Which is the smallest 90mm?

I have the current version 90mm Elmarit, and I have no complaints about it's performance- its all

the speed I need in a 90mm, and always gives me pictures I am happy with, at every aperture. But

I often leave it at home on casual outings and longer trips, because I don't want the extra weight

and bulk with me. Lately I'm leaving home mostly with an M3 (heavy, I know, but I'm addicted to

the finder), a 50mm 'cron and a VC 21mm. Small and light kit, but I miss the 90mm a lot. <p> So

here's the question- what's the smallest, lightest-weight 90mm out there? I don't care much

about speed with this one- nor do I use filters much, (although a 39mm filter size would be nice).

I want decent performance at f5.6-f11, and I'm looking for a tiny lens, if a decent one exists. Low

weight will trump size here, but only just. If it matters, I shoot mostly B&W, but some color, too. I

don't mind M bayonet or screw mount- I almost prefer LTM, since I might like to use this lens with

a Barnack camera too, but either way... So what are your thoughts?

Try a CV 75mm f/2.5. Get a snap-on cap so you can carry it without the hood, so it will seem just barely bigger than you 50. Put a 90mm LTM adapter on it and pretend it's a 90.<div></div>

Canon 100/3.5 LTM. The first black and chrome version, takes 34mm filters (same filters as Summar 50/2, Elmar 90/4, Hektor 135/4.5). There's a rarer late all-black version that takes 40mm filters, but it's larger.

 

Smaller and lighter than the Elmar 90/4, and a better lens to boot.

 

FIKUS hood will do fine, as it also takes A36 accessories -- Canon hood can be hard to find.

 

If it's "gotta be Leica", then the only choice is Elmar 90/4. No idea if the late rare three-element one is lighter, but it is supposed to be better than the four element ones. The three-element one is probably the only one that's better than the Canon.

John's post is accurate. The 100 f3.5 Canon is a gem. Much better than the LTM 90 Elmar f4. The all black Canon is very light.

The "thin" lens -- 90mm f/2.8 Tele-elmarit -- is very small and light. Users are not expensive. Filter size is 39mm.

 

I've never heard an unfavorable comment about the 100mm Canon ltm that John mentions, though I've never used it. (Not sure I've even seen it in person.)

Just noticed this <a href=http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004COq>old thread</a>, on which Andy Piper linked a <a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/652355&size=lg>photo</a> from his Tele-Elmarit M which shows that the lens can do the job.

With an M3, 135mm is surprisingly useful and fun. The black Canon 135mm f/3.5 is amazingly small and light. It's probably bigger than you had in mind, but you can't deny it has reach. Nice background blur, too.

Smallest and lightest? Consider the 90mm f:4 Elmar C. Or even a late LTM Elmar. ("Is that a 90mm Elmar in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?")

Micahel- thanks for the link to the older thread on this topic- I've got to learn to

search better.<p>Thanks to all for the responses so far- I didn't really know about

the Canon 100. Anyone have sample pics from this lens? 50mm is my standard lens,

gets about 50% of my pics, and I find a 75mm to be just too close in coverage to

warrant a lens change, so it doesn't interest me much (although the 75mm 'lux is a

really fun lens, to go completely in the other direction of the size and weight issue).

As for brands, I couldn't care less, as long as it takes nice photos and works on the

cameras I use.

John- you're right about the 135mm length on the M3- I have an old 135mm Elmar

f4, which I use often enough, and more and more lately. I can seriuosly recommend a

135mm to anyone with an M3. But here, I'm just looking for a tiny tele lens to take

with me when I really want to travel light. Thanks again, and keep those ponderings

coming- anybody want to post sample pics from their voted lenses?

For an M-only 90 - the obvious choice to me would be the new 90 f/4 macro. Second

choice would be an Elmar-C, followed by a thin T.E., followed by an older collapsible

Elmar. For both Barnack and M use, I'd look at the newer 90mm Apo Lanthar, followed by

an LTM Elmar.

The new Leica 90mm f4 Macro Elmar gets great performance reviews, collapses to the same size as a 50 Summicron, uses 39mm filters and is very light. Seems this would be a great choice in a new lens. I know I'd like to have one - for the same reasons you list.

The f4 Elmar does indeed get great reviews for its performance throughout the range. It's

suppose to be great wide open.

 

I've a buddy who uses this as a wedding portrait lens and is encouraging me to buy one.

The aperture restricts its use to daylight shots, but its exceptional quality and low weight

make it a joy to use. I recall Puts writing accolades for it.

 

Apparently, it is very fast to focus compared with the other 90mm's making it a really

good candid portrait & street lens.

I LOVE responses like: "What's the smallest 90?" - "A 75 or a 135".

 

90 Elmar-C, but some say it has focusing problems due to camming differences between

the "C" and "M" lenses.

 

Either version of the 90 Tele-Elmarit - the earlier 60's lens is heavier, but is available in

chrome to match your M3; the lighter 1975-1990 lens has flare issues sometimes, and

should be checked carefully when buying since a small number have developed a disease

on the rear element that requires replacing the glass (and the parts are scarce).

 

My 90 TE-M is the lens that's been in my kit the longest - traded it once for a current

Elmarit and went back to recover it from the dealer within a month.

 

Strictly from the POV of also being compatable with screw-mount - yeah, then the C/V 75

is kinda in the running, as well as the Canon f/3.5 already mentioned.

Ok, to answer the question -- I have had the tele-elmarit M, the 100mm f/3.5 Canon and

the 90mm f/2.8 M-Hexanon. The Hexanon is the best lens. It is barely larger than the

Tele-Elmarit, but it has a sliding hood which makes it smaller in use, and the lens is a

better performer. It is a superb lens. The Canon would be my second choice. It

outperforms the 90mm TE, but it is a half stop slower and it uses a slightly smaller set of

framelines. As long as you are a bit conservative, it is not a problem. All that said, the

lightest, most compact 90mm is the 90mm f/4 Macro Elmar M. It is a recent M lens and

probably performs better than all the other lenses I have mentioned. The nice thing about

it is that it is a collapsible lens with completely modern performance. If you get the

goggles, you can focus very closely as well. Since speed is not a factor for you, I would

highly recommend it. As M lenses go, it is at the lower end of the cost, but it will cost

more than the other lenses I mentioned by at least a factor of at least two. I don't know if

it is lighter than the 100mm f/3.5, but it is certainly light. None of these lenses are heavy

enough to be a burden.

I thought the current 90 macro lens from Leica and just use the newer 50 elmar lens shade.

I can personally recommend the 90mm Marco F4, I bought a used one the other day and am really please with everything about it. I too bought it because I dislike the idea of large lenses on my Leica.

What about the C/V 90? It's tiny (take 39mm filters) and a very good performer.

I'm with John: I just picked up a pretty, black, Canon 135mm 1:3.5 LTM w/adapter for my M4-P. I love it, but it's not a small 90!<div></div>

The Canon 100 3.5 is, as everybody says, "tiny" ...2.75" outside the camera body. Much smaller in dia than CV 50 1.5 (doesn't come close to my 100 mm frameline) and about .75" longer.

 

100 is a typical Canon LTM lens: jewel-like, easily Leica quality mechanically.

 

It focuses to a meter, offering a very tight head shot...it will almost precisely fill the frame with an 8.5X11 page.

 

I don't recall... I wonder if Elmars focus that tightly.

 

Framelines on Canon P are 100, 50, 35, so with my bodies there's no need for guesswork or an accessory finder.

Elmar C f/4 meets all the specs you state. Smallest, lightest, f/4, sharp at your stated f-stops. Uses the funky series 5.5 filters, but you can half-thread on a 39mm filter and half-screw the hood into the filter, and you'll still not have any vignetting. That's what I do with my 40mm that uses those filters. Works fine. Color rendition of the Elmar C is excellent also. If you're shooting handheld you probably won't notice the minute difference in absolute performance with the latest 90s.

I give another vote for the 90mm Macro-Elmar--if you can afford it. Otherwise, I like the 90mm Tele-elmarit thin--so long as you find a good one with nice glass.

Another vote for the 90mm Tele-Elmarit. I use mine a lot, even though I have a regular Elmarit and a 90 A-A. But Andrew, also consider the suggestions that were made for the Macro-Elmar. If I had one, I think I would really like it as well, for daylight shooting where f/4 is enough. The used T-E will be cheaper, though!

I have to think so many of us have wrestled with this question. I believe that Mr. K at Cosina must have studied closely and known what he had with his 90 3.5 apo-lanthar, supposedly excellent at all apertures and with the standard 39mm thread and available new "cheap", but I think a tiny bit longer than the following:

 

The 90 2.8 (thin)Tele-elmarit M (39mm) is the answer on paper, so I bought one, but I paid too much, and it turned out to be hazy, and I spent a year and a half before I convinced myself to sell it at a loss. Its a shame because even though a really good one might run $600 to $700, it might well be worth it, but even clean ones are known to be very flare prone without the proper very long hood. It is precisely the same size of the 90 Elmar C f4 which I already had and have settled on for my compact 90. It is similar in design to the current 90 Elmarit, and the only problem I've had with concerns over the different focusing cam has been at closest focus at f4, which seems to be hit and miss, but mostly hit. Portraits at f4 and 5 feet-no problem, street scenes at f4 20 feet-beautiful, close ups of food on a grill or bar at f4 and 1 meter-hit and miss. If you don't intend to use filters anyway (which you can with 39mm half turn as stated by others) this little Wetzler made robust lens is a steal for the $200 to $300 that Ex+ samples go for. The current collapsible 90 is supposed to be great, but much more money.

You might consider the 90 f/4 Minolta Rokkor, M Mount, similar design to the Elmar C, but better coatings and the easy to find filter size of 40.5mm.

 

Cheers