Clarification and advice on Rokkor-M 90mm/f4

<p>I am considering this lens (to use on a Bessa T), but am somewhat confused. After much digging on the internet, there appears to be two distinct Rokkor 90s under the Minolta brand. One was produced by Leitz for use with the Minolta CL; it was marked "Made by Leitz" on the front ring. The other version was apparently made later by Minolta in Japan in conjection with the CLE camera. They both take 40.5mm filters and hood (which I happen to have), unlike a closely related lens the Elmar-C.<br>

Can anyone confirm that there are two different Minolta branded lenses, and if so is there enough of a difference in performance to worry about?</p>

The earlier ones were made for the Leitz-Minolta CL which was the same camera as the Leica CL. They are the Rokkor-M lenses and they were made in Wetzlar like the Elmar-C. These have a series 5.5 filter. The later Rokkors are for the CLE and they have the 40.5 filter thread. They have the same optics, but the later CLE lenses do not have the special cam that was designed specifically for use with the CL - they have the same cam as for a regular M lens. Leica used to say that the C lenses should be used "with care" on regular M's because they might not be accurate, but it is generally believed that this was said to discourage other M users from buying the bargain lenses rather than because it is actually true. Certainly in your case I would buy a later Rokkor with the 40.5 filter thread and the regular cam as I think these may be a slightly better match with a Bessa T. The cam is less angled so the focusing is less sensitive, but perhaps more accurate. Also series filters are a pain. Performance-wise I don't think there is any difference, although the 40.5 filter ones were not made by Leitz and may have improved coatings (only maybe).

<p>The ones made in Japan by Minolta supposedly have slightly more modern multicoating. I've used various versions since they were introduced until this day and I never noticed any performance differences at all.</p>

<p>What George said. I owned both, saw 0 difference between them, and they both focused perfectly on my Leicas. The Rokkor is usually cheaper. Great lens. It's small and light, very sharp, and has a definite Leica look to photos.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"They have the same optics" <em><strong>Robin S.</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Regardless of whether one can detect IQ differences, the German made units have German glass.</p>

<p><em>"They are the Rokkor-M lenses and they were made in Wetzlar like the Elmar-C. These have a series 5.5 filter. The later Rokkors are for the CLE and they have the 40.5 filter thread. They have the same optics, but the later CLE lenses do not have the special cam that was designed specifically for use with the CL"</em></p>

<p>Sorry but this information is inaccurate. Its true the first Rokkor 90mm was made by Leitz and is so marked BUT it does not use Series 5.5 filters like a previous poster has stated. BOTH Rokkors (German and later Japanese made) used 40.5mm filters.</p>

<p>So to they do NOT have same optics as started in others posts. Its true that the share a similar 4 element in 4 group design however Minolta changed the design for the CLE version. The CL Wetzlar version has greater center sharpness which weakens at the edges while the Minolta design does not have as great a center sharpness but is slighter better in the corners giving it a more even sharpness across its entire field. This can be demonstrated by resolution tests in their day but in real world use unless you took the same photo with each lens side by side as users have stated you would be hard pressed to tell the difference. My advice on which to purchase is the one you get at the best price.</p>

<p>Thanks for the clarifications. It doesn't seem as if I should have trouble using either lens on my Bessa. I realize that the difference between performance--Weitzler versus Minolta--is slight, but which optics is ghenerally preferred for portraits or landscapes? Any opinions on that?<br>

When I finally make the purchase this will be my first M mount lens; I have five LSM lenses and a IIIf is my primary camera. I never thought I would make use of the Bessa T's M mount, but from the prices I've seen this lens is a very good buy, and seems to offer better value than what it costs to get a clean 9cm Elmar LSM.</p>

<p>I don't know how the ramping of the Bessa is compared to the gradual ramp of the Leica M series (more gradual than the Leica CL), but for portraits you probably want all the RF accuracy you can get (hence the gradual ramp) and centre IQ, whereas for landscapes you no doubt need good definition and contrast right across the image field. The 90mm f4 Elmar of 1964 was designed by Leitz Canada (where many of the 60s to 80s Leica lens designs originated) and is reported as being a very high performing 3 element design (rigid or collapsible mount) with good across the field performance, which is fine for landscapes where you need good perfomance over the full area covered by the lens. Is this the same optic that went into the Leica CL (Elmar-C)? Anyways, it and the earlier Elmar f4 are reputedly as good as its contemporary 90mm Elmarit f2.8 at f4 (the later Elmarit-M is better and based on the earlier R mount lens, but its used prices are quite high).</p>

<p>You probably can't go wrong with either f4 lens. I admit I have only used the Tele-Elmarit 90mm f2.8 from that period, so I have no direct experience to share. My Bessa T had the advantage of a 1.5X RF viewer magnifier, which helped getting good close focus at larger apertures. A 90mm Cosina-Voigtlander bright line viewer is pretty good and not too expensive.</p>

<p>The 90 mm f4 Rokkor is hell of a bargain. It is no doubt a Leica lens made better by Japanese workmanship and technology. Being cheap and light weight, what more do you want?</p>

Arthur,

 

The Elmar-C 90 is a different, much more compact design than the regular Elmar of 1964. I think the Rokkor-Ms are great lenses myself - and much prefer the 40.5 mm filter thread to the series 5.5 of the Leitz-C lenses. The Japanese filter system ultimately crushed the series filter design common to German cameras, as you know.

<p>Yes, from all appearances and reports the Rokkor-M is a nice lens. I am looking for the latest Japanese version as that seems to be the safest bet. I love Leica but I don't see anything wrong with high quality Japanese products and I am, after all, planning on using a Bessa with this lens. However, I have assumed all along thanks to Steve Gandy's effusive praise-- <strong>"the Bessa T has a long effective baselength rangefinder [and] can accurately focus even the super fast 50/1 Noctilux, the 75/1.4 Summilux, or 135/3.4"</strong>--that there would be no troublefocusing a 90/4.<br>

Arthurseems to imply that this might not be the case: "<strong>I don't know how the ramping of the Bessa is compared to the gradual ramp of the Leica M series (more gradual than the Leica CL), but for portraits you probably want all the RF accuracy you can get (hence the gradual ramp) . . ." </strong><br>

Anyone have any experience with the Bessa T and long lenses?<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>Mark, <br>

Bad news. True 90 mm f4 CLEs (serial no. on the barrel) are no longer "cheap". I just look up on ebay, two true, good condition 90 mm CLEs all from UK are asking from 666 to 739 USD plus $35 for Royal mail. None of these sellers were knowledgeable enough to show the serial numbers on the barrel. It is deducted from looking at the front of the lens that no serial no. can be seen. No US sellers popped up from the search. On the other hand, a Polish seller offers an average condition C-Elmar for $266.</p>

<p><strong>Bad news. True 90 mm f4 CLEs (serial no. on the barrel) are no longer "cheap". I just look up on ebay, two true, good condition 90 mm CLEs all from UK are asking from 666 to 739 USD plus $35 for Royal mail.</strong></p>

<p>Hopefully no one will pay them that much for the lenses. One just sold in the U.S. for 299 USD.<br>

http://www.ebay.com/itm/170975005797?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649</p>

 

<p>Hi Mark. I meant to say that the lens made for the Leitz-Minolta CL had a short and steep ramp and less of an angular displacement of the focussing barrel (from close distance to infinity), which if used on other bodies might not allow as accurate focussing as the optics made for the CLE, the M series or the Bessa models. I found my T Bessa to be very accurate with long optics, as the short rangefinder base of the camera (around 40mm if I recall) is expanded to one and one half that by the magnifier in the RF optics, and slightly surpasses the rangefinder base of the M Leica with 0.72 VF magnification. The Bessa-T should work readily with 90mm f4 and f2.8 lenses, so there is little worry there, I think. </p>

<p>My quick look at eBay this afternoon showed two 90mm Rokkors from Austria and Germany at near $500 for "buy it now" prices, one that is a Japanese CLE lens, the other a Leitz produced lens for the Minolta CL, both appearing in near mint condition (If you are in NA you have to be careful of the UPS shipping rather than international mail, as the customs brokerage charges of UPS or Fedex can be high). Completed salea showed one which recently went for less than $200 in the USA (actual auction results can be better deals if you are lucky, but you have to wait and offer at the last minute).</p>

<p>Thank you for the explanation Arthur. I see what you mean and I will follow along with your advice and look for the Minilta CLE version. I suppose that this run up in prices has much to do with owners of the MILCs looking for good manual focus lenses.</p>

<p>Mark,<br>

Most of the time, you'll get what you paid for. I personally do not think there are true bargains on ebay. Good Luck!</p>

<p><strong>Mark,</strong><br /><strong> Most of the time, you'll get what you paid for. I personally do not think there are true bargains on ebay. Good Luck!</strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong>Hi Kin! I agree: the age of bargains is over as more and more "legacy" lenses are aquired by digital camera users in search of an alternative to the clinical digital look. Instead of embracing digital for its inherent qualities they are anxious to appropriate film's qualities. It would be far better or us if they started shooting FILM--assuring market demand!<br>

I am happy with the lenses I have managed to get into my collection and I do the best I can to find other lenses I can afford--when the need arises. In this case I want to take a series of portraits of my daughter as she matures. If I cannot afford the Rokkor-M, I will find another 90mm lens I can afford. There are, by the way, other places to look besides e-bay.<strong><br /></strong></p>