90mm lens please help

[vishalvora]

Dear all,

I hate to sound silly but I have no idea what the difference is between the tele-elmarit and the 'regular' elmarit. Can anyone let me know. I am after a good 90mm 2.8 lens, size being important and of course sharpness. I was considering the 90mm f4 (its tiny) but I need the f2.8

Many thanks,

 

[hektor]

Dear Vishal,

The first Elmarit 90mm was introduced in 1959 and was/is approximately 90mm long.

In 1964 the Tele-Elmarit was introduced and was/is 62mm long. From f/5.6 the optical performance is identical, but at f/2.8 the Elmarit is supposedly better. I have both and cannot pick the difference.

In 1974 Leica replaced the Tele-Elmarit with the Tele-Elmarit-M in a lighter mount and changed optical design. Like its older sibling it is 62mm long. Again the optical performance is very good.

In this situation the latest is the best.

Have fun,

Justin

PS A "tele" designation means the physical length of a lens is shorter than its focal length.

 

[garth]

I have the later Tele-Elmarit. I mostly love it. Size/weight is great, to carry and use 'as needed.' 35mm is main lens on my M6.

Eventually I'll replace it with the newer elmarit-m or summicron because of problems with flare with strong light. Many will argue that this is not a problem (for them) and that's fine. I've taken enough backlit images with horrible flare problems. Nice that I use negative film and can photoshop much back, but I would not recomend this lens if one can choose the regular 90mm.

my opinion.
garth

 

[pelikan1931]

The first version of tele-elmarit, chrome version, was produced in small numbers, and highly collectible. It is fat and without the vunite at the bottom.