View Full Version : Elmar 9cm f4
Hi how do people find this lens, I've been offered one, (a nice clean example) circa 1949, for £60, I intend to use it on my Canon P
regards Mick
charjohncarter
05-02-2010, 15:00
Mine's about 1951-2-3, and I like it especially the size. It is sharp and not too much bigger than a normal lens.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2106/2322150497_e6030e37a2.jpg
Brian Sweeney
05-02-2010, 15:31
Mine is from 1954. Perfect glass, I cleaned some haze out of it myself.
On the M8, wide-open.
http://www.ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=232&pictureid=2422
http://www.ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=232&pictureid=2424
On the M3, Fujicolor 200, 1/15th hand-held.
http://www.ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=247&pictureid=2613
The 9cm Elmar was for long the principal longish lens offered by Leitz, and with good reason.
Ronald M
05-03-2010, 00:33
Classic Leica look to the images. Sharp from 5.6 on. You will need a lens shade.
If you don`t carry one in your pocket, you are just not a Leica guy.
How difficult is it to find the hood for the elmar
Ron (Netherlands)
05-03-2010, 03:18
How difficult is it to find the hood for the elmar
look for the fikus at Ebay, it is really cheap
I have the uncoated 1933 version of the lens. Optics were not clear when I bought it, but it is one of the lenses that is very easy to clean yourself externally as well as internally. The lens is quite sharp but as all pre-WWII lenses, lacks contrast.
The hood is made to be used for 5, 9 and 13,5 cm lenses.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~kpmg0072/Leica/Elmar%20and%20Fikus.jpg
http://www.xs4all.nl/~kpmg0072/Leica/Elmar%20and%20Fikus%202.jpg
http://www.xs4all.nl/~kpmg0072/Leica/Elmar%2090%20example.jpg
john mentioned that it is not much bigger than a normal lens, does anyone have a pick of a 9cm next to a 'normal lens'
regards Mick
batterytypehah!
05-04-2010, 14:09
There was a collapsible version, maybe he meant that? 'coz the regular one is quite a honker:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/maddoc2003jp/4137344765/
Not mine, however this thread did inspire me to grab a $39 "ugly" copy from KEH last night. I was going to use the Contax for long lenses but try finding even a Triotar for that...
Thanks batterytype, I must admit I have just, (because of this thread too), bought a 9cm f4 Elmar to use on my Canon P.
regards Mike
Brian Sweeney
05-04-2010, 15:15
The collapsible will not collapse on a Canon P, would hit the light baffles. Even if someone converted one to LTM, it is an M-Mount lens. I recently worked on an M-Mount lens that was converted to LTM.
The Rigid is small and light, but larger than a 50mm RF lens.
I have one of each.
Many thanks Brian, I have just bought the rigid variant, would post some photos, but do not know how to
batterytypehah!
05-04-2010, 15:29
^ Two ways:
As attachment (under "Additional options") -- downsides are size limit, only logged-on users can see it, automatically deleted after two years (I think)
As URL: If your photo is on the web (RFF gallery, Flickr, ...), you can use the little "sunset" icon and paste a link to your picture into the dialog box that appears.
hans voralberg
05-04-2010, 15:32
It's longer but very small in diameter, about the same as that of a Summar. @ Lxmike: if you need hood give Mwclassic a call, pretty sure they have one.
Thanks Hans I will give MWclassics a call
this is the lens I have just bought for £62
It seems coated but I could be wrong
BillBingham2
05-04-2010, 17:00
When you get her check the serial number on the optical part with the focusing body.
I had a somewhat later one, in M mount but she was fun. I got her as part of a carry everywhere kit that I built for my M4-P when my M6 became my primary shooter. She fit in my pocket when I was walking around the Village late at night.
Enjoy her, she is a wonderful companion that will serve you well for many years.
B2 (;->
John Shriver
05-04-2010, 17:45
lxmike -- that lens is definitely coated, both from the look of the reflections, and from the serial number being above 600000.
If there's no haze in it, it should be up to snuff.
Not really particularly sharp wide open, but pleasant. With coating, will have some contrast, but not a lot.
charjohncarter
05-04-2010, 18:14
lxmike -- that lens is definitely coated, both from the look of the reflections, and from the serial number being above 600000.
If there's no haze in it, it should be up to snuff.
Not really particularly sharp wide open, but pleasant. With coating, will have some contrast, but not a lot.
Very pleasant wide open, this is not a great shot, because I used 1/15 second shutter but it is still something I like:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4022/4579655563_734b7e81a0.jpg
LeicaFoReVer
05-04-2010, 18:19
I use 9cm elmar f4 in m-mount. It is my favorite. I bought it for 150$.
Thanks chaps I'm more than happy and quite pleased at the price
regards Mick
Brian Sweeney
05-05-2010, 01:50
That is a very late issue Black Elmar 9cm F4! I had one in chrome just like it, Sn a bit higher. I think yours is a WW-II serial number.
(Edit: Looks like this one is post WW-II, from 1947)
tahnks brian, do you think £62 was a godd price then
Brian Sweeney
05-05-2010, 04:33
Yes, it was a good price. Coated, Black lenses are "uncommon". The price paid was good for an Elmar 9cm F4 in general. It is an under-rated classic.
LeicaTom
05-08-2010, 08:30
Yeah, it seems that the 1945/46 issue 90 Elmar's have become very desirable, due to their coatings, they are really great shooting lenses :)
Tom
Was there ever such a thing as a collapsible 90mm Elmar in threadmount? The only ones I have seen were for the M's.
Cheers,
Dez
Well Brain and Tom, I'm more than happy with by 9cm
Elmar, (which arrived today), the glass is indeed clear and coated and I'm impressed with the build quality. A hood has to be sourced next, a Fikus, (that way I can use it on my 5cm Elmar as well.
regards Mike
Forgot to metion, its got a really lovely patina, that only comes with use and age, or three hundred man hours in a Soviot backshop with a Dremel
ray*j*gun
05-08-2010, 09:30
Mine is uncoated from the 30's I think.......most amazing OOF of any lens I have used.http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4060/4589652160_d5a3af2cf6_o.jpghttp://farm5.static.flickr.com/4058/4589652148_6b6bf48047_o.jpghttp://farm5.static.flickr.com/4017/4589652122_4be194576a_b.jpghttp://farm5.static.flickr.com/4030/4589651194_c80f0c5015_b.jpghttp://farm5.static.flickr.com/4040/4589031905_88f53d7a7c_b.jpg
Robert Lai
05-13-2010, 09:09
I would suggest that you look into a 34mm screw-in hood for the early 1930s Elmar 9cm f/4. The one I purchased costs under $10 from "Jackthehat" in the UK. It doesn't have the "Leitz" label on it, but it does the job. A 37mm pinch cap fits the inside diameter as a lens cap.
batterytypehah!
05-13-2010, 09:43
Thanks for the tip! Full URL is http://www.jackthehat.co.uk/34mm-lens-hood-metal-screw-type-anti-reflective-p-286.html
Shipping to the US is 10 pounds so a little pricey for us over here. Anybody seen these from a US vendor?
Tried my uncoated pre-war Elmar today with Adox CHS 50:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3035/4604189743_7125d4086a_b.jpg
Cheers,
Uwe
Robert Lai
05-13-2010, 11:42
Hello,
After I posted, I received word from Jack the Hat that they can send this hood for 3 Pounds Sterling (not 10) to RFF members. Just mention this to them. They will be revising the shipping cost on the hood in their web site eventually.
3 pounds is $4.39 at today's exchange rate.
I don't work for them. I merely ordered from them on a chance that it might work, and indeed it did.
thanks robert, a great link to what looks live a treasure trove of photographic delight
Robert I wonder if they do any hoods that fit the elmar 5cm 3.5
Robert Lai
05-13-2010, 13:48
Alas, I don't have any good answer to the 5cm Elmar hood. FISON prices are obscene lately. I'm trying to source a 36mm slip-on hood for my Industar-50, which is the Ukrainian copy of the Elmar. Some of the Industars do have a thread on the inside of the knurled outer ring, but my 1961 vintage lens is completely smooth there.
I hate to buy a hood that costs multiples of what the actual lens costs - seems perverse!
I might just roll up some cardboard and paint it black as a last ditch measure.
Hi Robert I know what you mean, hoods for classic cameras seem to attract high prices for collectors, its hard to swallow when a hood costs nearly as much as a lens
with the 90mm f4, coated
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_0VzFgAlBmqA/SxKiVPAB3sI/AAAAAAAAFBc/5r7IcJWmr9Y/s800/scarlet1.jpg
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_0VzFgAlBmqA/SxKibcUq92I/AAAAAAAAFCU/nl3uGJxofaY/s800/Cat2.jpg
fotomeow
05-13-2010, 19:48
I have the 9cm/f4 1950s 3 element design. I compared it side-by-side to my Summi 90/2 preAsph. Of course the latter was sharper, and it had nice contrast and color saturation. The Elmar, however, had less saturation, less sharpness, and less contrast.
For color, Summi is the winner. However, for B&W, on a sunny day, the Elmar was the one I preferred. Because of the lower contrast, it was able to give more detail in shadows and more detail in the upper zone highlights. Certainly an oft overlooked lens, especially for B&W.
DanBachmann
10-28-2012, 10:03
While this is an old thread, it was the best I could find on the Internet about a 3rd party lens hood for the 9cm Elmar. I went to JackTheHat and found he now has a special hood and cap just for this lens!
http://www.jackthehat.co.uk/lens-hood-leitz-elmar-p-492.html
I've placed an order - it should arrive with in a week.
My Elmar is from 1935, thus pre-war/uncoated. I've just done a few wide open comparisons vs the CV Lanthar 90mm using an M9 and the Canon 85mm f/1.8 @ f/4 with a Canon 5D. The results are what you'd expect. The CV Lanthar wins on sharpness, the Canon is not far behind in sharpness and the old Elmar wins on bokeh due to the contrast which is very low.
Photo_Smith
10-28-2012, 10:24
It's a great lens, under rated IMHO ƒ5,6-8 is as sharp as you could wish.
http://www.pbase.com/mark_antony/image/63392269.jpg
M4-p 90mm Elmar
You can count the bricks in the building behind, and see the writing on the beer can. I have printed this shot to 12x16 and it's sharp...
I've got a silver and black one from 1950, and it's a great lens --- an often overlooked treasure, as previously mentioned. Here's a close-up shot taken with the 90mm Elmar and an M3 (Tri-X in D-76) --- very nice o.o.f. rendition.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffgallery/gallery/696/U696I1338250096.SEQ.0.jpg
traveler_101
10-29-2012, 10:23
I want one. I suppose coated is better than uncoated?
philipus
10-30-2012, 13:31
Edit: I just realised how ancient this thread is :rolleyes: but I'll leave the below just in case it is of assistance.
As for size comparison, here are two images I made once fwiw. Left to right:
135/3.5 Canon (uncertain year)
Summitar coated 10-blade (1950)
9cm Elmar painted (1934)
8,5cm f2 Nikkor-P.C (uncertain year)
50 Summilux Asph
90 Elmarit-M
35 Summilux 35 Asph II
50 f1.4 Canon EF
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/attachments/leica-m-lenses/333650d1346870114-view-through-older-glass-comparison_1.jpg
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/attachments/leica-m-lenses/333652d1346870114-view-through-older-glass-comparison_2.jpg
philipus
10-30-2012, 13:35
I want one. I suppose coated is better than uncoated?
You can find them for very little almost everywhere. I am very pleased with my 1934 uncoated. For me as a film user it is a perfect daytime photography travel lens. Here's an example, warm classic rendering:
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/attachments/leica-m-lenses/336157d1348252976-view-through-older-glass-luf5.jpg
traveler_101
10-30-2012, 14:00
Edit: I just realised how ancient this thread is :rolleyes: but I'll leave the below just in case it is of assistance.
Thanks for taking the time. Actually, DanBachmann should get the credit for reviving the thread 2 days ago.
As for size comparison, here are two images I made once fwiw. Left to right:
135/3.5 Canon (uncertain year)
Summitar coated 10-blade (1950)
9cm Elmar painted (1934)
8,5cm f2 Nikkor-P.C (uncertain year)
50 Summilux Asph
90 Elmarit-M
35 Summilux 35 Asph II
50 f1.4 Canon EF
The Elmar 9cm is a pretty large lens, it seems. I think I might use it on my Bessa T which is a much larger camera than the IIIf. Anyone try using it on a III? Does it make holding the camera somewhat more difficult?
Red Robin
10-30-2012, 14:26
My 9cm/4 sees service on a Canon P and sometimes a Bessa R. My copy hails from 1938/9 era it's a bit front heavy to leave on so I let it take turns with a Jupiter 12 and a CZJ 5cm 1.5 .
Well, the LTM version looks downright small on an M body so it's all relative. It is quite long, but very thin. Mine is coated, from 1953, IIRC. The lens is a bit mushy wide open (good for portraits, I guess) but becomes sharp from f/5.6 and seems to improve somewhat all the way to f/11. OOF rendering is excellent, especially in combination with good center sharpness at the middle apertures. Contrast is good - it's only a 4-element lens after all.
The biggest problem with the 9cm Elmar seems to be its annoying tendency to flare. It's kind of unpredictable mix of heavy veiling and light blobs. Stopping down doesn't help much. Part of it is definitely because I don't have a decent hood for it - I should remedy that soon.
Due to cheap price, excellent pocketability and nice, if vintage, look - highly recommended!
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.