Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Smallest75-90 mm adaptable to mount
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2023 2:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ultrapix wrote:
Leica Elmar 90/4, small and excellent performer, dirty cheap these days




100% crops from the JPGs out of 43 MP Sony A7RII


Gatorengineer64 wrote:
The Elmar just never clicked with me, even though the size is attractive.

Was also considering the Zeiss 85 ZM, but not sure its better than the Rokkor....


There are two Zeiss ZM 85 mm lenses, the rare 2/85mm and the 4/85mm.
The ZM 2/85mm is an extremely good lens (tested on the A7RII).

S


PostPosted: Sun Jun 11, 2023 11:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Dejan wrote:
RokkorDoctor wrote:
Minolta M-ROKKOR 90mm f/4 maybe?

Could be expensive though...; I'm sure others would know of a similar quality cheaper alternative.

A quick look found this review (undoubtedly there are more):

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-minolta-m-rokkor-90mm-4-0/


Isn't Leica branded variant usually cheaper and practically the same lens?


As far as I remember the earlier M-Rokkor 90/4 is identical to the Leica branded version - it is even Made in Germany by Leitz (one of the few cases where a Leitz lens was sold as a Minolta rather than the other way around). The later version is Made in Japan and may have updated coatings.

I quite like my Robot Royal Schneider Tele Xenar 75/3.8 and 90/3.8. Small and sharp, with a quirky square aperture. I use them with a Robot Royal/m39 adapter plus m39/Leica M.

There are many interesting enlarger / industrial lenses in this focal range, say Apo Rodagon N 80/4 or Schneider Apo Componon or Digitar 90/4.5. Those also work well with tilt/shift adapters.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 11, 2023 1:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Ultrapix wrote:
Leica Elmar 90/4, small and excellent performer, dirty cheap these days




100% crops from the JPGs out of 43 MP Sony A7RII


Gatorengineer64 wrote:
The Elmar just never clicked with me, even though the size is attractive.

Was also considering the Zeiss 85 ZM, but not sure its better than the Rokkor....


There are two Zeiss ZM 85 mm lenses, the rare 2/85mm and the 4/85mm.
The ZM 2/85mm is an extremely good lens (tested on the A7RII).

S


Wich version of the Elmar? an early 30s, or later? I can post some pics from my collapsible, but it has foggy glass, what is unluckily pretty common on aged Leicas. By the way my suggestion started from the point to get an M mount lens, I hate to use different mount adapter in the same session , but maybe it's just me


PostPosted: Sun Jun 11, 2023 5:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ultrapix wrote:

Wich version of the Elmar? an early 30s, or later?

According to kenrockwells list (https://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/lens-serial-numbers.htm) it would be from 1947. It's coated, glass looks pretty clean and has no obvious damages.

Ultrapix wrote:
I can post some pics from my collapsible, ... By the way my suggestion started from the point to get an M mount lens, I hate to use different mount adapter in the same session , but maybe it's just me


Yeah, it would be good to have some crops (center @ f4, corner @f8 ) from a newer M version. Maybe it has an improved computation? And maybe you can compare it to something "modern" (another 85mm or 90mm lens you onw)?

Thanks & greetings!

S


PostPosted: Sun Jun 11, 2023 8:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Ultrapix wrote:

Wich version of the Elmar? an early 30s, or later?

According to kenrockwells list (https://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/lens-serial-numbers.htm) it would be from 1947. It's coated, glass looks pretty clean and has no obvious damages.

Ultrapix wrote:
I can post some pics from my collapsible, ... By the way my suggestion started from the point to get an M mount lens, I hate to use different mount adapter in the same session , but maybe it's just me


Yeah, it would be good to have some crops (center @ f4, corner @f8 ) from a newer M version. Maybe it has an improved computation? And maybe you can compare it to something "modern" (another 85mm or 90mm lens you onw)?

Thanks & greetings!

S


I will do that asap!


PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2023 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
simple.joy wrote:
16:9 wrote:
All unwieldy monsters compared to this little gem:
https://deltalenses.com/product/kodak-enlarging-ektar-75-4-5-us/

Great rendition and sharpness. Plus it can be swallowed in an emergency.


Well... I followed your advice and now the doctor says I don't need to worry about my iron deficiancy any more.

A meltdown... through my lens! by simple.joy, auf Flickr

Thanks, Kodak!

(It didn't taste great though...)


People who haven't handled the Ektar will think that's a really huge spoon!


PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2023 10:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Ultrapix wrote:

Wich version of the Elmar? an early 30s, or later?

According to kenrockwells list (https://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/lens-serial-numbers.htm) it would be from 1947. It's coated, glass looks pretty clean and has no obvious damages.

Ultrapix wrote:
I can post some pics from my collapsible, ... By the way my suggestion started from the point to get an M mount lens, I hate to use different mount adapter in the same session , but maybe it's just me


Yeah, it would be good to have some crops (center @ f4, corner @f8 ) from a newer M version. Maybe it has an improved computation? And maybe you can compare it to something "modern" (another 85mm or 90mm lens you onw)?

Thanks & greetings!

S


Here I am Stephan, I tested my collapsible 90 Elmar M against the Canon EF 100/2 and my result confirms your test. At infinity, simply the circle of coverage of this lens is not enough, it returns good sharpness maybe on 70/80 % of the field, but the corners are definitely poor. No real improvement @ 1:8





#1 here the Canon @ 1:4


#2 Elmar @ 1:4 (my sample has a little foggy glass)


#3 100 % crops from Elmar


#4


#5 100 % corner crop from the Canon (with BIF Smile )


I was wondering why I never noticed the limitations of this lens, probably because most of the time I used it at short distances and with three-dimensional subjects where the circle of coverage is sufficient, as these informal shots show, all wide open, only post intervention the automatic levels

#6


#7


#8


#9


#10
[url=http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20236/big_5107_23061312032A1A4749_1.jpg]


PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2023 3:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
While traveling I'll bring either :

Leitz Tele Elmarit-M 2.8/90 (thin version) ; E39 - 10 blades - MFD 100mm
https://wiki.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/90mm_f/2.8_Tele-Elmarit_II

or

Voigtländer Color-Heliar 2.5/75 ; 43∅ - LTM - 10 blades - MFD 100mm

https://lens-db.com/cosina-voigtlander-color-heliar-75mm-f25-mc-1999/
https://www.revelateur.com/materiel/fiches/Voigtlander-Color-Heliar-75mm-f-2-5.php


PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2023 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ultrapix wrote:

Here I am Stephan, I tested my collapsible 90 Elmar M against the Canon EF 100/2 and my result confirms your test. At infinity, simply the circle of coverage of this lens is not enough, it returns good sharpness maybe on 70/80 % of the field, but the corners are definitely poor. No real improvement @ 1:8


Thanks a lot! It's always good to have a conformation from a second source. Not a real surprise to me - science & technology have made some progress during the last 50-100 years ...

It was more a surprise to me how good the f6.3 Tessars from around 1920 are! At f11 they result in excellent FF images, even on high res sensors. No CAs, perfect corner resolution. The 4/90mm Elmar is nowhere nearly as good.

S


PostPosted: Wed Jun 14, 2023 11:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ultrapix wrote:

At infinity, simply the circle of coverage of this lens is not enough, it returns good sharpness maybe on 70/80 % of the field, but the corners are definitely poor. No real improvement @ 1:8

I don't think the 4-element elmar 90/4 does not have enough coverage on a full frame sensor. The 3-element elmar on the left does cover GFX. It is unlikely the 4-element elmar on the right does not cover full frame. May be I will do a quick test the 4-element elmar when I have time.





PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2023 6:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
calvin83 wrote:
Ultrapix wrote:

At infinity, simply the circle of coverage of this lens is not enough, it returns good sharpness maybe on 70/80 % of the field, but the corners are definitely poor. No real improvement @ 1:8

I don't think the 4-element elmar 90/4 does not have enough coverage on a full frame sensor. The 3-element elmar on the left does cover GFX. It is unlikely the 4-element elmar on the right does not cover full frame. May be I will do a quick test the 4-element elmar when I have time.





I've read that the 3 element version is apparently better than the 4 element. I'm curious how my soon to arrive 3-element Topcor 9cm.F/3.5 will do. I don't expect wonders from a lens from the fifties, although you never know with Topcon.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2023 9:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
calvin83 wrote:
Ultrapix wrote:

At infinity, simply the circle of coverage of this lens is not enough, it returns good sharpness maybe on 70/80 % of the field, but the corners are definitely poor. No real improvement @ 1:8

I don't think the 4-element elmar 90/4 does not have enough coverage on a full frame sensor.


It depends on your definition of "... does cover ...".

You seem to be happy if the corners are not dark, others may be more demanding ...

I'm sure your triplet 4/90mm Elmar will not be useable on the GFX for andscape photography, due to the field curvature inherent in triplets, especially when wide open. Stopped down to f11, and used on FF sensors, it may be a very good lens, though (at least my Minolta 4/135 mm triplet is!).

S


PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2023 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Just checked my old Elmarit (not Tele Elmarit) 90 2,8 5 elements: it's been my favorite portrait lens for decades, and it's much better than the Elmar; a bit glowy (but details are there) wide open, tack sharp once stopped down

here at 1:8

#1


crop 50 %

#2


PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2023 11:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
calvin83 wrote:
Ultrapix wrote:

At infinity, simply the circle of coverage of this lens is not enough, it returns good sharpness maybe on 70/80 % of the field, but the corners are definitely poor. No real improvement @ 1:8

I don't think the 4-element elmar 90/4 does not have enough coverage on a full frame sensor.


It depends on your definition of "... does cover ...".

You seem to be happy if the corners are not dark, others may be more demanding ...

I'm sure your triplet 4/90mm Elmar will not be useable on the GFX for andscape photography, due to the field curvature inherent in triplets, especially when wide open. Stopped down to f11, and used on FF sensors, it may be a very good lens, though (at least my Minolta 4/135 mm triplet is!).

S

Sure. The triplet Elmar is not suitable if one need edge to edge sharpness. The edge is not as bad as one may think. Vignetting is not a problem on the Elmar as shown on the following 25.5MP sample down sized from 100MP. For landscape, it is better to use the Apo-Macro-Elmarit 100mm.



PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2023 8:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
D1N0 wrote:
Pentax-M 85mm 1:2 is pretty compact and still bright.
Poleskeh by The lens profile, on Flickr


Second this. This lens is only slightly larger than the ubiquitous Pentax-M 50s, has great image quality, and won't hit the pocketbook like some of the others mentioned.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2023 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="BrianSVP"]
D1N0 wrote:
Pentax-M 85mm 1:2 is pretty compact and still bright.
Second this. This lens is only slightly larger than the ubiquitous Pentax-M 50s, has great image quality, and won't hit the pocketbook like some of the others mentioned.


The same goes for the Minolta MD 2/85mm, and maybe aslo for the corresponding Nikkor AiS 2/85mm (which I've never been using personally).

S


PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2023 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="stevemark"]
BrianSVP wrote:
D1N0 wrote:
Pentax-M 85mm 1:2 is pretty compact and still bright.
Second this. This lens is only slightly larger than the ubiquitous Pentax-M 50s, has great image quality, and won't hit the pocketbook like some of the others mentioned.


The same goes for the Minolta MD 2/85mm, and maybe aslo for the corresponding Nikkor AiS 2/85mm (which I've never been using personally).

S


Yep, I can recommend the Nikkor. Another lens I see often for good prices is the Nikkor AF 85mm f/1.8 D. It has very good optics and is usable as mf lens.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2023 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
Another lens I see often for good prices is the Nikkor AF 85mm f/1.8 D. It has very good optics and is usable as mf lens.


Nikkor AF 1.8/85 vs Minolta MD 2/85:



I'm a bit puzzled about this poor performance, although the Nikkor seems to have less CAs than the Minolta. That said, I have seen similar differences between 1980s Minolta and AF Nikkor lenses, e. g. with the AF Nikkor 2.8/35-70 vs Minolta AF2.8/28-70 or Nikkor AF2.8/80-200mm vs Minolta AF 2.8/80-200mm.

100% crops from JPGs outof 43 MP FF Sony A7RII.

S


PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2023 5:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
Another lens I see often for good prices is the Nikkor AF 85mm f/1.8 D. It has very good optics and is usable as mf lens.


Nikkor AF 1.8/85 vs Minolta MD 2/85:



I'm a bit puzzled about this poor performance, although the Nikkor seems to have less CAs than the Minolta. That said, I have seen similar differences between 1980s Minolta and AF Nikkor lenses, e. g. with the AF Nikkor 2.8/35-70 vs Minolta AF2.8/28-70 or Nikkor AF2.8/80-200mm vs Minolta AF 2.8/80-200mm.

100% crops from JPGs outof 43 MP FF Sony A7RII.

S


Hmmm, never used it myself, merely basing it on test on Opticallimits.Com and a few other reviews. Your results seem to contradict that. But the older Nikkor Ai(s) 85mm f/2 I do have, and it is definitely sharp across the frame when stopped down. Highly recommended.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 17, 2023 7:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
By the way, any small DSRL lens becomes large once adapted to a mirrorless; since the opener already uses a Leica M adapter, I would choose a LM lens, particularly for a small tele, that can be picked up among dozens of options.

Last edited by Ultrapix on Sat Jun 17, 2023 1:03 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Jun 17, 2023 12:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:

Hmmm, never used it myself, merely basing it on test on Opticallimits.Com and a few other reviews. Your results seem to contradict that. But the older Nikkor Ai(s) 85mm f/2 I do have, and it is definitely sharp across the frame when stopped down. Highly recommended.


Again, it would be good if others could chime in and confirm or disprove my findings. My sample looks good (no obvious damage from outside, smooth focusing, and no damage on the glass), and I have tried itwith two different adapters from different manufacturers. One of them is spot-on at infinity, the other one allows slight "overfocusing" to get sharp infinity results with not perfectly collimated lenses.

I don't think those adapters are the culprit since they work very well with my Ai 3.5/20mm and AiS AF 2.8/20mm Nikkors (suerwides are very sentitive to slight deviations on the adapter side). That said, my lens might have an invisible flaw (you never know) - or the AF Nikkor 1.8/85mm might be optimized for shorter ranges (portrait range!). The Nikkor AiS 4/80-200mm for instance (a very expensive zoom) was not optimized for infinity (thus resulting in slightly inferior test results when shooting at infinity).

Hopefully someone can run a similar quick test with the AF Nikkor 1.8/85mm, at infinity.

S


EDIT: I have re-checked my AF Nikkor 1.8/85mm D; there aretwo findings:

1) My sample, at infinity, has some field curvature: When focusing the corners, they get slightly better, but then center resolution decreases
2) At a distance of 1.2m my sample has a very good resolution also in the corners

The (very good) test results of opticallimits.com certainly were measured at short distances. In addition they were taken using a 24MP camera (mine was 43 mp).


PostPosted: Sat Jun 17, 2023 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
So my travel was for work, and first trip was Korea and Japan, what I took was a an old Canon 25 LTM, a 40 F1.2 Voigtlander and a collapsible Summicron. Long and short of it was I realized that the 40 was to narrow for most of what I wanted to do, and used it little and the Cron never seemed to get out of the bag.

Had a two day turnaround for Germany and Poland, and reloaded the bag, with the Canon 25, the Canon 35, the Chron and an 85 F2 Nikon. Long and the short of it is the 25/35 got 90 percent of the duty, and the 85F2 never got out of the bag.... It feels like a tweener to long for most architecture and too short for telly use....

So now going to bolt on the cron and walk around the old city for a bit, and see if I can find some magic.

Just wanted to post a followup. Not sure that the 85 is the right mix for me.

Next step is to pixel peep the 25 LTM and see if I am happy or if it needs to be biogon'd...


PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2023 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My m39 Topcor 9cm f/3.5 just arrived and it’s indeed tiny. Filter size is just 34mm.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2