Vignetting Elmar 90mm. Suggestion ?

I currently have two Elmar 9cm F4's, and sold off a third. None vignetted like this.

Shine some light through the lens, look for heavy haze. All I can think of.
 
Finder, I respectfully disagree because I rang it through this elmar and a Canon 1.9f, and only the Elmar is showing this issue. The first photo is underexposed, but it also shows vignetting is a bigger problem at wider aperture. thanks
 
raytoei, vignetting is always greater at the larger apertures--nothing surprising there. Also your negative is underexposed and you compensated in your scanning/printing. Since that increased the contrast of the final image, the effect of the vignetting is also emphasized.

I would say there is nothing wrong with the lens. It will vignette more wide open.
 
I have never seen vignettes at this level with any modern short tele lens (at f = 14 mm this is another problem altogether, but not at 90 mm!), Leica no less. Also, the vignette is severest in the upper right corner and almost not there in the lower left (first f/4 pic).
I think the lens is heavily misaligned (just look a the fuzzy images ... no sharpness ... ) [Just look at the corner halos around the center ... oooh how bad these are, reminds me of 19th century glass ...] and/or the lens has spend a significant time under water or very nearly so.

I would use it for a door stop only and go one with life.
 
Last edited:
Were you using a hood???

I've used several 9cm f/4 Elmars over the years and never seen this except when I once used the FIKUS hood at the 13.5cm position.

As Brian said also it could be hazing of the inner element(s)
 
uhligfd said:
Also, the vignette is severest in the upper right corner and almost not there in the lower left (first f/4 pic).
I think the lens is heavily misaligned (just look a the fuzzy images ... no sharpness ... )
Click to expand...

This could be possible if someone has had the lens apart at some time and did not get the element properly positioned BUT....if this was the case tightening the retaining ring would have cracked the element.

uhligfd said:
I would use it for a door stop only and go one with life.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't.... This is too good a lens to discard..
 
Haze on an internal element will not cause vignetting as it would be near a pupil and would simply effect lens transmission--just as the aperture blades do not cause vignetting when stopped down.
 
4397172720_a0a1ddce0f_o.jpg


Taken at F4 90mm, low res scan
 
raytoei@gmail.com said:
Finder, same exposure (either F11 or F8) but with the Canon Lens 1.9, from the same roll. http://retro.ms11.net/canon19.jpg No Hood. Just plain straight shooting. thanks
Click to expand...

Thanks, and that is what I would expect.

Lens always vignette most wide open. So your 90mm will vignette most at f/4 and your Cannon would have similar vignetting at f/1.9. Your cannon will show less at f/8 because it is several more stops closed down--four stops from full for the Cannon compared to two stop for the 90mm. I would expect the Cannon to work better an f/8.

First, in a way this is good news. Your lens is not behaving badly. Try it again with better exposures and processing--you are underexposing and overdeveloping/overcompensating.

I can tell you are not yet ready to take my word. But look through the lens. Is the glass clean? Your images show it is sharp, so focus is not off. If it is clean, what can cause a sharp image yet show abnormal vignetting--these are mass produced optics that don't vary that much.
 
The Elmar 9cm does not vignette: unless, as Colyn said, the wrong hood is used with it. Given that we are speaking of a mechanical phenomenon, haze on an element of the lens cannot cause it. It took me many years, and tests whose results were unambiguous, to realise that vignetting is greater at small apertures.
 
hi.

I uploaded some photos which was taken and developed today, I do not really know how to use flickr, so bear with the poor album format.

I shot this using 4 lens at various aperture and shutterspeeds, the filename gives some clues to the lens used and the exposure settings:

VIG - the elmar 90 with the vignette
Skid - the cheaper elmar 90 with what looks like cleaning marks at the edge of the lens
Hektor - my problematic 135mm which is not usable at F4.5, even at F5.6, the shirt logo tagline can't be seen. It makes a nice soft lens for portrait at F5.6 and above. I wrote about this in a previous posting
Canon-135/F4. This has haze, which could explain why it flares a bit.

Film is Legacy Pro, el is 320. Hot, cloudy afternoon around 2pm, my kid is squinting most of the time...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/11987299@N03/sets/72157623407430929/detail/


Observation:
* The VIG clearly shows vignetting at the edges even at bright afternoon
* Please confirm that your hektor 135 is sharper than mine at f4.5 or even f5.6.
 
Last edited:
Mine doesn't do that. But my bad (terminal internal haze ate the coating) one does get a hot spot in the middle. So I think you have a dud. If the serial number if 600,000 or higher, and it doesn't look coated, then someone has cleaned the coating off the lens, and that's bad.

If you complained it was soft wide-open, I'd be with you. But long-focus lenses just don't have serious light falloff problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Adjusting focus on a new Jupiter-3+
Replies
18
Views
1K
Alizarinus
A
Miles.
Topcor LTM Lens Compendium
2
Replies
21
Views
5K
John Shriver
J
A
90mm Tele Elmarit vs Summarit?
Replies
10
Views
1K
analogpics
A
muf
1932 Elmar 50mm 3.5 - no grip on front ring
Replies
12
Views
1K
muf
muf
jrose125
I bought a Leica III for $50 but there's a catch...
Replies
16
Views
2K
jrose125
jrose125
Back
Top Bottom