Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/08/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Marc James Small wrote: > > At 04:03 PM 8/25/1999 -0700, Mark Rabiner wrote: ><snip> > >Tele-Elmarit 90. IMHO. a dog. > > First, I'm not certain I agree with the first part of this sentence, and > certainly do not with the second, especially as there are two versions of > this lens and Rabiner didn't bother to be more specific. > > Marc > I didn't own both versions I think it was the thinner but it was my impression that both could have been not so great. All I know is I spent half a grand on a Leica m lens made in the mid seventies seven years ago that appeared to be clear glass and got worse results than from a Nikon 3.5 135 from the 60's with almost no apparent coating that cost me $30. It seems several people on the lug including Erwin seem to feel the tele's were too much a desperate attempt at miniaturization. Which is why the current Elmarit which I now own weights twice as much. A failed experiment. I didn't attribute any opinion on the tele-Elmarits to you. Only the vaguest seemingly airtight idea that earlier versions of lenes might be preferable to some people for personal reasons. And as I posted to you privately I felt that to be a statement which seemed obvious enough to not be an issue. Mark Rabiner