Jump to content

Which is the smallest 90mm?


andrew1

Recommended Posts

I've had pretty much the same experience that Mark Amos did with the 90mm f2.8 "thin" Tele Elmarit. I overpaid, ended up with a hazy lens and paid DAG more money to clean it as best he could.

 

Even after that, I have a lens that's prone to flare despite the 12575 hood being attached.

 

That said, under the right conditions (those that won't result in flare) it's a fine lens. From f5.6 down its plenty sharp with nice contrast as well.

 

If you can find one at the right price. If you can find one with no haze. If you use it without a protective filter. If you use it only under conditions that won't cause flare, it's a nice lens. Those are a lot of ifs. To me, the lens is more trouble than it's worth.

 

Mine will likely be on ebay very shortly and I see a 90mm CV in my bag right after that.

 

Rich

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Andrew,

 

The 90/3.5 Voigtlander is small, light and gorgeous BUT the big, deep lens shade adds a great deal of bulk (though obviously not weight).

 

The picture you first see if you click on 'The Photo School' at www.rogerandfrances.com was shot with this lens and is one of my favourite pictures in 40 years (this year) of photography.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<P>Another vote for the 90mm/f2.8 Tele-Elmarit. Takes a standard 39mm filter and is the perfect travel lens. I think I paid ~$450 for mine a couple of years ago. Suffers a little from flare but if you get the lens hood that also fits the 135mm TE you are all set. A great little lens. The shot below was taken somewhere between F2.8 and f4.</P>

 

<CENTER><IMG SRC="http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/3334/ICP_3.jpg"></CENTER>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey everybody- thanks for all your responses and good thoughts. I especially

appreciate the cautions about the thin Tele Elmarit, since I must admit I was sort of

leaning in that direction. I have to decide if I am going to just try to carry my current

Elmarit-M more, or try to find something else. You guys have given me a lot to think

about, and some very good direction for my ponderings, so thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Elmar C f/4 meets all the specs you state. Smallest, lightest, f/4, sharp at your stated f-stops."

 

Unfortunately this statement isnt quite true. The Compact TE and the Elmar-C are identical in size however the faster lens(the compact TE) is lighter weighing 225grams as opposed to the Elmar-C at 250grams. The Macro Elmar is the smallest at 41mm collapsed and the same size as the other 2 mentioned when extended and weights 240grams. So the smallest title goes to the Macro Elmar but the lightest goes to the Compact TE. If you dont mind the speed the Macro Elmar would be my choice. If money is a concern the Elmar-C can be had for a song.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even less expensive than the Elmar-C is the Rokkor-C made for their version of the CL. It was produced for them in Germany by Leitz and takes standard 40.5mm filters instead of the odd-ball "series 5.5" on the Leica version. It contains the same German otics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Get real guys!-- The smallest and lightest 90mm Leica lens is the T-E 90mm, at 220 grams. The Elmar-C is 270 grams."

 

Its you that should get real Jerry, the Macro Elmar is the smallest and the Elmar-C does not weigh 270 grams it weighs 250 grams. Its true that the compact TE is the lightest however. One out of three isnt bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...