Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/05/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. - ------ =_NextPart_001_01BE9AEB.46DCC350 Content-Type: text/plain For my purposes, shooting fast in available light, prints up to 20 inches wide, the "skinny" Tele-Elmarit has proven to be a very fine lens, indeed. I very rarely-- make that never-- shoot under the ideal conditions whereby the differences between the skinny and later versions of the lens will tell. Another aspect of the older lens that I like is the reversible, clip-on shade. More than once I've given the lens a very hard bump and the shade has absorbed the blow by being knocked off. I carry the lens in an old leather pouch with the shade reversed and it slips into a suit pocket. I have never checked, but it is possible that this lens is Canadian made, as is my other favorite, the pre-aspheric 35 summicron. I have compared the "skinny" Tele-Elmarit to later generation lenses. Looking at prints, big prints, I for one have not detected any improvement in the newer lenses WHEN SHOOTING HAND HELD. But then, I also tend to be casual about exposure measurement and focus, too, so I am perhaps not the best person from whom to seek judgement. I just take pictures and the pictures I take with the elder Tele-Elmarit are technically what I want from my Leica; small, light, rugged, durable, and producing a fine image. Stop by some time, I live ten minutes from Boston (but don't get to Worcester too often since they closed the old Maury's), and I'll show you the prints the prove my suppositions. Buzz Hausner > After the glowing praises of the 90-M Elmarit sung here in recent days > (in the 90 ASPH Summicron thread), I am given pause to wonder about > performance differences between that Elmarit and my late-80's > Tele-Elmarit. > > I prize the petite profile and svelte weight of the tele-elmarit but if > there would be significant differences in my photography as a result of > using the current 90 Elmarit, I'd be willing to use the slightly larger > and heavier lens. > > Any (informed) comparative observations regarding these two lenses? > > rwyble@erols.com Worcester, Massachusetts > Richard J. Wyble - ------ =_NextPart_001_01BE9AEB.46DCC350 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; = charset=3Dus-ascii"> <META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version = 5.0.1460.9"> <TITLE>RE: [Leica] 90 Tele-elmarit vs. Current Elmarit?</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <UL> <P><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Book Antiqua">For my = purposes, shooting fast in available light, prints up to 20 inches = wide, the "skinny" Tele-Elmarit has proven to be a very fine = lens, indeed. I very rarely-- make that never-- shoot under the = ideal conditions whereby the differences between the skinny and later = versions of the lens will tell. Another aspect of the older lens = that I like is the reversible, clip-on shade. More than once I've = given the lens a very hard bump and the shade has absorbed the blow by = being knocked off. I carry the lens in an old leather pouch with = the shade reversed and it slips into a suit pocket. I have never = checked, but it is possible that this lens is Canadian made, as is my = other favorite, the pre-aspheric 35 summicron.</FONT></P> <P><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Book Antiqua">I have = compared the "skinny" Tele-Elmarit to later generation = lenses. Looking at prints, big prints, I for one have not = detected any improvement in the newer lenses WHEN SHOOTING HAND HELD. = But then, I also tend to be casual about exposure measurement and = focus, too, so I am perhaps not the best person from whom to seek = judgement. I just take pictures and the pictures I take with the = elder Tele-Elmarit are technically what I want from my Leica; small, = light, rugged, durable, and producing a fine image. Stop by some = time, I live ten minutes from Boston (but don't get to Worcester too = often since they closed the old Maury's), and I'll show you the prints = the prove my suppositions.</FONT></P> <P> <FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" = SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Book Antiqua">Buzz Hausner</FONT> </P> <BR> <P><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">After the glowing = praises of the 90-M Elmarit sung here in recent days</FONT> <BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">(in the 90 ASPH = Summicron thread), I am given pause to wonder about</FONT> <BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">performance = differences between that Elmarit and my late-80's</FONT> <BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 = FACE=3D"Arial">Tele-Elmarit.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">I prize the petite = profile and svelte weight of the tele-elmarit but if</FONT> <BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">there would be = significant differences in my photography as a result of</FONT> <BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">using the current = 90 Elmarit, I'd be willing to use the slightly larger</FONT> <BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">and heavier = lens.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Any (informed) = comparative observations regarding these two lenses?</FONT> </P> <P><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial"> = rwyble@erols.com &n= bsp; Worcester, = Massachusetts</FONT> <BR><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial"> Richard J. = Wyble</FONT> </P> </UL> </BODY> </HTML> - ------ =_NextPart_001_01BE9AEB.46DCC350--