3 element Elmar ?

[chippy]

howdy,

thought this may be the best place to ask but i was having a chat with a fellow about Elmar lenses and i suggested that they are 4 element lenses (1-1-2) but he is certain that one he came across once was a 3 element Elmar 50mm and was or is under the impression that Elmars are 3 element lenses

another chap mentioned that there is a scarce 90/4 Elmar (3 element) (what year is that?) and also that 2.8 elmars are common.

i've read my fair share of books but i forget and must be missing something. you know how it is read heaps and retain 75% of it.
hoping the kind folk here can give me some background on the elmar.

3 elements? i thought they were 4 (positive they were), in what way have they ever made alternative configurations to the elmar?

the way i remember it Leitz started with anastigmats and then came the Elmax of various configurations which finely ended up being a triplet, and by splitting the rear element in 1925-26 came the common/standard f3.5 Elmar (1-1-2). but in reality i think its really based on a tessar which by 1926 the patents by Zeiss on the tessar freed up in some way--thats more or less how i remember it anyway.

as i say i am interested in the background and evolution of the Elmar

[Windscale]

From what I understand the Elmar 90/4 is a 3 element lens. I may be wrong and stand to be corrected. I just looked at it again and can only see 3 elements. But having said that, it is I think a very good performer. It is light and sharp and will not cause your M3 to tilt downwards as most other 90 lenses would.

[chippy]

From what I understand the Elmar 90/4 is a 3 element lens. I may be wrong and stand to be corrected. I just looked at it again and can only see 3 elements. But having said that, it is I think a very good performer. It is light and sharp and will not cause your M3 to tilt downwards as most other 90 lenses would.

thanks windscale, thats part of the mystery..i had not looked it up but it explains something if its an M lens...i am less familar with them....

just a bit behind the times, i have a reasonably good handle on old lenses and maybe in another fifty years i will have caught up with M's ....JK

[Rob-F]

The Elmar 90 had four elements, from 1931 through 1963. There were many mounts, including a collapsible version, but optically they are all thought to be the same. From 1964, the 90 Elmar was a three element lens, in three groups. It was discontinued in 1968. According to the Hove guide, 1,679 were produced. That would make it fairly rare, as your friend remarked.

The 50mm Elmar has always been a four element lens, in three groups. The rear group is a cemented doublet. So the short answer is that you were correct, it is and always was a four element lens.

[Windscale]

The Elmar 90 had four elements, from 1931 through 1963. There were many mounts, including a collapsible version, but optically they are all thought to be the same. From 1964, the 90 Elmar was a three element lens, in three groups. It was discontinued in 1968. According to the Hove guide, 1,679 were produced. That would make it fairly rare, as your friend remarked.

The 50mm Elmar has always been a four element lens, in three groups. The rear group is a cemented doublet. So the short answer is that you were correct, it is and always was a four element lens.

Thank you so much for the info. I will check my other one. I kept 2 as these are my favourite 90s.

[Al Kaplan]

Only the 90mm came in a three element configuration, and then only in its final years of production. It had a removeable lens head and could be used on the same short focusing mount as the four element design for use on the Visoflex II, IIA, and II. The f/2.8 lens was an Elmarit. The original 50mm Elmar was f/3.5, but when they upped the aperture to f/2.8 for some reason they kept the Elmar name. There's no 50mm Elmarit. There's no three element 50mm.

The 90mm f/2.8 Elmarit also has a removeable head which fits the same universal focusing mount as the 65mm f/3.5 Elmar and 135mm f/4 Tele-Elmar. The first model of the 90mm f/2 Summicron has a removeable head and a short focusing mount was made for it also, which also accepts the lens head of the 135mm f/2.8 Tele-Elmarit. This model of the 90mm Elmarit is often called the "long" Elmarit. If you want to use the original 135mm Elmar or the older 135mm Hector lens heads on the universal focusing mount Leitz supplied an extension tube with the proper threads front and rear

Two versions of the 90mm f/2.8 Tele-Elmarit were made, the fat one and the thin one. (Honest! I'm not joking. That's what folks call 'em!)

As for image quality the three element 90mm Elmar was expremely sharp and more contrasty than the earlier four element version. I'd owned both over the years. Leitz didn't announce when they started multi-coating, or even advertise that they did, but the three element is most likely multi-coated.

[chippy]

The f/2.8 lens was an Elmarit. The original 50mm Elmar was f/3.5, but when they upped the aperture to f/2.8 for some reason they kept the Elmar name. There's no 50mm Elmarit. There's no three element 50mm.

.

thanks thus far..at least i know i havnt forgeten everything:eek:


only from memory as well was the Elmarit a 1-2-1 configuration...for some reason i seem to remember that!? so if it was then does that mean the 50mm f2.8 elmar was of this 1-2-1 design

[Meakin]

Chippy,

Maybe this can help you, as I asked for info about the 3 element elmar 90 a couple of weeks ago here:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63453

Cheers,

Meakin

[FallisPhoto]

howdy,

thought this may be the best place to ask but i was having a chat with a fellow about Elmar lenses and i suggested that they are 4 element lenses (1-1-2) but he is certain that one he came across once was a 3 element Elmar 50mm and was or is under the impression that Elmars are 3 element lenses

another chap mentioned that there is a scarce 90/4 Elmar (3 element) (what year is that?) and also that 2.8 elmars are common.

i've read my fair share of books but i forget and must be missing something. you know how it is read heaps and retain 75% of it.
hoping the kind folk here can give me some background on the elmar.

3 elements? i thought they were 4 (positive they were), in what way have they ever made alternative configurations to the elmar?

the way i remember it Leitz started with anastigmats and then came the Elmax of various configurations which finely ended up being a triplet, and by splitting the rear element in 1925-26 came the common/standard f3.5 Elmar (1-1-2). but in reality i think its really based on a tessar which by 1926 the patents by Zeiss on the tessar freed up in some way--thats more or less how i remember it anyway.

as i say i am interested in the background and evolution of the Elmar

Andrew, I only said it was for a 35mm camera. I never said it was 50mm. I only had it briefly and it was about 6 years ago, and I don't remember the focal length. I do remember cleaning it though, and it was a 3-element design. Incidentally, since then I have read all kinds of stuff about how nobody not connected to Leica should ever attempt to clean the inside of a Leica lens. From what I read, most are a LOT more complicated and I guess the only thing saving me was that it was only three elements.

[FallisPhoto]

Reading these threads, I wish to god I'd held onto it now.

[chippy]

Andrew, I only said it was for a 35mm camera. I never said it was 50mm. I only had it briefly and it was about 6 years ago, and I don't remember the focal length. I do remember cleaning it though, and it was a 3-element design. Incidentally, since then I have read all kinds of stuff about how nobody not connected to Leica should ever attempt to clean the inside of a Leica lens. From what I read, most are a LOT more complicated and I guess the only thing saving me was that it was only three elements.

no problem Charles
i thought for some reason you were reffering to 50mm, ah well not to worry. i wasnt going to say whom i was speaking with anyway, and really i just wanted to get the bakground info on the Elmar so i knew for sure.

thanks for the quick and excellent replies. i said the guys on this leica forum could probably tell us what the leica designers had for breakfast on April 23rd LOL

[Laforet]

I have played with one at a collector's place. Sure it is compact and light, the only thing that bugs me is that it comes in a rotating mount where the entire front of the lens rotates when focused, aperture scales are engraved on both sides to make life easier.

From my understanding, Elmar implies assymetric (tessar) design: the prewar 35/3.5 is an elmar while the symmetrical 28mm had to be a hektor, later symmetrical 35/3.5 is a summaron. I have not seen a block diagram for the three element elmar, can someone let me know how the elements are arranged? A cooke triplet sounds natural however it should not have been named an elmar since it would be symmetric.

Besides, the elmar is pretty much the same to a tessar with the exception of the diaphragm being placed just behind the front element, in a tessar it is placed in a optically more appropiate position behind the second element. The soviet elmar-look-alikes as well as the current elmar have always had their aperture in the configuration of the latter. The change is said to reduce flare stopped-down for an uncoated lens as well as evading patent issues; leitz used to make elmax lens with a triple cemented element instead of a double which was not a commercial success.

[Laforet]

BTW, I have the hove book right in front of me which lists this particular lens had 543 made in LTM and 5947 in M mount, which makes it as common (or rare) as the Xenon or the 21/4 Super A, but not as rare as the summarex, thambar orthe mountain elmar.

[FallisPhoto]

i said the guys on this leica forum could probably tell us what the leica designers had for breakfast on April 23rd LOL

A typical German breakfast (Frühstück) falls somewhere between what we'd call a deli platter and a continental breakfast. Cold meats (including their famous sausages) and cheeses are served along side a variety of breads and sweet toppings like jam, marmalade and honey. Soft-boiled eggs, cereal and fruit would round out a large breakfast.

[Al Kaplan]

The Summarit, marked as such, may be rare but it's the same lens as the 50/1.5 Schneider Xenon in LTM. The Summarit is coated, the Xenon isn't.

While we're on the Leitz/Schneider subject, does anyone know if Schneider actually made the Summarit for Leitz or just licensed the rights? Also, early 21/4Super-Angulons were called Leitz-Schneider Super Angulons. Again, did Schneider make the lens or license the design to Leitz?

The official explanation at the time that Leitz increased the speed of the 50mm Elmar from f/3.5 to f/2.8 was the availability of newer types of optical glass could allow the same or a higher level of correction at the faster speed.

And the typical German breakfast? I was married to a "made in Karlsruhe" wife for a dozen years, and another dozen years later we're still good friends. The only woman I've ever met who makes better pastry or puts a bigger spread on the breakfast table is her mother!

[Rico]

Adding to Al's good info, I understand the Elmar 90 (in 3E form) was provided as a Visoflex offering. At that time, the v1 Elmarit 90 (a long lens) was being replaced by the v2 "fat" Tele-Elmarit which, being a telephoto design, had no removable head. I own the 3E, the v1 Elmarit, and the collapsible Elmar. These lenses have awesome build quality, finish and character, but I prefer the 3E most for reasons of image sharpness and weight. The low weight can be explained by the simplified focussing helix, so I tolerate the rotating aperture ring. I also have the short-mount OUAGO and OTZFO for Viso - although I really use them on a FF DSLR!

http://www.patternassociates.com/rico/leica/misc/ouago3.jpg


http://www.patternassociates.com/rico/leica/misc/ouago1.jpg


http://www.patternassociates.com/rico/leica/misc/ouago2.jpg


http://www.patternassociates.com/rico/leica/misc/ouago5.jpg

.
Night scene was f/8, uncropped, Canon 1Ds. Still life was wide open, uncropped, 1Ds. The crops are 1x scale.

[ZeissFan]

I have the three-element version and find it to be an average performer. Stopped down, it's sharp. Wide open, performance is only average and close-ups with the lens are also average.

But it's a triplet, and for a triplet, I would rate it as slightly above average.