Leica 90mm Elmar 3 element

WOW. The posted images are beautiful. I used to have an old Elmar 90/4 ltm in black and one ltm in chrome. I may still have one left. I also have a beautiful collapsible M mount Elmar 90/4. Robin gifted it to me. Thank you Robin!
 
Thanks Raid! The little f4 90mm Elmars are very nice and I think almost all that aren't fogged up are capable of very beautiful images. I also have the LTM version of the regular f4 that I got from a former forum member. It had a bit of haze but cleaned up nicely. Focus is so buttery smooth and it is almost feather weight. Great travel lens. Beautifully engineered. 'Seems to be from a great period in Leica's history.

But the 3 element really surprised me with the incredible amount of detail and almost perfect level of contrast, at least for my taste, plus all the nice attributes of the other versions.
 
This one was taken with an old Elmar ltm 90/4. No clue how many elements it has.
Old Christ Church, Pensacola.

U3565I1174095441.SEQ.0.jpg
 
Thank you! Not really. For the images posted here I don't think I spent more than a minute or two on any of the edits. But these were just kinda fun test shots to check out the new lens. I even noticed some dust spots on the sensor in the 2nd photo because I did it so quickly.

Generally it takes no more than a minute or two per photo and sometimes just a few seconds if the dynamics of the scene match the dynamic range of the camera.

I pretty much do the same basic things to every photo I take regardless of the camera used and whether I'm making b&w film prints or doing digital editing. They are, and usually in this order: basic level (brightness), white balance, global contrast, then any local dodging and burning and/or local color corrections if needed. But local color corrections are pretty rare unless I'm being really picky. Typically that would involve skin color fixes like making reddish extremities more golden or yellow to match faces better or balancing tungsten lighting inside a home with bluer daylight pouring in a window if doing architectural interiors.

A quick dodge or burn can often be done in literally seconds.

Total time editing can take as little as a few seconds to a minute per photo if I'm working on a series of photos taken under similar circumstances up to to an hour or more for something like a really special portrait for someone that has a lot of blemishes that need fixing or very involved architectural work with mixed light sources. I don't use silver fx or any third party retouching programs. 'Just do everything manually.

I have found that the greater the dynamic range of the sensor, the more contrast and saturation are generally needed to make the image look right because the dark and light extremes of the scene typically fall farther from the limits of the sensor. This results in a flatter, more mid-rangeish image, not unlike a log image used for video. The M9 has less dynamic range than the M240 and M9 raw images appear to me a bit more contrasty and saturated right out of the camera than raw images of the same scene from an M240. So, it's just a matter of adjusting the sensor output of whatever camera is being used to match the contrast of each new scene.

Sorry for being so long winded. Hope this answers your question.

p.s., the last image required a bit more time stitching 2 images together and then dodging the foreground which wanted to go completely black. It took a few minutes to get the foreground dark enough to "feel" like the very dark night it was and yet still retain adequate detail so a viewer could walk through it with their eyes. But I'd have to do the same thing regardless of the type of camera used.
 
Yes, it was very helpful, thank you. Every once in a while I get this urge to get a digital camera to use my LTM and M mount lenses with. But I'm really not interested in much (or any) post-processing. The MP 240 seemed like something that might be worth looking out for. But I'm not sure if it's for me.
 
You're very welcome Raid and punkzter. What is your process now? If b&w film and prints, aren't you doing much of the kinds of manipulation I described already? Just curious.
 
Oh, it's not the manipulation that bothers me. It's the time spent on a computer. I'd really like to minimize that time for various reasons. But, to your question, my process now does involve a computer. I take my pictures and scan them. I'm still working out that process. Right now, I'm using a combination of Pakon or Sony a5000 for 35mm and an Epson scanner for MF negatives. And I do end up doing some post-processing, though I keep it to a minimum. My best negatives are printed, though right now that happens very rarely (both because of a lack of great negatives and a lack of time).

My guess is that my scanned negatives get about 80-90% there with my minimal effort and that a digital camera would probably achieve the same results with zero post processing. But that concern has always been enough to keep me from actively seeking out a digital Leica body. What draws me to the experience would be the full-frame camera body and live view (especially with lenses that focus closer than 0.7m). And the ease of digital.
 
Good thoughts on processing. When first going digital you fear what is ahead. I was pleasantly surprised when I bravely shot raw for the first time that what I imported from the SD card was not 111010011011 but actual pictures, in colour. And as you say, post processing might be three or four tweaks in the right column of options in Lightroom taking less than 15 seconds.
 
Both digital and film share one thing that makes it necessary for the images to be manipulated in order to more closely resemble what we see in person -- they both react to and record light differently than our human eye-brain system. Editing is often necessary to make the digital or film image appear closer to our perception of reality.

It's not something unique to digital images.

For example, imagine a white house in full sunlight at noon with a large open garage door and the contents inside the garage are in full shade. If that scene were photographed either on film or digital, in most cases if the whites are printed with proper exposure, the area inside the garage will be rendered almost completely black and will be devoid of much if not all detail. But in person, standing in front of the house we would almost always see plenty of detail in those deep shadows. So, just to bring the recorded image more in line with the perception we have live, some dodging of the shadow areas would be helpful.

It happens in other more subtle ways too such as how eyes often appear darker in portraits than they did in person or how blemishes seem more apparent and more objectionable in the photo than they did when we were talking with our subject just before the shoot.

Most of us already know all this stuff. I'm just offering it for anyone who might be considering first foray into digital editing or who might be wondering whether editing is necessary at all.
 
punkzter said:
Oh, it's not the manipulation that bothers me. It's the time spent on a computer. I'd really like to minimize that time for various reasons. But, to your question, my process now does involve a computer. I take my pictures and scan them. I'm still working out that process. Right now, I'm using a combination of Pakon or Sony a5000 for 35mm and an Epson scanner for MF negatives. And I do end up doing some post-processing, though I keep it to a minimum. My best negatives are printed, though right now that happens very rarely (both because of a lack of great negatives and a lack of time).

My guess is that my scanned negatives get about 80-90% there with my minimal effort and that a digital camera would probably achieve the same results with zero post processing. But that concern has always been enough to keep me from actively seeking out a digital Leica body. What draws me to the experience would be the full-frame camera body and live view (especially with lenses that focus closer than 0.7m). And the ease of digital.
Click to expand...

With digital you can set up the camera to get the desired look, with some of them including presets mimicking different film emulsions. And with the advent of available mount adapters for just about any camera it doesn't matter what camera you use what lens on. It's mostly a matter of what works best for you at a price that is comfortable. I used a Leica M-to-Nikon Z adapter on a Z50, but since all the lenses have an enlargement factor of 1.5 I decided to switch to a Z5 so I no longer have to stop and figure out what each lens will really give me as far as FOV is concerned. But one has to buy a decent adapter, so I'll be dumping my too tight Fotasy for some K&F Concept ones for M and LTM, a Rayqual for Nikon rangefinder external mount, and Amedeo for Nikon internal mount.

PF
 
Thank you all for your comments. These are my first forays into digital editing, so it's useful to hear, and I apologize if I've driven this conversation off-topic.
 
The 3 element is supposed to be very very nice. I almost got one by accident.....seller didn't know difference between 4 and 3, and at the time neither did I. The sale fell through for some reason. I grabbed an LTM 4 element a few days later and then realized there are different versions. That 4 element turned out to be quite messed up, but after my technical treatment, it's a very good lens. But not as good as the 3 element.
Congrats on your 3 element!
 
I bought a 3 element ltm almost 6 months ago. It had some haze, so it's been living in CLA land ever since. I hope to get it back soon.
 
3 elements 90mm f4 Elmer will be on Chinese replica list. It will be interesting to see how they replica the black vulcanite collar
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top