Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/08/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi - A few months back, I went through the same decisionmaking process re: 90mm lenses. Years ago, I owned and loved my 90/2.8 Elmarit. This is a lightweight but not telephoto design lens - and beautiful in performance. In my recent quest, I had 2 lenses of the Tele-Elmarit (the fat and the skinny) in brand-new shape sent to me on approval. I spent a week playing around. I ended up buying the "Fat" Tele-Elmarit 90 because any optical differences from the "Skinny" one were inperceptable to me. The Fat version is far more robust...yes this does mean a little heavier, but I also suspect it's more solidly built. The rubber lens shade of the Skinny version seemed a bit flimsy and I wonder just how long it will really last before ozone and use get to it. You can use any of the other shades with it, too, but they do look a little funny. The performance of the Fat lens is superb at all stops (IMHO). It is also somewhat shorter than the latest 90/2.8 and certainly as well built. Further, it is my understanding that the optical heads of current production lenses are literally glued into the mounts rather than being screwed into them. In short. I demand near optical perfection of my Leica equipment. I also want as much mechanical quality (given my personal tastes) as I can get. I have used this algorithm in making all of my lens choices. As far as bodies go, I have different standards. While I do own an M6, I think my M5 is a far better built camera and its operation is much more sensible in use than the M6. Metaphorically, the metering in the M5 is essentially aperture priority as compared to shutter priority in the M6. One adjusts the shutter speed to the situation rather than the f/stop - read DOF - Since DOF is critical to my imagemaking - and shutter speed (within sensible limits, of course) is not, the M5 is a real winner. With its longe effective RF baselength it also focuses better these beautiful 90mm lenses. My 2c worth, Curt >At 08:10 PM 08-08-97 +0800, Ferdinand wrote: >>b.) for the 90 elmarit, I'll be saving about $400-$500, between the tele >>elmarit and the elmarit M. I heard the new lens is vastly improved. Can u >>tell the difference in the pix and is it worth it ? > >It is hard to believe that the new Elmarit is "vastly" improved over the >older tele-elmarit. My tele-elmarit takes supurb pictures, is very >lightweight, an excellent lens. I see lots of them around in 2nd hand >stores, so they can't be that expensive. Highly recommended. >> >[snip]