Anyone test a 90 Elmar C on a digital M?

[mark_amos]

<p>I've always gone around and around about the best portrait lens for my M6, but I have not brought it up here in at least about four or five years. I really prefer small, and I'm on a budget, so I end up thinking the best for the price are the ones that I already have. I've enjoyed just using my current 50 cron, but I also have a 90 Elmar-C that has almost always given me great results over about 10 years, but a few times, my picture was out of focus, and I just can't get the focusing cam issue of being different than other Leica lenses out of my head.<br>

Has anybody with an M8 or M9 tested the Elmar-C to quantify the issue? I already know that at greater distances and higher apertures, it probably isn't an issue (or noticeable), but has somebody tested the lens at close focus or near it wide open at f4 on digital? I'm only asking about digital because it seems like it would have been fairly easy to investigate wtih digital. I'd really like to know. </p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Mark, "almost always" versus "a few times" would point to user error. On a 35mm RFDR camera, 85/90/100/105 lenses can be pretty unforgiving.</p>

[mark_amos]

<p>Thanks Mukul, but I was hoping for a more emperical response.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Quantifying "great results over about 10 years" and "a few times" might be the beginning of empiricism. I do not think that anyone here will have done the sort of rigorously scientific testing you seem to want.</p>

[mark_amos]

<p>I wasn't trying to be snottty, and I know user error can never be ruled out, but the cam issue on this lens is a long standing issue. I was hoping for some better observational information about the issue and not being told that the issue is irrelevant. Much of what I was calling "great results" was miscellaneous travel shots at 5.6 and probably more than 20' away. I was thinking about taking some close up portraits of my daughter in which case the issue might come up yielding poor results after a lot of work. (User error would also be a factor to watch if shooting up close, but the cam issue is there too.)<br>

I don't think what I said requires rigorous scientific testing. Focusing the lens with the rangefinder and then looking at a jpeg to see if the sharpest part of the image is where you focused, and then doing this at several distances including very close up is what I am talking about. Of course this can be done with film, but I was just thinking how much easier and immediate it would be to do it with a digital body and wondering if anyone has done it.</p>

[jan_schuller]

<p>This photo was taken with an Elmar 9cm from 1950 on M9 at f4.8, 1/180s, ISO 160, focused on the remote rim of the ashtray. I think it's the true 90mm budget lens.</p><div></div>

[mukul_dube]

<p>You could buy a cheap roll of film and shoot no more than ten test frames on it. The subject has been discussed here before. Please see http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00Atcx.</p>

[mark_amos]

<p>Thank you Jan, but I was talking about the Elmar-C, which I already own and initially used only on my CL, which it was made for, and I'm thinking it best if I don't have to buy another lens.<br>

Mokul, thanks for the link. I've searched for and read most all of these articles about the 90-C over the last few years, but that one does bring some better info to present mind. The problem is the people in that discussion are in complete disagreement about whether it focuses correctly or not. As you say, I guess I'll just have to test it on film and make notes and all to know if my sample works on my particular M6.</p>

[jeff_drew4]

<p>I have the 90mm Elmar C but no access to digital body. I use the lens on multiple bodies; Bessa T, R3a, and Leica MP with no problems. However, in general, 90mm lenses (35mm film format) are one of my least used choices. I have the G2 with its 90mm version too, and yet many of my portraiture shots are done with either lenses in the 70-75mm range or 135mm; all rangefinder choices. I have not experienced your occasional focus problem with this lens . Perhaps you could borrow another body and test the lens?</p>

[mark_amos]

<p>Here is a thought: I know of course I could shoot a test roll of film, but that requires some fairly careful notes and sometimes after the fact there can be some uncertainties, but what if I just confirmed that the focus distance indicated on the lens focusing ring when appearing to be focused by the rangefinder on my CL is in precisely the same position when appearing to be focused by the rangefinder in my M6 at the same distance. I would pick my location, probably with tripod, and place a subject at a distance from the camera corresponding to one of the distance measurements on the lens, probably the 4' mark and switch out the bodies. The depth of field would be about 1.25 to 1.5 inches. There is certainly a lot possibility for test error like if my rangefinders need adjustment, but I think I'm going to try that...when I get time. Any thoughts?</p>

[mark_amos]

<p>I managed to do my little test. I had my first SLR at 10 years old and developed film and even printed Cibachrome prints by myself in my Dad's darkroom at 15. I'm not a novice, but I haven't spent much time doing testing. I like shooting. My test was inconclusive but interesting. Even at just 4' and f4, the M6 and the CL yielded extremely close focus ring measurements, but I admit that I could not consistently get the same mark on the focus distance measurements on the lens. As Mukul cautioned from the start of my thread, the margin for user error is very small even at f4 with a 90 at close focus. My best idea of when the focus was optimized varied when I focused with the rangefinder at the fixed subject (a chair) and then looked at where the focusing ring was. As I have already observed, the 90-C can clearly be used at somewhat longer distances on an M6 and maybe even close up. Finally, I guess I should just pull out my old nearly now worthless but useful Nikon F70 and 28-105 autofocus lens to try a few portaits of my little girl.</p>

[kbg32]

<p>I use the 90 Elmar-C. It is my only 90. It is sharp, contrasty, and produces wonderful files on my M8/9.</p>

[HarryBaker]

<p>This might be worth looking at<br>

http://elmqvist.blogspot.com/2009/05/leica-elmar-c-90mm-f4-on-m8.html<br>

I use a Hexanon 90mm on my M8.</p>

[mark_amos]

<p>Thanks everybody. I have been telling myself I have just got to get another portrait lens for pics of my girl because of my doubts about my Elmar-C on the M6, and I've been bemoaning how the prices of the discontinued Elmarit M have inflated in the last 4 years. I've been so tempted to get the VC 90 3.5, but I really look a lot before leaping. I'm actually relieved to realize that I really already have just what I need. I really appreciate those last answers that are very specific to my question. Thanks again.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Mark, the lens you have is a fine one and there is no reason to expect it to not focus correctly on an M camera whose R/F is properly adjusted. Your time will be better spent in taking and posting photos of your little girl.</p>

[mark_amos]

<p>Thanks Mukul. This is not my daughter, but here is a candid shot with the 90C from a few years ago.</p><div></div>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Excellent. Got any tight head shots?<br>

Mark, I shall try to state what seems to be your real concern: "I have a new daughter so I must have a new portrait lens for her." Is this somewhere near the truth?</p>

[mark_amos]

<p>Yes, Mokul you have nailed it. I bought an LX3 Panasonic digital when she was born. It was my first digital bought new because I knew I wanted a wide angle and fast lens for other things also, and the HD video has been wonderful, and I waited a long time for such a camera to be made, but it only zooms to 60mm equivalent. I have gotten good results shooting my girl with it and a Nikkor 85 1.4 MF, but I prefer the rangefinder shooting. She has grown so fast, and I know that the best quality picture scans I can get from either my Leica and a 90 or my Nikon with low ISO film will be probably better than the LX3 small sensor.<br>

The following is a close up image more to the point of the lens' ability to focus on my M6 and as you requested. I think it is focused on her face as intended. Shortly I will also send an image from the group that maybe didn't focus where I wanted. I know some fill flash would have been good here, but I still like the pics, and they demonstrate something about the focus issue.</p><div></div>

[mark_amos]

<p>In this next one, I have to imagine that I intended to focus on my baby's face, but it appears more focused on my wife's face. this may be my user error, but this is the kind of thing that gave me pause and was the cause for my post question. In a little bit, I will have to send another picture that demonstrates my girl's incredibly rapid transition into a look that is more a beautiful little girl than a baby. I want to capture this phase of course with as fine a detail as I can manage. Rencent posts and my own re-examination of my images makes me think that the lens probably focuses just fine, but I posted because I don't want to conclude that prematurely.</p><div></div>

[mukul_dube]

<p>If it had been the fault of the lens, it should have happened in both photos. Besides, we should not generalise from isolated examples.</p>

[mark_amos]

<p>That is precisely the reason my whole post was aimed at seeing if someone had tested this lens on an M body with a standard cam instead of a Leica CL cam. I already knew it was CAPABLE of excellent results IN THE RIGHT SITUATION. Enough people have answered that I must assume that the lens' cam difference must not be a significant problem.<br>

I was a paying member to this group for about at least 6 years or more. I guess I skipped one year and have lost my little flag, but I don't remember skipping. That is disappointing. Thanks for all the input, and thanks for all your many responses Mukul.</p>

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

<p ><em>I use the 90 Elmar-C. It is my only 90. It is sharp, contrasty, and produces wonderful files on my M8/9.</em><br>

I use to work with Keith Goldstein. If he says it's sharp, contrasty and produces wonderful files you can be sure that it's a fine lens. Also, your pictures look great. I'd say all is well Mark. Also, myself and others remember you from the older days around here with or without your flag. Good luck and good shooting.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I always felt Leica invented the "problem" of the C lenses maybe not working on regular Ms to sow discord and minimize M users buying the cheaper C lenses rather than the regular M lenses. There is no doubt the cams on C lenses are steeper to allow for easier focus on the Leica CL, but the feedback that I have is contradictory as to whether it makes any difference on a "true" M - except that the focus throw is less. If you want to eliminate any hint of this problem I suggest you get a Minolta Rokkor 90mm lens for the CLE - the same lens as the Elmar-C but with a regular M-lens cam. These (and the equally excellent 40mm Rokkor) cost a lot less and are just as good as the Leica versions. They also have an easier filter size (40.5mm vs series whatever) than the Leicas.</p>

[mark_amos]

<p>Thanks all.</p>

[kbg32]

<p>Thanks for the kudos John!!!!</p>