Leica 90mm f2.8 Elmarit, (ELRIT-M, 11129), 1959-1974

[Robert Hooper]

I have very recently verbally received glowing reviews from two well known Leica repair people regarding this lens. However, my research on the Internet concerning this Leica 90mm f2.8 Elmarit M version, (not the Tele-Elmarit version), leaves me with a rather ambivalent impression as to its performance, (flare prone). Certainly I would assume a repair person would have their opinion heavily influenced by build quality. However, since I have perhaps what is an opportunity to acquire one of these lenses in fine condition, for a good price, I am disproportionately more interested about it's potential performance and the impression of those who actually own and use this lens.

Aloha and mahalo in advance.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I just got one and have shot two rolls of film and a bunch of M8 pictures with it. I love it. (It's the thin, black, Canadian version.) It is indeed flarey, but in kind of an interesting, hazy way that I think I will be able to use for good artistic effect. The rubber hood that came with it is very helpful.

The whole package is incredibly lightweight...and the build quality is indeed excellent.

 

[Shac]

Robert - are you referring to the Tele-Elmarit or the first version of the Elmarit (S/N 1,645,300 - 2,730,000)? I assume the latter by the dates you give.
I neleive the othr 2 posters are referring to the Tele-Elmarit, which E. Puts feels is not quite as good as the Elmarit (first version).
An advantage of the version 1 is that the head can be used on the Visoflex. I have a copy and find it quite good (I used to have the T-E and agree with the other posters about flare under some conditions)

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Ah, yes, pardon me, I mean the T-E--I misread your title as referring to it.

 

[Robert Hooper]

Mabelsound:

Yes, the Leica 90mm f2.8 Elmarit M, the first version is the one I am attempting to research, and certainly not the Tele-Elmarit version. Confusing, I know.

That's why I'm having so much trouble with Google. Too much specific information in the search box, and I get nothing. Too little specific information, and I get references to every lens Leica ever named Elmarit. That's a lot!

 

[Shac]

Robert - have you see this http://www.imx.nl/photo/downloads/files/llcforweb.pdf
It might help

 

[Robert Hooper]

Thanks Shac,

At least there is some information there, though little in the way of overall performance evaluation.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

The Elmarit is an awesome lens. I tested one for two weeks and shot it constantly while also evaluating a T-E. In the end I let the Elmarit go and kept the T-E based solely upon handling and portability/size. The older lens is wonderful though and only 20mm longer than the smaller tele version. The perfectly circular aperture is very nice for out of focus areas and after f/4, the older optic holds its own against even the newest designs.
I think the Elmarit is no more prone to flare than any of the designs from that era. The build quality is above & beyond anything since though. When used with a 12575 hood, it gets a bit bulkier but flare is reduced and the image quality is top notch.

 

[Robert Hooper]

Thank you so much, Phil. If I can't find an actual comprehensive review, anecdotal testimony by an actual user is absolutely the next best thing.

More first-hand experience with this lens would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks again.

 

[marduk]

Robert, RFF member x-ray spoke so well about this lens (you can find several threads around with a little searching, also see sample), same did Victor Randin who I know in person in this photo.net thread, so I eventually got a chrome Elmarit myself (in addition to a collapsible Elmar), but I haven't used it for anything serious yet. Build quality is impressive though. I've also had a thin T-E and it flared quite a bit.

 

[Robert Hooper]

marduk,

Thank you for the links, especially the photo.net link. Good information and just the kind of discussion I'm looking for.

 

[ruby.monkey]

Focussing is a little slow with this lens - just over 1/2 turn from near to infinity - and it does look a little out of place jutting from the front of an M3; but handling is fine, build and image quality are both excellent, and it's very hard to argue with the price. Shove a IUFOO on the front and flare shouldn't be a problem.

 

[bigeye]

I have one on my IIIf (they built a few in screw mount) and did this shot to test (toward the sun, partial snow coverage, "proof scan" from my little Epson flatbed.

- Charlie

 

[Robert Hooper]

Ruby.monkey,

I've made the purchase. You're right, it does stick out a bit further than my 90mm Summicron-C. Doesn't bother me though. Wow, those IUFOO hoods are not inexpensive.


Bigeye,

Hope I can make images with my "new" 90mm f2.8 Elmarit as nice as the one you posted. If my M sample is as good as your LTM sample, looks like flare will not be much of a problem at all. Did you use the above mentioned IUFOO hood for that shot?

 

[bigeye]

Robert: I used the 12575 hood. I was trying to find a edge, within reason, where bad things might happen. The sun is at about 12 o'clock on a very bright day around 2pm. It looks pretty good to me; flare might be a little overemphasized.

Images have that late '50s-'60s (early-M) look - certainly sharp enough for me today (you can enlarge to see the screwheads in the planking), while still having a lot of the contrast character of the earlier lenses. I think it has a nice smoothness and it's own appeal in comparison to the edgier quality of the newer. I'm delighted by it.

BTW: the lenses are identical between the LTM and M mount, they just made 1500 or so in LTM at the beginning of the run - this is a 1st year, 1959. An advantage on a M will be the bigger VF in low light. I really have to concentrate focusing it in low light with the squinty IIIf, but that is an issue with all teles... er, lenses.

- Charlie

 

[awilder]

I've used the lens and found the "thin" TE to be a bit sharper, especially between f/4-5.6 for distant landscapes. That said, back in the day when the Elmarit and TE were in co-production, Leitz claimed the Elmarit was theoretically better for close work than either TE (fat or thin) because telephoto designs were not especially well suited to close work whereas the Elmarit's triplet design maintained good correction close up. Makes sense given the Elmarit is Visoflex adaptable for close work. Of course, the main reason the Elmarit is Visoflex adaptable is that it's optical unit's design allows enough of a back focus length to couple with the Visoflex's universal bellows or short focus mount to focus from infinity to very close distances.