Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/02/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]gold, That is a late one and doesn't appear to be in the ones that had the trouble. It was usually an early lens and one that was used on the west coast of the USA :). I have an early one that has absolutely pristine glass, but that is because Leica Solms replaced the front and rear elements in October, 2000. Great lens. Bruce Burnett Holladay, UT USA > Hi folks > > I just picked a "used" Tele-Elmarit-M f2.8 (skinny) that is in perfect shape > and I was thrilled to find it - it came basically "new-in-box" mint perfect > although I know it has been used. The serial number is 33167XX - is this an > early or later model?? I haven't used it a great deal and with 100asa film > outdoors even with SS at 1000 I'm already stopped down to about 5.6/8 in > daylight - photos look fine - love the compactness. > > I'm wondering if this lens is in the range of ones that have had > "trouble"??? > > Thanks - gold > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Mark Rabiner > Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 3:01 AM > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > Subject: Re: [Leica] In defense of my (fat) Tele-Elmarit > > Tim Spragens wrote: > > > > On 10 Feb 2001, at 0:29, Mark Rabiner wrote: > > > > > I'm not going to trash the fat Tele-Elmarit anymore because people > > > love the shots they get from it. (I would love to see these shots in > > > the flesh) > > > > I thought the one you used to trash was the skinny, did you have > > bad experience with the fat one as well? > > I thought mine was fat. > But you may be right. > One version was OK and the other was not? > Was that the consensus? > > mark rabiner > >