Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/03/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]They're both "M" lenses; they're both Tele-Elmarits; and they both had the same stock number (11800, if I recall, but check that in case I'm wrong). They both were relatively short for 90mm lenses (which I gather is the meaning to "Tele-" in their name); but the "Fat" one, which came first, was...well,...fatter and, perhaps as a result, heavier. The "Thin" one, which came later (but, again, using the same stock number, inexplicably enough) was not only thinner, but also much lighter than any 90mm lens has any right to be (only 225 grams, if I recall, but better check that too). Hope that helps! Art Peterson -----Original Message----- From: Howard Davis [mailto:HDavis@slcearch.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 12:43 PM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: [Leica] RE: thin vs. fat tele-elmarit designation Is the "M" designation for the thin tele-elmarit on the lens itself? The fat and thin lenses that I examined both appeared to have "Tele-Elmarit" only, on them. Am I looking in the wrong place? >------------------------------ > >Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 11:09:01 -0800 >From: Paul Chefurka <Paul_Chefurka@pmc-sierra.com> >Subject: RE: [Leica] tele-elmarit 90 > >That's "fat" (T-E) vs. "thin" (T-E-M). > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Howard Davis [mailto:HDavis@slcearch.com] >>Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 4:47 PM >>To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us >>Subject: RE: [Leica] tele-elmarit 90 >> >> >>I noticed, in Erwin Put's "Leica Papers" reference to Tele-Elmarit vs. >>Tele-Elmarit-M. Is he referring to "Fat" vs. "Thin"? Or, is this a >>distinction between two versions of the "Thin" design? > >------------------------------