Comments on M tele

[jeff7]

I own a M21/2.8 and a M35/2 and I am thinking of adding a M tele.

Which one would you recommend in terms of 1)ease of focusing

on .72MP and 2)value for money ?

a)75/1.4

b)75/2asph

c)90/2.8

d)90/2asph

Thanks

[mark-j]

Jeff: This is a wide open question. What are you looking to shoot, and how fast a lens do you want? There are many comments in the archives on the features and advantages of each lens. Are you looking to purchase new or used prior to 01 July and the price increases? Try looking through your camera and choosing what looks more appealing to you by using the frame selector lever and choosing 75 or 90 framelines. Personally I have a 90 and am quite satisfied with it. Good luck.

 

Mark J.

[george_b1]

Until you really want, desire, and understand why you "need" a 90mm, I'd suggest you spring for a newer one of the 90mm TE (Thin) Elmars, and use it for a while. At 5.6 and above, it's the equivalent of the newer Elmar 2.8.

 

George (The Old Fud)

[feli]

Any of these will focus well on a .72

 

The 75's are great lenses, but the focal length doesn't have enough reach for my taste. It's

too close to a 50.

 

The current 2.8/90 is extremely sharp, right up there with the 2/90 ASPH, except of

course it's a stop slower and cheaper.

 

The 2/90 ASPH is amazing. One of the best lenses Leica has ever made.

 

I would skip the 2.8/90 Tele-Elmarit (thin). I had one (CLA'd) and found it to be way to

flare prone, even with a good hood. The older fat version flares less, but doesn't have the

performance of the newer glass.

 

 

feli

[andrew robertson]

How much money do you have?

[frank granovski]

in small caps, my minolta m 90mm f4 lens made by leica in germany is very sharp and has nice bokeh. this pristine lens set me back $320 canadian and it was worth it.

[jeff7]

Thanks everybody. The prices of 75/1.4 & 75/2asph are really close & 90/2asph is just a tad cheaper. In contrast The 90/2.8 seems like a bargain ..... any further comments please ?

[g-man1]

I use the elmarit-m 90/2.8 on M7 0.72. I think it is very sharp, focussing is easy. No problems.

[vidom]

I second Frank's opinion that a "pristine" Elmar C is hard to beat in terms of value for money if 1:4 is fast enough.

[joop]

Jeff, I can recommend the M-hexanon 90/2.8, I use it on my M3 and M4.

They can be found at very decent prices and are

as good as the leica 90/2.8. Have a look here:

 

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/90hex.html

[Uhooru]

As I always respond on these "90" threads, the bang for buck is the VC 90 Apo-Lanther.

From 3.5 to closed down it is extremely good. Almost up to the current Leica 2.8 less a half

stop and better than most everything behind it. I would take it easily over the Rokker which

used is as much as a new VC.

[zeos_386sx]

The 21-35mm combination is interesting. If you plan to go digital in the future I would suggest you consider the implications of the new digital M's lens factor (probably 1.37x).<br>

<br>

At that lens factor M lenses would frame as follows:<br>

21mm = 28-29mm<br>

35mm = 48mm<br>

50mm = 68.5mm<br>

75mm = 102-103mm<br>

90mm = 123mm<br>

<br>

If most of your work is wide-angle you might want to consider a 50mm.<br>

<br>

[jeff7]

Zeos you're right on the mark..I plan to get a RD1 sooner or later. Howerver the lack of viewfinder other than 28/35/50 kills the plan.

[frank granovski]

Although old, I should add that my 40mm and 90mm CL/CLE lenses are the best lenses I have ever owned, and this includes a camparison of a few Yashica/Contax SLR mounts from yesteryear---looking back at some of my old prints.

[paul_neuthaler]

Pick up an old 90 Elmar 1:4 for app. $150 & see how much you use the focal length. I bet you use it less than you think you will. It's a wonderful lense for the occasional 90mm shot IMHO<div></div>

[frank granovski]

Nice piece of wood. This is one of the last pics I shot with my Minolta M 90mm F4. Notice the dØrk bar on the left due to my CL's sick shutter.<div></div>

[al_kaplan1]

I have an old "long" 90/2.8 Elmarit but my favorite "90" is my 85mm f/2 Nikkor in LTM used with a 90mm M adapter. Fantastic lens and getting harder and harder to find! The 85 Canon in 1.8, 1.9 and 2 versions is a pretty decent piece of glass too.

[Rob F.]

For a compact outfit for general photography, portability, and travel, I would get the 90 thin tele-Elmarit, or else go with a full size Elmarit. The latter is still not overlarge. I would go for a faster lens only if specifically needed. Then I would decide between the 90 Summicron (ASPH or not) vs. the 75 Lux, depending on how much speed I needed. I do have the 90 tele-Elmarit, and find it to be very sharp. The flare susceptibility is not a problem in most pictures. I often carry it instead of my 90 Elmarit, because it is small and handy.

[john_newell2]

Do you need f/2? The 90mm Summicron AA is expensive but amazingly sharp and contrasty, giving 3-D images.

 

If you don't, the 90mm Elmarit-M 2.8 (i.e., latest) is for all practical purposes as good as the SAA but $700-1000 cheaper.

 

If f/4 or so suffices, the Leitz/Minolta Elmar-C ($300 mint) or the C-V Apo-Lanthar (~$375 new with adapter, IIRC) are very fine, very compact, and very high values.

 

The 75mm lenses are both surperb, but different; I owned a 75mm Summilux but never really warmed up to the finder frames. My fault, not the lens' fault; YMMV.

[SCL]

Figure out what you want it for before narrowing it down to several choices. You can make a more informed decision (and perhaps spend less money)if you have thought through the process, assessed your needs vs wants. I keep a 135, 280 and 400 for tele work; a 90 for routine close in shots and portraiture, a 65 for macro work, and the usual assortment for other stuff. If you don't do your own printing you might find the cost of the asph lenses far outweighs their benefits. Everything works pretty well on a .72MP. If you can borrow a couple of examples from friends or your friendly Leica dealer, even better yet. Each lens has its supporters, but everybody uses the lenses differently...so take some of the comments with a grain of salt unless you can relate a person's usage and skill levels to your own. Good luck with whatever you choose.

[richie chishty]

Jeff:

 

I use 90/f2 and 135/f4 Leica telephoto lenses on my M6 TTL 0.72 body without any problems. KEH.COM has a 135mm/f4 Tele-ELmar on sale for $286 right now. I have a similar lens and am very pleased with its image quality. That has to be one of the best bargains in Leica M lenses today. :-)

[james_elwing]

If you got 21 & 35, & want longer focal length, then a 50 will probably be a telephoto to you?? Maybe you really want to go the other way, 12 or 15 VC

Seriously, a VC 75 is about as far as you could want, if you haven't been interested in longer focal lengths before now.

[scott_mcloughlin]

I have the current 90/2.8. These are available used in good shape at pretty good prices. I've put just a few rolls through mine, but did one on Delta 100 and was very pleased with the image quality.

 

Both the VC 75/2.5 and 90/3.5 seem well loved by those who own and shoot with them. Both are small for their respective FL's and priced very competitively.

 

I shoot a 50mm quite a bit (with a 28 and 21), so I went for a 90mm FL. I seriously considered the CV 90/3.5, but in the end got the used current Leica 90/2.8.

 

If I were a 35mm shooter, I would very likely choose a 75mm FL lens. Much more versatile, IMHO, than a 90 and gives enough working distance for a nice head or head/shoulders shot. The Leica 75/2 seems like a real winner and good "prizes lens" in one's kit, but the CV 75/2.5 is more economical and somewhat more compact alternative.

 

Best of luck. You really can't go wrong. BTW, I was scared off the older Leica 90's by consistent reports of flare.

 

Scott

[jerry_lehrer]

Jeff,

 

Quite frankly I use the pre-Asph 90mm Summicron and the 135mm f2.8 Elmarit

because I got them at a good price. But since i like shooting natural

light portraits of people and animals, they work out very well. I also shoot sports car races, and can use the extra speed. Those two

plus a 35mm Summicron take care of most of my needs. I hardly ever

use my 50mm Summilux.

 

Jerry

[ben z]

"I am thinking of adding a M tele. Which one would you recommend in terms of 1)ease of focusing on .72MP and 2)value for money ? a)75/1.4 b)75/2asph c)90/2.8 d)90/2asph"

 

Based on your two criteria I'd think the 90 Elmarit would be the clear choice. However my criteria for choosing between lenses of different focal lengths and/or speed would be which one best suits my photographic intentions and needs.