Re: [Leica] The 90's: f/2 v. f/2.8

[Thomas Kachadurian <kach@freeway.net>]

Gary, et al.

This has come up a few times here in the last month or so so I thought I
put in my experience. I have a late 90mm Tele-Elmarit. I have handled the
current 90mm elmarit, so my experience is somewhat limited. You can take
this all with a grain of salt. It was hard to find a 90 TE with clear
glass. most of the early ones have a fungus or resin haze on the elements
that does effect picture quality. Mine is lovely and clean. I choose the 90
TE for 2 reasons. First was size and weight. Even the lighter of the 2
current 90mm is heavy on an M camera. The 90 TE is tiny, and my original
plan was to get the smallest Leica kit I could. The secong reason was
price. My 90 TE was the cleanest one I could find anywhere and I paid top
dollar, but it was still under $650. I think I paid $630. It had the hood,
caps and everything else. I've changed the funky flexible rubber hood with
anb older metal hood and I just couldn't be happier with the ergonomics of
this lens.

Image quality on the 90 TE is said to be below that of the current 90mm
Elmarit. I can not find any flaws in the character and quality of the 90TE.
For portraits is gives a beautifully detailed image, the kind where you can
count eyelashes and at the same time where the contrast isn't so severe
that skin imperfections scream out. It is my favorite lens for shooting
people in B&W. At infinty, or longer focus the lens renders fine details
and at the same time water and sky are smooth and natural looking. I have
made 22x11 color seps from the images that you could walk into.

Tom

>
>	I've solicited opinions from everyone I know, including my son's first
>grade teacher. Probably should have turned here first...
>
>	I'd like to purchase a new 90mm lens for the M camera. Can't decide
>between the f/2 and f/2.8. I'm told the f/2 is better for portraits and the
>f/2.8 is better for everything else.
>	Which is easier, faster to focus? I don't have access to try them
>myself.
>
>-Gary