90mm Lens Test (Fat Tele-elmarit, Cron, Elmar-c, and Elmar)

T

trittium

Well-known
Local time
3:49 PM
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
649
Sorry if the image is really big, but it is the only way to compare

Lens info
90/2.8 Fat tele-elmarit 2520xxx
90/2 Summicron 2792xxx
90/4 Elmar-C 2575xxx
90/4 Elmar (coated) 719xxx

I was really supprised with the Elmar-C. It was sharper than everything else at f4.

521875061_5e35d5ab5b_o.jpg
 
Last edited:
Thanks

I thought the same thing. The elmar-c is a steal for it's performance. Although the bokeh is much better on the tele-elmarit, and nothing can beat the cron for low light. Each one of these lenses are good in their own way.
 
I like the low contrast look produced by the coated Elmar 90mm. Here is a shot a I took a while back. Probably at around f5.6 - f8. I think this shot is sharp enough without being toosharp but with very nice tonal rendition. I also have a 1970s era Tele Elmarit which is much more contrasty and a nice 960s era Elmarit which is both tack sharp and contrasty. Of the three that one is technically thebest, but I still enjoy he little Elmar

Scan20005web.jpg
 
The fat TE takes it IMHO.
And I'm pleasantly surprised by the 90/4 Elmar. Low contrast aside, that lens can hold it's own.
 
Most 85mm-90mm lenses are at least very good optically.
Even a lens as inexpensive as the Steinheil 85mm/2.8 is not bad at all.
This lenst test shows that all lenses are very good. The rest is personal preferences depending on what you want to get out from such lenses.

Raid
 
ferider said:
Very nice. No weaknesses on your Summicron either ... Which version was this ?

Thanks,

Roland.
Click to expand...

Thanks your your input everyone. I have to agree that the Fat TE was my favorite. Of the cron and TE, the TE is much more fun to shoot with. The cron is really nice for portaits wide open though.


Roland,

My summicron was made in Canada in 1976, that's about all I know.
 
Last edited:
Same as mine and Raid's then, Matt.

I also like the Summicron "vintage look", hard to describe, maybe here you
see what I mean (just got this back last week, wide open, converted from
color). Did a mistake and focused on my wife's camera, but still ...

156650274-L.jpg


Cheers,

Roland.
 
Yep. Just browsed your gallery (again), Matt, "The Troops" shows it, too, IMO.

One day, I will start B+W development as well; some great work you do.

Best,

Roland.
 
erikhaugsby said:
....
And I'm pleasantly surprised by the 90/4 Elmar. Low contrast aside, that lens can hold it's own.
Click to expand...

IMO the 90/4 Elmar is one of the most under-rated and un-appreciated lenses in the line. Yes, for color or snappy contrast use something else. For great portraits and wonderful smoothness in tonality and a great classic look it's a beaut.

A couple of my favs with the 90/4 Elmar:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=52581198&size=o

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=87661347&size=o

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=104022024&size=o
 
ferider said:
Yep. Just browsed your gallery (again), Matt, "The Troops" shows it, too, IMO.

One day, I will start B+W development as well; some great work you do.

Best,

Roland.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I am so glad I learned to develop b&w film. There is something really rewarding about pulling your first roll off the reel and seeing the negatives. If you ever need any help learning how to develop, let me know. I taught a lot of people along the way.
 
rich815 said:
IMO the 90/4 Elmar is one of the most under-rated and un-appreciated lenses in the line. Yes, for color or snappy contrast use something else. For great portraits and wonderful smoothness in tonality and a great classic look it's a beaut.

A couple of my favs with the 90/4 Elmar:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=52581198&size=o

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=87661347&size=o

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=104022024&size=o
Click to expand...

Rich, I really like the first shot. Nice composition
 
Here are a few recent shots taken with an old black Elmar, after Brian Sweeney checked it out for. I thought that focus was off, but Brian toldme I was wrong. I believe Brian.

Raid

874715-R1-10-10A.jpg



874715-R1-11-11A.jpg




874715-R1-09-9A.jpg



874715-R1-24-24A.jpg
 
Interesting test, thanks! I have a Canadian TE I bought new in 1968 ($196 retail), so had a personal stake in the outcome... I thought yours did as well as the 'cron in general, perhaps a bit better at f/8 and f/2.8, though the TE shows odd bokeh effects on that f/2.8 shot. I was impressed by the Elmar-C, too, figuring it as the overall winner at f/4.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top