90/4 Elmar-C may not focus correctly on M cameras?

I am considering buying 90mm Elmar-C lens (around $250 in mint

condition). I am a little worry about focusing issue.

 

Handbook of the Leica System is saying about CL lenses:

??. Can be mounted on the Leica M, but do not provide precise

coupling with the rangefinder (because of its direct rear focusing

cam). For this reason we do not recommend the use of CL lenses on the

Leica M Cameras.?

 

From the other point of view Cameraquest says:

?When the CL was new, Leica made it clear the CL's 40/2 Summicron and

90/4 Elmar (or the 40/2 and 90/4 Rokkors for the Japanese market) may

not focus correctly on M cameras. The reason given was the different

shape of the CL lenses' focusing cam. As time went on, users became

more and more suspicious that this incompatibility claim may have

been marketing hype so the inexpensive CL lenses would not decrease

sales of the more expensive M lenses. Perhaps some CL lenses really

don't focus accurately with some M bodies, but I have yet to see it.

This issue is a matter of hot dispute, depending a lot upon how much

you trust father Leitz.?

?. and your Guys, very good opinion about 40mm C lens

 

What is your experience? Did you have any focusing problems with that

lens? What is user opinion about reliability and the picture quality?

 

Should I buy it or wait and save for 2,8/90 Elmarit? 2,8 or 4 is not

an important issue for me. Thanks for help.

I am no expert but maybe the model you need is the Minolta 90mm f/4 CLE version with the Leica M profile cam.

I am going to switch on notify for this thread because I am also looking into getting a good used compact 90mm one day.

One more thing. 5.5 filter mount = 40.5mm?

<a href="http://www.cameraquest.com/cle.htm">CLE lens range info</a>

Maybe the CL has a RF with a different gain (action/reaction) than the ones in the CLE/M. I Had a CL/40 and, briefly, a 90, which I returned because of this reason (before I had a CL I only had an M3). I never put the 40 on the M3/6 because I had a CL with the proper framelines.

 

I suspect the 90 will focus fine on an M because from f4.0 on down the depth of field will compensate for the lack of focus accuracy.

 

BTW, that is a good price for that 90 CL. I think I paid ~$300 for mine in 1985, before Leica became real hot. Maybe you can get a CL as a back-up body and put it on that.

Or, you could look into a used CV 75, f2.5 or 90, 3.5 for even less money. I have one and it performs great when I need a tele (for me a 50 is a tele). New from www.cameraquest.com are $299 and $319, respectively. If you buy a 75 w/o a hood, I'll send you (only you) mine for postage. I don't use hoods.

It's BS. I have two M6's and my 90mm Elmar-C focuses perfectly on both of them. The only problem I have with it is that I seldom use the focal length and it's usually dead weight in my camera bag. By the way, don't worry about the odd-ball filter size (series 5.5, I think). A 39mm filter will fit--not perfectly, but close enough to use effectively.

Lee, it may focus correctly at infinity, but MAY not at the other end of the scale wide open, may being the stressed word. As I said, f-number MAY have something to do with it at longer distances. The CL's RF is different due to size constaints. Why would Leica publish propaganda? The CL was a niche business anyway, and Leica survives today, barely.

If a Leica lens has a cam that's basically flat, then it is always pushing directly at the roller on the rangefinder cam. In this case, the size of that roller becomes immaterial, since everything is in a straight line back and forth.

 

My understanding is that the CL lens has a steeply sloped cam. It does not face the roller squarely. Thus, the amount it pushes the center of the roller back becomes a function of the diameter of that roller.

 

So, if the CL has a different roller diameter than the M series, then there would be a different displacement of the center of the roller at a given focused distance on M and CL cameras. This, of course, would lead to a different rangefinder "reading" on the two cameras.

 

Now, the roller diameter difference probably isn't great. So it's probably not a huge issue.

I have had two 90 Elmar-C lenses and both worked just fine my M6 and M5.<div></div>

Sorry Mr B.S.! The lens does not focus on all M-models. I have tried a number at diffrent times! I have a M3,M2 and M6.It varied.Some did but not all at any one time! If you can test, before buying or return policy, then you can take chance. I think the idea of the CV 90mm lens way better than this lens.I prefer real Leica lens but the CL/CLE stuff not really match.It was done on purpose.

The CLE lenses have cams that are fully compatible. So does my 90/4 Rokkor for the Leitz/Minolta and Minolta CL. They are sometimes available at bargain rates.

Do you have the opportunity of shooting a test roll with the Elmar-C being offered, to see how well it works?

This canard has been batting around so long it has become an urban myth. Leitz has never published a detailed explanation of the statements made when the CL and its lenses were introduced. I computed the possible error due to the sloped cam and determined that it was less than the tolerance permitted in matching lenses to mounts. I currently use both the Summicron C and the Elmar C on my M6 with no percievable problem. All reported problems I know of are anecdotal and not supported by optical measurement. The proof of the pudding is in the eating so make exposures under measured conditions to elliminate doubts and paranoia.

Mine works fine. Never had a problem. Great cheap little lens.

"I prefer real Leica lens but the CL/CLE stuff not really match.It was done on purpose."

 

Nonsense again Jason! The CLE versions for starters have conventional M cams so to say they dont match is simply not knowing your facts. The CL lenses not being real Leica lenses, well strange how the Current Elmarit 90mm f2.8 is an evolution of the Elmar-C not previous Elmarits?!

 

As far as the cam issue, both C lenses work fine on conventionally cammed cameras. I have seen many examples and never seen the so called incompatibility. I once saw someone show a close fousing error which was blamed on the lens but proved to be the close focus adjustment was out on the Camera not the fault of the lens. Strangely though a media release by Minolta at time of the CLE's release which uses conventional M cammed lenses it states that the Elmar/Rokkor-C's are fully compatible with the CLE. Why would Leica spread the romour? I guess they didnt want M users buying cheaper lenses and affecting sales. Not the first time Leica has tried to force the hand of users when they switched to M mount and stopped making screw mount lenses.

 

The Elmar-C is a good lens and a gem in terms of value for money. It flares less than the compact TE and is just as sharp. Its a good price why not go for it.

I used my Elmar-C for some years on my M2's and a CL without problems, and also used it on a loaned M6. I foolishly sold it after I got back my Tele-Elmarit from Leitz which looked like new afterwards, but in terms of optical quality and esp. concerning flare the TE is no match for the Elmar-C which is head and sholders above. It is a great lens and in my eyes one of the top picks money-wise. Some people say they prefer the Voigtlaender lens which I never had the chance to test, but then the Elmar-C leaves nothing to be desired IMHO.

<p>

In the above comment Joel already stated it:

<p>

<i>The Elmar-C is a good lens and a gem in terms of value for money. It flares less than the compact TE and is just as sharp. Its a good price why not go for it.</i>

<p>

I would even say: If you do not need f2.8 there is almost no better pick regardsless of the money if you are looking for a compact all-around lens.

Couple of points.

 

I use an Elmar-C and it has been fine both near and far.

 

I read an interesting thread once on this subject from a claimed ex-Leica engineer about this only being a possible issue if your M camera's cam after Leica's own adjustments was not well centred on the camera itself but I know nothing about this so please don't flame me if total cobblers. Obviously, being F4 lens DOF helps deal with with any minor focusing error anyway.

 

There is a very interesting comment re good glass quality of this lens contained in E Puts site in his article about the Elmar 90 Macro lens. Well worth a read as is his other article re rangefinder focusing in technical articles.

 

Using a CLE would clearly put all doubts to rest but personally I doubt you will experience a problem anyway. Either lens is attractively priced and arguably the Leica will be an easier resale if desired later.

 

Example pic with Elmar-C...

 

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2810228-md.jpg"> <p>

This is the thread I was referring to above :-

 

<a href="http://mejac2.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v04/msg06963.html">click here</a>

Thank you for all the hints and comments on this tread. I bought the lens for $220,- incl. original rubber lens hood and shipping fee. For this price I think it?s not a bad deal. So far I have 35 Cron as my main lens and Russian Jupiter-3 1,5/50 as a fast lens option. Lightweight and compact ELMAR tele will complete my set.

 

Stephen, thanks a lot for your hood offer :) it is very nice of you!

 

Cheers, Maciej

I also have a bunch of FSU Jupiters that I use with my M6 as well as my Barnacks. They are fine lenses, however having encountered some focusing problems with certain samples I feel confident in opining that you are infinitely more likely to experience focusing problems with the FSU lenses than you are with the Leica CL lenses. Much ado is made of the short RF base on the CL. This too is much overrated! The Barnack Leicas all have a similar base length and the old Leica II, with no RF magnification, will easily make good images with the 135mm lenses. Undoubtedly there have been some problems in using M and CL lenses interchangeably but it is most likely that they are the reult of improper adustments or the rare incident of opposing extreme tolerances. All explanations of supposed mismatches have skirted the issue of a mathematical explanation. The geometry of the RF coupling is not difficult to understand and a graphic calculation of the possible errors versus the tolerances involved does not support any of the reported mismatches.

Hi

 

I have both ELMAR 90mm f4, and ELMARIT 90mm f2, when mount on my M6, the focus is different, it is about 1 feet different in between when I see the right overlap in the viewfinder.

 

Also, I took some photo with the ELMAR 90mm f4, yes, the focus is not right. I have to reduce about 1 feet from the scale of the lens.

The original Rokkor-C marketed by Minolta for the CL was made in Germany by Leitz and differs from the Elmar-C only in name and the size of the filter thread. It takes 40.5 mm filters. It usually sells for less than the Elmar-C.

Hey, I try it. Good lens<div></div>