Can someone help ?

[henry_ting2]

With a brief translation on this ?

 

<a

href="http://www.summilux.net/documents/90mmMacroSurM.jpg">Link</a><br

><br>

[jay_.]

-collapsible mount with 4 elements/3 groups

 

-1:3 repro ratio

 

-240g wt, 41mm long (collapsed), lighter and smaller than 50/2

 

-nearly 100% performance already from wide open; equally good at close distances

 

-stopping down only increases DOF

 

-slight 1.3% pincushion distortion

 

-slight vignetting at maximum aperture almost dispapears by stopping down couple stops

 

-typical Leica neutral color rendition

 

-barrel construction and lenshood design practically elminate flare from stray light

 

-with macro adaptor, focuses to 55cm at repro ratio of 1:3

[jay_.]

Two interesting points (about an uninteresting lens):

 

minimum aperture= f/22 (all good macro lenses go to f/32) and final repro ratio (as I calculated earlier) is 1:3, or 3 times life-size.

 

Also it appears it takes the hood-cap 14033, which is the type that mounts on 12575/12585 shades for the 35/50 and 90/135 when reversed. Guess Leica had a bunch of them to use up.

[jean_christophe_barnoud1]

<p>Here is a summary :</p>

<ul><li>Telescopic lens (4 lenses in 4 groups)</li>

<li>Maximum reproduction ratio 1:3 (with the macro adapter).</li>

<li>Minimum focus 0.77m without, 0.50m with macro adapter.</li>

<li>240g (black), 320g (chrome).</li>

<li>41mm length (pushed in), 59mm (extended).</li>

<li>Optical performance is nearly optimal at full aperture, increases only slightly when reducing aperture, vignetting is just noticeable at full aperture, pincushion distortion of only 1.3%. (Comment says optical performance is nearly on par with the R macro-elmarit 100mm)</li>

<li>Available middle of october 2003.</li>

<li>price is given as 1100 euros (before tax), 1300 euros (including VAT) for the lens and 700 / 830 euros for the adapter.</li></ul>

<p>I give no guarantee regarding the distortion figure, that is what I understand from the web page linked by Henry, though I should not consider 1.3% a small figure.</p>

[henry_ting2]

Thanks guys.

Price is reasonable. Unfortunately, I don't use the 90mm much. Still impressive in such a small package.

[stephen_w.]

1/3 life size on the film.

[andrew_hall1]

Looks interesting.

 

Because of the larger parallex error at close distances, I wonder how bad the framing inaccuracy might be, even with the goggles. Likely to be unacceptable to those who are already dissatisfied with the in-camera frame lines.

[gerry_szarek]

I just wish they would have put the effort into a Digital M, I guess we will need to wait on Cosina or Konica/Minolta to satisfy my cravings for the digital stuff.

 

GS

[douglas k.]

1:3 means up to 1/3 life size on film, not 3x life size.

[jay_.]

It means an object will need to be magnified 3x more than this lens is capable of to reproduce at life-size on film. It isn't a macro lens. Neither is the 100/2.8 APO-R unless the Elpro is used.