Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/12/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 04:30 PM 12/1/97 GMT, Jeremy Kime wrote: >I've had >one of each, kept the Elmar (F4 instead of F4.5) and even sold a Tele-Elmar >having had one of those. The Tele-Elmar's size was barely any different and >it was decidely heavier, and in normal use I could never see the difference >on my 12x16 b/w prints. Well, there's a slight bit of a difference: the Elmar isn't a telephoto, and thus IS 135mm long from front to back. The Tele-Elmar is 107mm long, a difference of one inch. The Tele-Elmar, though, is optically better than the Elmar. I'm not saying the Elmar is bad, just that the Tele-Elmar is somewhat better in general use. (That is, the Tele-Elmar is noticeably sharper and has better colour saturation, at the least, than does the Elmar.) Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!