Roger Hicks
Veteran
I agree totally. So must a lot of other people, or old Leica lenses wouldn't cost as much. But there's 'character' I like, and 'character' I don't (Summarons, for a start).
Cheers,
R.
why are elmar 90 prices so reasonable?
- Thread starter paulfish4570
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 39
- Views 5K
I agree totally. So must a lot of other people, or old Leica lenses wouldn't cost as much. But there's 'character' I like, and 'character' I don't (Summarons, for a start).
Cheers,
R.
Ron (Netherlands)
Well-known
The 90mm and 135mm are easiest lenses to make. They are quite simple lens designs, anyhow the elmars and hektors are. That is the main reason why they are relatively cheap. But watch out. Many 90mm elmars I had in my hand didn't have clear lenses anymore; it is hard to find a good one. The Elmarits are much better corrected lenses but I doubt they were made in LTM. The Summicrons are expensive and very heavy, so not easy in use. With a Barnack I would go for the 90mm elmar that was made for it, its a nice tiny traveler.
As the Summaron was mentioned- there are two, the 35/3.5 and 35/2.8. I found the latter to be quite good. The 35/3.5 Summaron was a big improvement over thr 35/3.5 Elmar.
Tompas
Wannabe Künstler
The 90mm Elmar is good, but its very long focus throw (on Bessas, at least) makes it very slow in handling.
And rangefinders are for wide angles, remember? 😉
And rangefinders are for wide angles, remember? 😉
Last edited:
paulfish4570
Veteran
i figure it would be just fine for family portraits and the occasional pretty flower ... 🙂
back alley
IMAGES
don't forget the cv 90...a lens with a very good rep.
kermaier
Well-known
Roger, is it the 35/3.5 Summaron you don't like or the 35/2.8, or both? (I haven't used the 28/5.6, but I'd guess that's not worth discussing.)
::Ari
bfffer
Established
it seems most CV lens has good reputations.
i have tried the 35mm f1.9 LTM only...
it is very sharp.
i have tried the 35mm f1.9 LTM only...
it is very sharp.
Last edited:
kbg32
neo-romanticist
I love the Elmar-C. Small, sharp, and great color/contrast.
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
I had a 90mm Elmarit but I still have my '37 uncoated 9cm Elmar...
I just like how my photos from it look better than I did the results from the Elmarit.
Well enough, in fact, that when I find a similar vintage, uncoated 50 Elmar I will be buying that to try.
Rob
I just like how my photos from it look better than I did the results from the Elmarit.
Well enough, in fact, that when I find a similar vintage, uncoated 50 Elmar I will be buying that to try.
Rob
Roger Hicks
Veteran
rogerzilla
Well-known
I like my Summaron 35/3.5. It flares horribly in the wrong conditions but I think it just needs a clean; there is a fair bit of dust in there. It's quite sharp enough.
andredossantos
Well-known
I have a 2.8 Summaron and it's as sharp as both 35mm Noktons and sharper than the Ultron @ 2.8. Maybe I just had "bad" copies of the Voigtlanders? I was quite surprised upon first using the Summaron just how sharp it was for an older lens. Quite shocked actually.
I also find it's color rendition quite nice. Not my favorite for b&w, however. Anyway, different strokes for different folks, as they say.
I also find it's color rendition quite nice. Not my favorite for b&w, however. Anyway, different strokes for different folks, as they say.
Luddite Frank
Well-known
I think one of the big turn-offs to the f:4 Elmar 90 and f:4,5 Hektor 135 are their (relatively) slow speeds...
When the glass in good shape, and the RF in the camera is correctly calibrated, the Elmar and Hektor givce very good results.
I made the mistake of trying to shoot pretty flowers with mine while hand-holding them... long lenses don't tolerate camera movement at slower shutter speeds ( common rule for hand-held shooting is to use a shutter speed no slower than the inverse of the focal length of the lens... almost impossible with an f:4 lens , unless you're shooting fast film...)
When the glass in good shape, and the RF in the camera is correctly calibrated, the Elmar and Hektor givce very good results.
I made the mistake of trying to shoot pretty flowers with mine while hand-holding them... long lenses don't tolerate camera movement at slower shutter speeds ( common rule for hand-held shooting is to use a shutter speed no slower than the inverse of the focal length of the lens... almost impossible with an f:4 lens , unless you're shooting fast film...)
Beautiful light Andre.
bigeye
Well-known
If you have a 28mm, 50mm and 90mm lenses, which is the first lens that you leave behind?
.
.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
The 28mm.
Actually, that's not strictly true. It depends on what I'm likely to be shooting. I like having a 50 and a long lens (usually a 135). Sometimes I swap out the 50 for a wide (mine's only 35mm, though), but 50 and 135 suits me fine. As much as I like using 35mm for depth-of-field purposes, for composition and focal distance I'm much fonder of longer lengths.
As such, if I could find an affordable collapsible Elmar 90, I'd be all over it like a rash.
Last edited:
Depends on what I'm going to be doing... I may leave the 28mm and 90mm home.
hipsterdufus
Photographer?
Do it, Paul! I love this lens for portraits. For women, just set it at f4.0 and shoot. Easy stuff.
Sarah Portrait by KrausePhoto, on Flickr
Sarah Portrait by KrausePhoto, on Flickr
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Similar threads
