Does anyone have any experience using the 90mm Elmar-C? I know someone who has one available for $375 w/ the hood.

I've been leaning toward the Voigtlander 75f2.5, primarily because it's smaller & lighter than the 90 Elmarit. I also thought the 75 would be easier to compose with, but the framelines for the 90 seem to be easier to work with. I always loved the size/weight of the 90 Tele Elamrit, but have read numerous posts regarding quality control issues of those lenses.

-- KL Prager (www.pragerproperties@worldnet.att.net), February 28, 2001

Answers

Copy of an old posting:

Yes, there may be a problem. It is a great lens but was designed for the Leitz/Minolta CL. The CL lenses have a different, steeper lens focusing cam than normal M and CLE lenses. The CL camera, which does not have to focus f1.0 lenses, has a simpler, shorter based rangefinder mechanism. The M cameras' rangefinder is fine tuned by adjusting the length of the roller arm which means that it can be in a slightly different position horizontally from one camera to another. The short ending to the long story is that quite often the M and CLE camera's rangefinder will not couple to a CL lens correctly. Point the combination at a point at least two miles away and, if everything lines up OK at infinity, it should be fine. If it does couple correctly, bear in mind that it may not work with your next/other body(ies).

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@home.com), February 28, 2001.

John:

As I understand the story, Leica spread the rumor that "not all" of the CL lenses were compatible with the M bodies, and vice-versa so as to not impair sales of the more expensive M lenses, as well as to insure sales of the CL lenses for the CL line. I have a shooting buddy that regularly interchanges their M and CL lenses between their CLE and M6 TTL with no ill focussing, metering or mounting effects. However, there were some wide angle M lenses and collapsible lenses that interfered with the metering "flag" on the CL. There is also the obvious problem of which frame-line a specific lens brings up in which camera, and this is believed to be the "truth" in Leica's claim on incompatibility. To wit, only the 90 CL (or CLE) brings up the correct frameline in the M's; and even worse there is not complte frameline compatibility between the 28 and 40 CL and CLE lenses, as they each bring up separate combinations of framelines in different cameras!

As for the CL 90, it was specifically designed as an f4 because of the short (and thus inaccurate) RF base of the CL; there was enough DOF at f4 on the 90 accomodate any focussing inaccuracies inherent in the CL.

All this being said, I would advise KL Prager to consider an 90 tele- elmarit, as they can usually be had for about the same $375 he quoted for his 90 CL, and he gains a full stop in lens speed. The tele- elmarit also seems to have a fairly good reputation as regards image quality. The older 90 f4 elmarit can be had for even less.

Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), March 01, 2001.

In my experience a good Tele-Elmarit is almost twice as much as the C-Elmar. In fact the Tele-Elmarit is about the same price (when in good condition) as the current Elmarit-M secondhand.

My understanding is that the Elmar-C in both the Leica and Minolta versions is a good lens - and it is certainly, weight wise, a much better match on a CL or CLE than using a current Elmarit-M. There is some possibility that the focussing may not be accurate on a conventional M, but you can probably check this yourself.

You might indeed like to consider the older f4 Elmar which is light (but rather long) - a superb lens and pretty cheap (unless you look at the late, highly sought after, 3 element version) as this will definitely work on the regular M camera.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), March 01, 2001.

I have had personal experience of CL lenses that couple correctly on one M body but not on another while both M bodies accepted M lenses just fine. It is not a big deal if you stick with one body that works but it can (certainly not always) be an issue if you add other M bodies.

-- John Collier (jbcollier@home.com), March 01, 2001.

Thanks to everyone for your comments. I've decided against 90 Elmar-C and will now consider the tele-elmarit. I really love the handling of the tele-elmarit, although a good used one cost between $600 - $800. My main concern about the tele-elmarit though, is what's been said (in previous posts) about the inherent mechanical problems that supposedly affects the image quality. On this basis, I suppose I should also reconsider the current Elmarit as an option. My greatest reservation about the current Elamrit is that its size and weight diminish overall camera handling. For me, this contributes to leaving the lens at home quite more often than not.

-- KL Prager (www.pragerproperties@worldnet.att.net), March 02, 2001.

Ken, one of the main things to watch when buying a T/E 90 (thin version) is fogging. However, I have one and I love it, and take good care of it, and it just suits my purpose and work very well.

PN

-- Paul Nelson (clrfarm@comswest.net.au), March 03, 2001.

Paul,

Thanks for your comments. Can you tell me any details about watching out for 'fogging' on the t/e 90?

Also, do you have the version made in Canada, or Germany? I've heard that the problems reported w/ the cement used on the t/e were 'limited' to certain production runs. I don't know if those problems persisted w/ the ones produced in Germany also, but there were'nt many made there and they command a much higher price.

By the way, did you also consider the current version of the Elamrit 90?

Ken

-- KL Prager (www.pragerproperties@worldnet.att.net), March 04, 2001.

To Robin (and KL prager):

I come across Canadian tele-elmarits in the $400 - $475 range with some regularity. The regular elmarits I see are usually in the $650 - $750 range.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), March 04, 2001.

Jack,

The $600 - $800 range I was referring to is for tele-elmarit's in 'mint' condition. Is this the quality you've been finding these lenses in at those prices? If so, can you refer me to your source?

Thanks,

Ken

-- KL Prager (www.pragerproperties@worldnet.att.net), March 04, 2001.

I would say I've seen a few that were in very good to excellent condition. "Mint" to me means essentially like new. As far as my source, I live in "Silicon Valley", CA, and am simply networked into many different users in the area. If you'd like, I can put out the word, and see what comes up over the next few weeks... As I mentioned, the ones I've seen over the past few months in the lower price range have been Canadian versions. For some reason, they don't seem to get the prices here that the German version gets. Is a Canadian lens okay with you?

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), March 05, 2001.

Jack,

Thanks for your kind offer to help find me a 90 t/e at a reasonable price. I actually spoke w/ a source I've done business with before and found one at a price I'm happy with. However, I was also able to clarify the issue about the cement used with this particular lens. Apparently, the way this lens is cemented together makes it very difficult to clean and/or repair. This issue has been raised before in other posts, but I didn't understand the problem clearly. So, now I'm uncertain about proceeding with the t/e, or not. BTW, the Canadian lenses are fine by me, as I'm a photographer, not a collector. Thanks again for your comments.

Ken

-- KL Prager (www.pragerproperties@worldnet.att.net), March 05, 2001.

Ken:

I just found a pretty clean TE for $400. Has some dust, and a little oil on the blades; but the glass is mint, with no separation, no scratches or cleaning marks. It is so small and light compared to my new APO/ASPH, I might want to try it! Perhaps I'll do a comparison and see how it fares... Good luck in your search for a 90!

P.S. I also ran across an older "Wetzlar" elmarit for just under $300.

Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), March 06, 2001.

Jack,

Good luck w/ your comparison between the 90 APO Asph & the 90 t/e. Let us know how it turns out.

Take care,

Ken

-- KL Prager (www.pragerproperties@worldnet.att.net), March 06, 2001.