How sharp is the 3 element Elmar considered? This lens is small and quite expensive as a collectible, but how does it stack up against the 90 Summicron's and Elmarit's? Does the rotating lens elements affect the sharpness of the images, how and why?

Mark J.

-- Mark A. Johnson (logic@gci.net), July 08, 2001

Answers

Elmar is a 4 element three group design. I don't think there is any 3 element Elmar.

3 element triplet is Cooke type lens first made by Taylor Taylor and Hobson.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), July 08, 2001.

11730 (screw) and 11830 (Bayonet).

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), July 08, 2001.

Actually, most 90mm Elmars were 3-element designs. If you're thinking of M-mount (BM) Elmars only, then the 11830 in 2 different designs, were 3 element designs. The Leica Collectors Guide lists...

1) Fat Elmar ELANG(SM), 1931-1932, 3 element with the 2 rear elments cemented. 2) Thin Elmar ELANG(SM), 1933-1951, 3 element but with slimmer mount. 3) New-Style Mount 11730(SM) & 11830(BM), 1951-1963, still 3 element. 4) Rigid 11130(BM), 1954-1963, 4 element introduced with M3. Collapsible 11131, 1954-1968, 4 element BM design. 5) New Optical Glass Design still 11830(BM), 1964-1968, 3 element design.

I don't know how all these versions compared with each other. However, rotating front elements don't generally affect optical quality. They're just a nuisance when it comes to square shades and polarizing filters.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), July 08, 2001.

I am particularly interested in the Elmar 90, 11830 Bayonet manufactured from 1964 to 1968 composed of 3 elements. According to HOVE this was a limited production of a little over 6000 units. This is not the same as the 11830, code ELANG-M manufactured from 1949 to 1963.

-- Mark J. (logic@gci.net), July 09, 2001.

Correct. Somewhat of a forgotten lens I think. I can't seem to find any information on performance, except that it is supposed to be "superior" (in what way?) to the previous 4-element 11130, due to rare earth glass and improved design. It was somewhat of an oddity though, becuse it wasn't significantly cheaper than the 2.8 Tele Elarit available at the same time. However, this Elmar did have a non- rotating mount - meaning the front element did not rotate while focusing.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), July 09, 2001.

I thought Zeiss loves 3 element design, I dont't know Leitz was also in the business. Some Zeiss 3 element lenses are awfully expensive, for example the Zeiss Hologon wide angle lens.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), July 09, 2001.

Mark,

I just checked my "Leica Lens Compendium" from Erwin Puts. The following information was found. The f/4.0 90mm Elmar was introduced in 1964. While previous lenses had four elements in three groups, this lens had only three elements in three groups. Erwin states that the full aperture performance is better that the four element predecessor. Definition of fine detail is better, and contrast is higher. Edge performance is also improved. This lens at f/4.0 (wide open) out performed the 1959 f/2.8 Elmarit at the same (one stop down) aperture.

This lens was introduced concurrently with the f/2.8 Tele-Elmarit (1964), and the Elmar was the lens of choice between the two if close- up performance via a bellows was needed. Close-up performance is higher with the 3 element Elmar. Erwin compliments Leica for realizing that at that time, it was not possible to offer a single lens that had good performance in all ranges and speed, so by introducing both lenses, photographers could optimize the performance they need by choosing between these two lenses.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), July 09, 2001.

Pardon me for lumping this question on. Recently I bought a non- collapsible 4-element Elmar 90mm f/4, serial no. 1822014. It's neither expensive (for a Leica lens--less than US$ 250) nor a collectible item. The salesperson said that the 3-element version was an expensive collectible item. But one thing puzzles me; from the serial number and the lens' appearance, it should be a M-mount lens, but, instead, it is in screw mount. Can anyone enlighten me on this?

-- Hoyin Lee (leehoyin@hutchcity.com), July 09, 2001.

Hoyin,

My Hove Pocket book list the non-collapsible 90mm f/4.0 Elmar within the serial number range that you state, from 1960 as being produced in both bayonet and screw mount, with a breakdown of 1938 in screw and 2271 in bayonet (for that year). According to Erwin Puts' book, the three element lens introduced in 1964, is suppose to be a bit better, as stated in the above answer.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), July 09, 2001.

Many thanks, Al. I just want to say that I'm learning so much from the participants of this forum--it's the best photo site, ever!

-- Hoyin Lee (leehoyin@hutchcity.com), July 09, 2001.

Absolutely agree with you Hoyin

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), July 09, 2001.

Don Chatterton has two 3-element Elmars (calling them RARE). He's asking $895 for one and $1195 for the other.

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), July 09, 2001.

Many thanks to all for their input. I was trying to find out the characteristics of a lens I purchased 30 years ago for $100.00 used. It is serial #21245xx, which according to Hove was manufactured in 1965. The front element rotates with the focus and matches the picture in Hove Pocket Book, 6th edition.

Mark J.

-- Mark A. Johnson (logic@gci.net), July 09, 2001.

I was mistaken about the non-rotating front element - that feature applies to the 4-element collapsible 11131 Elmar. If you have the late 11830 version (scalloped focusing ring, half-stop aperture click stops, narrow vulcanite ring) and it's in good shape, the lens is worth over $1,000 US, so don't be careless with it.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), July 10, 2001.