Leica-Minolta collaboration

fermy · Joined: 17 Feb 2012 Posts: 1974

What I might do on a rainy day is have a shootout between this Elmar, the first version of 90mm M-mount Elmarit and c-Elmar. It could be fun to see how the IQ progressed...

scsambrook · Expire: 2011-11-18

Thanks to fermy for those comparison pics - interesting to see how the pre-war Elmar performs compared to a more modern lens from a maker whose name nobody dare criticize Very Happy

I have a 1954 version which is supposed to be the same optic but coated, with the usual cleaning marks (=scratches) and lots of bits of dust inside. At f4 it shows just the same characteristics as fermy's in comparison with my other 90s - a 1966 Tele Elmarit and a 21st century Voigtlander Apo Lanthar. It's certainly less sharp and generally "duller". But when you stop it down to f5.6 the sharpness and contrast both pick up and at f8 - with only a little amount of processing - you can hardly tell the difference between it and the others. Maybe the Elmar would come third shooting into the light, it does have quite a lot of fine scratches.

The 90mm Elmar, like some other excellent optics, has in recent times acquired an unfavorable reputation which is completely unjustified. I think fermy has just the right word when he says "disrespected". Like so many other internet-reputations the assertion of its being "soft" is repeated ad nauseam by people who've either had a beat-up example or, more often, are parroting what others have already said. Back in the 1950s, the 90 Elmar was praised for the "plasticity" of its images. What the writers meant was the way the sharp, in-focus areas slid gradually into a softened rendering which still retained the form of the objects they depicted. In those 'happy times" we weren't obsessed with dissolving images into a featureless mush and "plasticity" was considered a virtue. But more recently, the wannabe experts have seized on the word and misconstrued its meaning in the original context.

Sometimes I'm glad I'm an old man. (But not always Wink

)

aoleg · Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 1387 Location: Berlin, DE

DR.JUAN · Joined: 08 Feb 2013 Posts: 661

And Minolta where is into that comparisons?

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

scsambrook · Expire: 2011-11-18

I'm not entirely sure that I agree with Ian that Tessar types made for 24x36mm are 'disrespected' generally - maybe 'ignored' is more the case. Everyone (nearly!) seems to want to dissolve the background these days, and a 50mm Tessar ain't really going to do that, is it?

But going back to the 90mm Elmar, compared to the 50mm lens (of which we rarely hear anything but praise) the longer focal length enhanced the transition into de-focus, if that's the right term. No way is a good 90 Elmar actually 'soft' at f4 - any more than any other good 50mm Tessar type is at a similar f number. Now, the f2.8 versions might show something different but that's another story altogether.

scsambrook · Expire: 2011-11-18

aoleg · Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 1387 Location: Berlin, DE

fermy · Joined: 17 Feb 2012 Posts: 1974

victorpatrick · Joined: 13 Jul 2023 Posts: 3 Location: USA

The collaboration between Leica and Minolta resulted in the development of the Minolta CLE camera, which was compatible with Leica M-mount lenses. However, it's important to note that Leica and Minolta maintained separate lens production during this collaboration, and there were no specific lenses designed jointly by the two companies. pge outage map

paulhofseth · Expire: 2018-06-28

An example relevant to the Leitz v/s Minolta quality control & manufacturing isssue:

My 800 catadioptric designed and labelled as produced in japan, must have had is longer mount and peculiar filter insertion mechanics adapted to the much longer mount-filmplane of the R cameras while in Japan and I doubt that Leitz would have accepted the cost saving "fussy-customer quality control principle" for those lenses- So in practice, the routines at Chyioda must have been comparable to those at Leitz.

p.

Ultrapix · Joined: 06 Jan 2012 Posts: 571 Location: Italy

This is not an easy topic, partly because we do not have all the information about what a deal between two big companies might be. The Minolta XE1 for example, in order to "become" a Leica R3 has undergone many modifications, but the result is that today most Minolta still work well or fairly well, while the Leica almost all have electronic problems. In the case of optics, there are both Minolta/Leica lenses marked "Made in Japan" and others Germany, where probably the whole mount was made in Germany. It is also rumored that the Rokkor C 90/4 is actually an Elmar in its own right, while the Rokkor C 40/2 would be all Minolta... likewise it will always be arduous to know all the details of the other collaborations-Fuji and Panasonic first, which certainly contributed a lot to the creation of the digital Leica generation

paulhofseth · Expire: 2018-06-28

In agree that collaboration deals are opaque, but in the case of "country of origin" labelling I believe there would have been a strong incentive to use Germany rather than Japan (just see how missguided many are with regards to Midland v/s Wetzlar or Kyocera v/s Zeiss (MMv/s AE) so if the rules had allowed mount work, parts and labour + quality control costs to qualify: it would have been labelled accordingly . All allowable accountant tricks would have been used. Hence I still believe that Minolta QC satisfied Leitz in this case.

The zoom lens issues may well have been different, with rumours stating that there were several returns and possibly the lenses assembled and labelled as made in Germany.

The only R zoom not made by Leitz that I have, is an Angenieux and that is clearly marked as made in France.

p

Ultrapix · Joined: 06 Jan 2012 Posts: 571 Location: Italy

paulhofseth · Expire: 2018-06-28

the pedestrian 35-70. The only exotic Angenieux stuff I have is for the old and newer Alpas plus one of their 180 "DEM"fast apochromatics (and the ill-fated Autozoom for Nikon)

cbass · Joined: 27 Jul 2019 Posts: 450

All the mediocre Leica lenses were designs they purchased from Minolta. Just kidding.

Leica made some very special lenses that were ahead of their time.
The Summilux 50 in particular. Even today it's very difficult to correct for coma on fast 50's and Leica did an exceptional job here and they calculated that lens in the 1960s. There also was no other lens that could match its performance at f/1.4 in the center for decades. There were lenses that could do better in the corners because Leica allowed massive curvature in the lens to get that performance. It would fail stevemark's typical test as the extreme corners didn't get crisp until f/8 due to the curvature. That lens was designed for handheld night photography where it had no serious competition for a long time. If you wanted a lens with less curvature where the corner performance was much better at wider apertures, then Leica had the summicron 50. The Summicron 50 would perform very strongly in stevemark's typical test.

The Noctilux 1.2 was special as was the Noctilux 0.95 who were way ahead of their time before any other competition. I can speak about other designs, but don't want to be accused of being a fan boy.

Leica had many lenses technically ahead of anything available that stayed ahead of competition anywhere from 5 to sometimes 20 years or more. The only issue with Leica is prices never went down on the older designs and you can buy newer designs from other manufacturers that surpassed the older ones for much cheaper. The issue with Leica is price. The other issue is that most of the technical superiority is at the widest aperture. If you can stop down a few stops, then no reason to pay that much, but Leica prices that in with the Elmars and Elmarits being the most affordable. The Summicrons more expensive. The Summiluxes get exponentially more expensive and the noctiluxes get obscenely expensive.

Ultrapix · Joined: 06 Jan 2012 Posts: 571 Location: Italy

cbass · Joined: 27 Jul 2019 Posts: 450

LittleAlex · Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2023 9:19 am Post subject:

lumens pixel · Expire: 2021-06-25

Very nice lens.

Ultrapix · Joined: 06 Jan 2012 Posts: 571 Location: Italy

kathala · Joined: 13 May 2022 Posts: 142