Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/03/22

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] RE: thin vs. fat tele-elmarit designation
From: Howard Davis <HDavis@slcearch.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 11:43:00 -0600

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?
>
>------------------------------