Short Tele for M4-2

[roscoetuff]

Looking in the short telephoto range, I see the Zeiss ZM 85mm/4 and the more expensive Leica Elmarit-M 90mm/2.8 as small candidates. The Elmarit might be handier inside, but as a Zeiss man, the 85mm would probably fill the bill at less cost. Size is comparable.

Curious whether anyone's used the 85mm on an M body (duh) and can share some experience as to whether the 90mm frame lines are "good enough". I just got my M4-2 yesterday and only have a 35mm to try on it, so I don't even know whether the 85mm would trigger the right frame lines or not.

Please advsie. Thanks!

 

[x-ray]

I haven't owned the V2 Elmarit but have owned pretty much all the others. My favorite 90 is the V1 Elmarit. It's the one with the removable optical head not the Tele-Elmarit. It light and thin and renders like your V2 rigid and DR Summicrons. It's sharp at all apertures and moderate contrast. Color is beautiful too. For some reason they're overlooked so they're a good bargain.

If f4 is ok then look at the 90 Elmar C or the Rokkor for the CL. They're modern rendering ,very small and tack sharp. They're cheap also.

 

[ferider]

Using 85mm with 90mm frame-lines is not a problem at all - a lot of us do it.

I never understood the attraction of the expensive Elmarit-M or the Tele-Tessar, as there is the outstanding Tele Elmarit in the used market, and:

1) the Tele Elmarit is smaller than the Tessar, tiny really (61mm vs. 95mm length)
2) it's usually cheaper, you can get a good used TE (look for one with "90" on focus barrel) for US 500 - 600 these days
3) the TE is a full stop faster and a great lens, optically.
4) if you are OK with f4 and the Tessar formula, I recommend a 90/4 Elmar-C, or the equivalent and better built 90/4 CLE Rokkor. Both can be had for around US 300 or so. Very sharp lenses, same size as Tele Elmarit.

To give you a feel of performance, any of the lenses above outperform a type 240 sensor f4 and above, and are sure sharp enough for film.

Speaking of size, even v3 pre-asph and APO Summicrons are smaller than Tele Tessar. A good v3 Summicron runs below US 1000, makes beautiful images, and is very sharp from f2.8 onwards. Obviously 2 additional stops can be very useful on film.

Roland.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

85 in 90 frames is no big deal at all.

I've had 90 f4 Elmar on IIf and sold it. Now I'm selling same, but in M mount after trying it on M-E. 🙂 Those are amazingly sharp and nice rendering lenses in 100$ price range for LTM and bellow 200$ price range for M. Sharp at f4 and bokeh is great. Elmarit-M 90 f4 is collapsible, btw. I don't think Zeiss 85 4 is as small as this one.



at f4.

 

[Laviolette]

I will second X-Ray for the 90mm F4 Elmar or Rokkor. I have the Rokkor and it's an excellent lens. It's small and light, and the rendering is sharp and very contrasty. I think it matches well the rendering of my 35mm C-Biogon. Wide open, the Rokkor doesn't have the flare resistance of the C-Biogon though because the contrast will drop a bit if there's a light source near the frame. But overall it is a great lens if you can live with F4.

 

[kermaier]

You could also look for a CV 75/2.5 Skopar in LTM -- really a great lens and quite compact. And the 75mm frame lines are much more usable than the 90mm frame.
If you need a but more reach, there's also the CV 90/3.5 Lanthar in LTM, which I haven't used, but is also quite compact and is reputedly excellent.

 

[Roger Hicks]

You could also look for a CV 75/2.5 Skopar in LTM -- really a great lens and quite compact. And the 75mm frame lines are much more usable than the 90mm frame.
If you need a but more reach, there's also the CV 90/3.5 Lanthar in LTM, which I haven't used, but is also quite compact and is reputedly excellent.

Both are excellent. I've used both and own the Apo-Lanthar.

For silly-cheap, with a charm of its own, consider the 85/2 Jupiter-9: a wonderful portrait lens.

Cheers,

R.

 

[cz23]

I just got a 90 Lanthar for my MM. I have not shot longer than 50 in years and didn't want to spend too much. Like new for $299.

The reviews I read rate it very highly and so far I'm liking it. But it has more of a classic rendering, very unlike my ZMs. There are a couple shots with it at the end of the Monochrom thread.

John

 

[ferider]

Agree with you on the quality of the 75/2.5, Andy, but unfortunately the OP uses an M4-2. Then again, he could just use a 90mm LTM adapter ...

Here is the Tele Elmarit @f5.6 on the 240, hand-held

and here is a non-center crop of the above image (look at the top border, ~11:30 o'clock):

Roland.

 

[coelacanth]

2) it's usually cheaper, you can get a good used TE (look for one with "90" on focus barrel) for US 500 - 600 these days

Interesting. The ones with "90" on barrel got better coating than those without? I've seen something like 1974 copy without "90" and 1980 ish with the marking.

 

[Godfrey]

Using 85mm with 90mm frame-lines is not a problem at all - a lot of us do it.
...
4) if you are OK with f4 and the Tessar formula, I recommend a 90/4 Elmar-C, or the equivalent and better built 90/4 CLE Rokkor. Both can be had for around US 300 or so. Very sharp lenses, same size as Tele Elmarit.

I agree: the frame lines are close enough for either 85 or 90 mm.

The Leica Elmar-C 90mm f/4 and M-Rokkor 90mm f/4 are more than just equivalents: In fact, the M-Rokkor 90mm f/4 was made in Wetzlar on the same production line as the Elmar-C until Leica discontinued the CL and Minolta replaced their "Leitz/Minolta CL" with the Minolta CLE.* Then production of this lens moved to Japan. Unless Minolta recalculated it and added multicoating, there should be no difference between them in performance or build quality.

* The only difference between the Elmar-C and M-Rokker versions is the front bezel and the filter thread; the M-Rokkor 90 takes the same 40.5mm JIS threaded filters as the M-Rokkor 40mm f/2 where the Elmar-C takes the German DIN-sized filter. Both say "Made in Germany" on the barrel. Later—CLE time—production M-Rokkor branded models say "Made in Japan" on the barrel.

The M-Rokkor 90mm f/4 that I have now is an early one. It's the second one I've owned, the first being the one I bought for my second CL in the 1990s; this one I bought in 2011. It's a little lighter than the Tele-Elmarit 90mm f/2.8 lens that is almost the same size but no less a wonderful performer. Wide open at f/4, exposures show a modest amount of light fall-off at the corners and edges; this cleans up by f/5.6. It has worked brilliantly on my Ricoh GXR-M, Leica CL, M4-2, M9, M-P typ 240, M-D typ 262, and SL; and is so tiny that I can't imagine leaving it home if I go on travel. I believe I paid $320 for this one in immaculate condition with original caps and hood; I added a metal screw-in hood from seller "heavystar" on Ebay.

Once upon a time I had a Summicron 90/2 and later an Elmarit-M 90/2.8. The old Summicron was large and heavy, the Elmarit-M 90/2.8 a little less so. I've not seen much real reason to prefer either of those over the M-Rokkor 90 other than the additional lens speed.

I've no experience with the Zeiss lenses so can't comment on how they perform.

G

... Oh yes, here's a photo made with the M-Rokkor 90mm using the Ricoh GXR-M at Duxford (? sp) Air Show in 2011:

​

It's about a quarter of the APS-C frame ... really needed a 200mm lens ... 🙂

 

[splitimageview]

I've got a perfect collapsible 90/4 Elmar. Many of these are fogged or scratched, but this one has gorgeous glass and cosmetics. The build and the chrome makes it heavier than alternatives but no other 90 takes up less space. 🙂

 

[x-ray]

The 90 Tele Elmarit suffers from veiling flare wide open if you have a light source near the edge of the frame. I owned one for a few years and the only appeal in my opinion is it's slightly shorter than the v1 Elmarit. Also the V2 Tele Elmarit can have spots form in the rear cell grouping which is a sealed unit and not readily repairable.

 

[Robert Lai]

I have the last version of the Elmarit M, with the pull-out hood. It is compact, at about 80mm from the mounting flange to the filter ring. It is dense and a bit heavy however. There is minimal vignetting, and it has high contrast at all apertures. You adjust the aperture only to control the depth of field. Vignetting is gone at f/4. No distortion. It is a daily carry lens, residing in my bag along with the 35mm Summicron ASPH, 50mm Summicron (non-ASPH).

I have the Voigtlander 75mm f/2.5, which is really a beautiful, classic rendering lens. It is sharp, but not clinically so, and I find it useful indoors for portraits where the 90 may be too long.

I'm a bit of a 75-90mm lens fanatic. Here are my views on some others:

Elmar 9cm f/4 uncoated pre-war (1936). Very vintage feeling images with somewhat lower contrast. Sharp in the center wide open, but edges melt away. Sharp stopped down. Watch for haze. I had DAG clean and overhaul mine.
Great deal for $100, and you can use a 34mm screw in lens hood (bought on ebay) instead of some hard to find original Leica hood for this.

Voigtlander 90mm f/3.5 Apo-Lanthar. Mine came out of the box back focusing. I didn't realize it until after the warranty period. I sent it to DAG, who said that there was "no more adjustment room" for him to correct it. I discussed this with Stephen Gandy, who sent the lens back to Cosina Voigtlander in Japan who serviced it at no charge to me. Stephen has great customer service, I may add.
I think it may still back focus about 1cm, but I'm not going to complain at this point in time. The round trip to Japan and back to the US was several months. It may also be my anxiety when focusing the lens for the first test shots. I'll repeat the testing one of these days. Overall, if it's adjusted properly, it's a very fine lens. Build quality is not the same as the Leica, and there is more light fall-off wide open. No distortion, and not prone to flare either. Thin, small and light lens in physical dimensions.

Nikon 8.5mm f/2 PC in LTM. The classic David Douglas Duncan Nikon Sonnar. It's come back from an overhaul at DAG (clean the lens elements, get oil off aperture blades). So far, I haven't actually taken a picture with it, so I have no comments. However, there are plenty of good words about this lens online.

Mine came with a Nikon 8.5cm viewfinder, which was hazy. I took the elements apart and cleaned them, but in backlight I can still see some flare through the finder. The Canon 85mm viewfinder that I have is superior.

Canon 85mm f/1.9 in LTM. Chrome, and HEAVY. As with all my vintage lenses, mine was serviced by DAG upon receipt from the seller. This focuses sharply wide open and at minimum focus distance. Very nice rendition, with less contrast than the modern Leica Elmarit M. If it wasn't so heavy, and I wasn't so lazy I'd use it more often. Mine came with a very nice Canon 85mm viewfinder with parallax correction. This one is clear and doesn't flare in backlighting, unlike the Nikon VF that I have.

In terms of viewfinders (for LTM cameras), I also have the Leica SGVOO. It's nice, but the parallax correction is by a lower line in the frame, not by a distance dial on the finder. I like the Canon over this.

With an M4-2, you won't need any of the viewfinders, but I'm mentioning this for completeness.

Jupiter 9, 8.5cm f/2 aluminum body in LTM. Mine was fine at infinity. As you focused closer, the problem with the lens register appeared, and it was severely out of focus at minimum focus distance. Unless you like taking lenses apart and shimming them, I'd avoid this lens.

SLR:
Canon 85mm 1.2 L in new FD. Really a fantastic lens. Needs a lot of care at f/1.2, as the depth of field is razor thin.

Nikon 85mm f/1.4 AF-D. I think I would have preferred the AIS version, only because the manual focusing action is not as smoothly damped on the AF version. I don't own any AF Nikon cameras. However, there is nothing wrong with this lens' imaging ability.

Nikon 105 f/2.5 AIS. A classic Nikon lens. Designed to be flattering by leaving residual spherical aberration wide open. Stopped down, as sharp as can be. Long focus throw means that the lens needs accurate focusing. Even 50 feet is not infinity on this lens. My Leica Summicron 50 behaves the same way.

 

[x-ray]

Nikon 105 f/2.5 AIS. A classic Nikon lens. Designed to be flattering by leaving residual spherical aberration wide open. Stopped down, as sharp as can be. Long focus throw means that the lens needs accurate focusing. Even 50 feet is not infinity on this lens.

I bought an LTM version of the classic sonnar design 105 Nikkor from a friend a few years ago. He bought it new when it came out and took good care of it. I'll say it's a beauty of a lens in every way just like the v1 Nikkor F mount 105 2.5. It's worth looking at if you want something that long.

My only negative is the long focus throw but it's no problem in use. Also the absence of a 105 frame but it's easy to estimate the framing using the 90 frame.

 

[Daryl J.]

I'll be using a collapsible 90 Elmar tomorrow for the first time on Fomapan 200 and TMax 400. I'm pretty excited to see the results as the subjects are restored old motorcycles.
Foma for a more vintage look, TMax for a vintage twist on a modern film.

 

[IdealCamera]

Pity you are stuck with M4-2.

Otherwise a possibility would the Summicron 75mm APO. Easier to focus, superb sharpness and bokeh. There's one on FredMiranda at $1,925, that you can probably get for $1,850 if you bid right. A steal at such a price.

I recently got such a lens from a dealer and I'm loving it.

 

[ferider]

The 90 Tele Elmarit suffers from veiling flare wide open if you have a light source near the edge of the frame. I owned one for a few years and the only appeal in my opinion is it's slightly shorter than the v1 Elmarit. Also the V2 Tele Elmarit can have spots form in the rear cell grouping which is a sealed unit and not readily repairable.

The fat TE (v1) does flare like you said. The thin one (v2) doesn't, at least not the copies that I used. To avoid spots get a recent copy (when Leica used different glue), serial above 3 Mio or yellow "90" on the barrel.

IThe only difference between the Elmar-C and M-Rokker versions is the front bezel and the filter thread

In addition: there is (1) the Elmar-C, (2) the CL M-Rokkor, and (3) the CLE M-Rokkor.

(1) and (2) have strongly slanted RF cam which gives focusing accuracy issues on some Leicas. (3) has a flat RF cam making it more compatible in my experience.

Roland.

 

[presspass]

Another vote for the thin T-E. Although I have other 90s, this is my go-to lens if I don't need the Summicron's speed. Most came with either a collapsible rubber lens hood or a metal hood - the same one that goes on the 135 Tele Elmar. Used with the hood, flare is not a problem.

 

[f16sunshine]

I'm out of the RF cameras now relying on AF at the moment.
Below are some thoughts and a couple images.

The Apo Lanthar 90 is super. Small. Precise short-ish focus throw. Nice integrated shade. Great value for the dollars spent.

The Heliar 75mm f2.5 was a favorite on the M8 and RD1. I'm not an M4 expert...... does it have 75mm Framelines?
For film 75mm seems to close to 50mm to me literally one step forward or back to get the perspective of either lens as desired (maybe that's just me).

I've also owned the 90mm CLE lens which was super on the M8.
So tiny in the bag when not in use. If you need a part time RF tele lens I think it's the best choice.

Others to mention.
The Nikkor 85 is a super lens. Heavy but not huge. Sonnar look at wide open.
The Canon 85's are all great performers but I disliked the focus action and large size of the lens (f1.9 and f1.5).
Even after CLA the ring felt quite heavy. Great for precision but not comfortable.
Those Canons are also huge. The f1.5/85 is a beast!

I had the Zeiss Opton Contax f2/85mm Sonnar on an Amedeo adapter as well with M8 and RD1. What a lens... a real jewel with that Opton quality and purple coating.

Opton285 6 by Adnan, on Flickr
Opton285 7 by Adnan, on Flickr

One or the other. by Adnan, on Flickr

Opton285 4 by Adnan, on Flickr