Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/07/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Those were wonderful pictures, Hoppy. I had a 90 Tele-Elmarit, then the Summicron, then the 90 2.8 Elmarit, and then added an AA 'Cron. I was a bit of a lens hound. They are all excellent lenses. Perhaps I'm in the minority but I see little differences except that yes the AA is sharpest at F/2 and the Elmarit is also very sharp but doesn't have F/2. To some extent whatever lens I have, it rarely if ever is the factor in whether a picture I made is good or not. I'm not saying there is no difference, only that if I had never traded around beyond the 90 Tele-Elmarit it would have made no difference at all in the quality of my photographs. So if price is an issue, and you need F/2, get the 'Cron. If you opt for greater sharpness, get the Elmarit. And if price is not the issue get the AA. There is little real weight difference. The 90 Tele- Elmarit was light and produced wonderful (if a tad soft) pictures, the only downside I've heard is that the cemented elements can get loose. If they are OK it is a wonderful lens and great for travel as it is so light and small. Jesse