Re: [Leica] In defense of my (fat) Tele-Elmarit

[Peter Klein <pklein@2alpha.net>]

At 09:22 AM 02/10/2001 -0800, Tim Spragens wrote:
>The skinny is said to be flare prone, if it gets the fungus you may
>as well use it for a paper weight, as the rear element is fixed, very
>pocketable and has acceptable sharpness.
>
>What is the scoop on the fat one? I've only used the skinny.

And Mark Rabiner wondered:
 > I thought mine was fat.
 > But you may be right.

There's an easy way to tell the difference between the "fat" and the 
"skinny" Tele-Elmarits.  The "skinny" has a circular focusing ring with 
raised lines closely spaced evenly around the ring.  The "fat" has a 
"scalloped" focusing ring like the old Summilux 50/1.4 and the classic 
90/2.8 Elmarit.  It has little U-shaped "dips" spaced around the ring for 
your fingertip and thumb to fit into.

Someone posted a list of serial numbers for the various versions of 90 
(Tele) Elmarits to the LUG some time ago, I'm sure it could be found in the 
archives.

These are two recent EBay auctions with pictures of the "skinny" T-E:
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1209470394
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1209937833

And here is a "fat" (it's chrome, most are black, but the shape is what 
matters here):
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1212380527

(Note:  these are completed auctions, so please, no flames, it was just a 
quick way to find pictures of each.)

I owned the "fat" TE in the 70s and liked it very much.  I shot a lot 
outdoors with it on Kodachrome 25, and was thrilled with the quality.  It 
was fine in flouresent room light, too.  I always used a hood, and don't 
remember any flare problems, but I don't remember using it deliberately 
with bright light sources in the picture.  The one time I clearly remember 
losing shots because of it was the time that Rod Serling spoke at my 
college.  I had to shoot wide open, f/2.8 at 1/15 or a second, no tripod 
possible, and all my shots had camera shake blur.  How I wish I'd had a 
90/2 lens then!

Last year, I read (and downloaded) a comparison of the f/2.8 90mm lenses 
from Erwin's old site.  I can no longer find it online, and I don't think I 
should post the old text without Erwin's permission. To sum up what I 
believe Erwin said, the skinny TE has one less element and is a little more 
contrasty than the fat TE.  This might reasonably be extrapolated to the 
"fat" being a bit more flare-prone.  I also get the impression that the 
differences are subtle.  Perhaps Erwin will expand on this for us.

With the 90/2.8 lenses, Leitz was trying to find the ideal combination of 
quality and handiness.  My impression is that the old classic Elmarit 
probably out-performs either of the Tele-Elmarits at wider apertures, but 
is longer and less ergonomic. The current Emarit-M is a cut above all of 
them, particularly wide-open, but much bigger and heavier.  However, if the 
"fat" gets fogged, you can have it cleaned, but with the "skinny's" rear 
elements, forget it.

Hope this is useful,
- --Peter Klein
Seattle, WA