Re: [Leica] 90mm lenses #2

[Mike Durling <durling@cox.net>]

Hey Chris,

Thanks for the nice words about the pictures.  To be honest the lens was 
new for me and I was trying to test it and also see if I could focus it 
wide open.

I can't really argue with you about f-2 vs f-2.8.  I kind of considered 
2.8 to be the slowest lens I wanted in a short telephoto, so I avoided 
the F-4 Elmars and the C/V 90/3.5.  For years my lens in this focal 
length range was the 105/2/5 Nikkor on the Nikkormat and found that the 
2.8 neighborhood was a useful maximum aperture.  I have a 135/4.5 Hektor 
and that is fairly limiting speed-wise and in other respects.

The selection process involved being in a place where I could choose 
from among several examples of the Jupiter.  Frankly I looked at four 
before I chose one that looked like it was in good condition.  Price 
wise, it is 1/10 the cost of the 90AA.

Mike D

Christer Almqvist wrote:
>> Another 90mm that can be of good quality is the Jupiter-9.  OK its 
>> really an 85 but it is an F2.  They are all aluminum so some have 
>> worn-out focusing mounts or other defects, but if you get a good one 
>> they are very nice performers.
>>
>> Hard to tell from web scans but here are some examples:
>>
>> http://members.cox.net/durling/photo/brickgirl.jpg
>> http://members.cox.net/durling/photo/brickman.jpg
>> http://members.cox.net/durling/photo/palaceman.jpg
>>
>> All shot at F2 on Foma 200.
> 
> 
> Very nice pictures Mike. But explain to me what you need a 2.0 for in 
> such good light. Would not 2.8 do nicely, it does not give you much more 
> DOF than 2.0 if that is what you are after
> 
> I like the thin Tele Elmarit 2.8 90mm as it is small and light and does 
> not cost too much. I never really felt the need for 2.0 as I used it 
> mostly for close up portraits and I needed to use 5.6 or smaller to get 
> most of the face sharp.
> 
> Chris
> 
> 
> 
>> Mike D
> 
> 

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html