veteran
These photos are fantastic. The 90/4 is a real winner IMO.
Rob MacKillop
Established
In mine too! 😎
Similar threads
- Article
