90mm f28 LeicaElmaritM lens

[jorks]

> I have used the 90 4 Elmar C since I got my Leica CL new in 1978, recently on a M4. It is extremely sharp & contrasty throughout the aperure range, and has nice out-of-focus effects. The small size is useful, but of > course the slow f4 speed is a disadvantage in low light.

 

[drhdrum]

[I just went thru this decisions process about 6 weeks ago. As far as quality between the f2ASPH and the f2.8 Elmarit... I read the same reports but honestly I couldn't tell the difference at 2.8. Perhaps there is a technical difference on paper but I think both lens out perform any modern film. I found that quality exposure, processing and printing made more of a difference in my final image. I like the speed of the f2 but the size and cost of the 2.8. I also found the 2.8 to be the perfect portrait lens (my application). I think it really depends on the need for speed and if that is critical then look into the 75mm 1.4 or the 50mm 1.0. I went with the 2.8 because I always shoot outside and its easy to focus and is very compact. I also shoot mostly people so if there was a difference (which I couldn't see) I would err on the side of a more flattering image. My biggest hurdle was ego...if the f2ASPH was the best then that's what I wanted. However, once I looked at the application the 2.8 worked for me. I'm now saving for a 75 1.4 perhaps I'll take out a 2nd mortgage... good luck. Let me know what you decide.]

 

[dodger]

> I'll go with Doug there. I recently spent a while debating between an f2=20 > and a current 2.8, and went with the Elmarit. You are never going to be=20 > able to see the quality difference between the two in day-to-day work, and= =20 > the Elmarit won't break your shoulder or your bank balance quite like the=20 > Summicron. And the Elmarit was to replace a two Canon 100's - a 1.9 which= =20 > was past it mechanically, and a 3.5, which was (is) frankly, excellent,=20 > just not a Leica lens. Over the years I have had a number of f 4 Elmars,=20 > all of which were subtly soft wide open, but sharp as you like at f8, mebb= e=20 > a little low on contrast. For years I used a "fat" Tele-Elmarit as well;=20 > great lens. Nice size, very very good performer from 5.6. =20 I'd be going with a current Elmarit if I were you....at the right dealer=20 they're retailing here in the UK in mint condition for about =A3500. Not to=20= be=20 missed. >=20

 

[ruben_blaedel]

As you can see earlier in this thread i had my hands on an early elmarit 2.8 uncoated. I ended up with an elmar -c 4.0 . Its really sharp stopped down 2 fs, its rather cheap and its very compact. I like the compactness of my M6 so the elmar -c 4.0 is the right lens for me - and you can easily hand hold it for longer exposure times, due to the lightweigt construction.

 

[hektor]

Dear Ruben,

The first Elmarit was introduced in in 1958. It was coated as has been every Elmarit since.

Justin

 

[ruben_blaedel]

Dear Justin

I stand to be corrected - would the term "single coated" be closer in descriping the 1962 elmarit compared with the Elmar C 40 ?

Regards

Ruben

 

[hektor]

Dear Ruben,

That is a question you would have to ask the factory. Undoubtedly coatings improved, however my understanding is that Leica only use 'multicoating' where necessary. In my experience the Elmar-C 1:4/90 is an excellent lens but not necessarily superior or inferior to the Elmarit 1:2,8/90 at the same apertures, however the Elmar-C does display a little more vignetting. Its attraction IMHO is size.

Sincerely,

Justin