Elmarit-M 90 versus Tele-Elmarit-M 90

[michael_kastner]

Let's say I have the chance to buy a used "last-version" Tele-Elmarit

90 or a used current-version Elmarit. Skip the 1959-1974 Elmarit. The way I see it, a TE 90 came out in 1964 in chrome and 1966 in black and both had 5 elements. In 1974 the "last-version" TE 90 came out -- apparently with the same code number -- only in black, <I>but</I> now had 4 elements and was thinner and lighter. Just a few questions (although there really is lots to read here in the forum on M 90s)...

<UL TYPE=DISC>

<LI>

Is this "last version" (I guess 1974-1988) really <I>the</I> "last-version"

TE 90?</LI>

 

<p>

 

<LI>

Got any experience you can share re comparison of a 1964-1974 TE with a 1974-1988 TE?</LI>

 

<p>

 

<LI>

How much fatter and heavier was the 1964-1974 TE?</LI>

 

<p>

 

<LI>

Is the thin version any lighter and/or heavier than today's Elmarit?</LI>

 

<p>

 

<LI>

Do any of these have a removable hood (<I>unlike</I> today's Elmarit)?</LI>

 

<p>

 

<LI>

It's clear why the limited issue samples containing the imprinting "1913-1983" (I guess around 1983) are the most expensive, but are all other 1974-1988 TE samples <I>without</I> that imprinting just as good?</LI>

 

<p>

 

<LI>

If I really want M 2/90 quality (especially concerning sharpness) -- which, yes, might cost me a buck or two more -- should I just forget the TE history and any collector's value, and instead get a used (or even new) current Elmarit? For me, the 90'cron is too big and heavy and stiff.</LI>

</UL>

Thanks for your help here. Mike

[deardorff8x10]

I had the 1974-1988 thin TE 90 2.8, which I sold. I recently bought a

used example of todays newer Elamrit-M. As far as I can tell about

your questions:

 

<p>

 

* last version of TE is the last veriosn

* the thin is smaller (39 filter) than today's (46 filter), lighter,

but about the same in length. I think it is marginally less sharp,

but both are great lenses.

* the thin TE has removable hood (although you can use a removable

hood on the new one)

* the newer Elmarit M is supposedly about as sharp as the Summicron

(especially after f 5.6), but I think both the older Tele-elmarits

were sharper than contemporary Summicron 90's. The only realy reason

to get the f2 is if you need f2.

 

<p>

 

Hope that is helpful

[dan_brown4]

The latest version of the "thin" TE has an orange "90" engraved

on the side of the barrel like modern Lieca lenses. Most were

made in Canada, but the very, very latest were made in Germany.

 

<p>

 

The TE isa 11mm shorter and 183 grams lighter than the current

Elmarit M (black). The TE uses 39mm filters, the EM uses

46mm filters.

 

<p>

 

I wanted a late TE when I got a 90mm, but, to get a nice, clean,

late TE cost more than I mint EM. Bottom line, I got the EM used

on Ebay, mint condition, and cheaper than an E+ TE. I just have

to deal with the size and weight difference.

[david11]

Michael, I have both the older 90 Elmarit (11129) and the New 90

Summicron APO ASPH lenses, so perhaps I can give you some information.

The 11129 lens is a very good performer; it is lighter than the

new Elmarit and uses an auxilliary lens hood (12575). Many consider

this lens optically superior to the smaller Tele-Elmarit. I like both

of these 90s. I bought the SAA because I wanted the extra stop. The

newer Leica lenses have somewhat improved contrast at the wider

apertures, although I have never objected to the image quality of the

older Elmarit. Bargains can be found on this lens. I frequently

carry an M6 with either a 35 ASPH Summicron or a 50 Summicron along

with the 90 Elmarit in a small camera bag. It makes for a light,

versatile outfit. FWIW

[eric_reid]

Michael,

 

<p>

 

First off -- I do not have any experience comparing the vintage 90 TE

with the contemporary 90E, so this is a quick few words on the

current version 90 E only. As you might recall, I was wavering about

a week ago between purchasing a new 50 cron vs. new 90 E and I ended

up buying the 90 E. I just returned from a weekend away where I

first used the 90 E extensively at a National fencing Tournament. I

thought the lens was simply beautiful. The size and weight are

extremely well-balanced. It was a pleasure to use for action and

crowd/coach reaction shots. I also used a borrowed 75 and it's size

(like the 90 cron) and length of focus throw are a real drag. I know

you're not considering the cron, so the extra stop isn't a

consideration, but let me tell you that between the size of the frame

lines and the desire to shoot handheld, it's hard to imagine that the

one's rate of return of perfect focus shots would be very good at

F2.0. I read every review and post I could find on these lenses and

the overwhelming consensus is that the current model is superior in

everyway to the prior versions of the 2.8s. It seems to also rival

the 2.0 in most user's opinions - except that many here have stated

that the 2.0 is a bit too sharp for portraits (which would concern me

for a lens which is a well-suited for portraits as the 90...).

Again, I can't speak for the collector values since I'm a user only

(at this point!). But if you're going to use the lens and not

collect, I would just point out that the current pricing (between the

rebate and a "Leica Day" discount which you should be able to find

before year's end) + the Passport Warranty program, make a new 90E a

pretty good value in comparison to most used versions of any kind.

Thanks for your advice when I bought this lens! Good luck in your

decision. ER

[jay_.]

Michael: Here's the bottom line. The current Elmarit is the one to

get if best performance at f/2.8 is critical to you. If you can

stand a little less contrast at f/2.8, or shoot mainly at f/4 or

slower, and weight and size are a deciding factor, then get the thin

T-E. I would look for a later sample with the orange "90" engraved

but made in Canada. You will get the benefit of a 50% shorter throw

in the focus ring but not pay the collector premium for the very-last

samples which were assembled in Solms.

[andy_piper2]

1. Yes

 

<p>

 

2. IMHO the post-74 beats the pre-74 for raw sharpness - can'r speak to

color, bokeh. Love my post-74 - the one time I tried a pre-74 it put me

off Leica-M for 6 years.

 

<p>

 

3. A little of each - they both take 39mm filters - the early TE has

scalloped knurling on the focusing ring - the late has fine knurling

like current lenses.

 

<p>

 

4. Thin TE is MUCH smaller/lighter than today's Elmarit-M - like a 50

summicron plus rear cap and 225g vs. 410g - 6-7 oz. difference.

 

<p>

 

5. They ALL have removeable hoods - except the current lens.

 

<p>

 

6. There is no optical difference among the 'thin' TEs - but apparently

the earlier the lens, the more likely it is to get glass diseases (see

multiple posts re) The imprinting is the ONLY reason for the price

difference.

 

<p>

 

7. ANY Leica 90 f/2.8 of any kind beats ANY 90 Summicron at most

apertures faster than f/8 - except for the 90 f/2 APO-ASPH, which

trumps everything else. The current lens is closer to the APO than

either TE in image contrast and sharpness - but we're talking A vs. A+

vs. A++.

 

<p>

 

Bottom line - the 90 TE is ultra-compact and very good, and shares

filters with the 35 and 50 'crons. It occasionally gets glass diseases,

some of which are incurable - and it has a tendency to flare pointed

near the sun. I will never be without one again.

 

<p>

 

The 90 EM (today's) is a little sharper, a lot contrastier, nearly

twice as heavy, and shares filters with the 50 1.4, 28s, 135. To my

taste it has a hair too much contrast (I shoot a lot of slides) and I

found it more difficult to focus accurately than the TE (maybe the

longer focusing throw - maybe just me).

[timothy_nelson]

Michael,

You can consult quite a few threads on comparisons of the 90 TE and

other 90's in the archives of this and other Leica forums. I've used

all 4 of the 90/2.8-M versions over the years, and I'd add a couple

things to the above responses: (1) if you choose the thin TE, make sure

to get the bigger metal hood--the small rubber hood is inadequate for

the flare-prone TE. (2) My personal experience is that the thin TE is

too small and light for a 90. I find the heavier and slightly larger

current 90/2.8 easier to handle and to hold steady at slow shutter

speeds. A tele magnifies camera shake, and a light lens does little to

counter this. IMHO, the real advantage of the TE is in the pocket or

camera bag, not on the camera. It can make great photos--no argument--

but given a choice, I'd pick the current 90/2.8.

[michael_kastner]

Thanks, everybody. Now I know what to pick. I <i>had</i> already tried

out today's Elmarit and 'cron AA, but not the thin TE. As long as I

don't need it's "pocket size" including the good filter size, the

current Elmarit seems to be the perfect common denominator having all

advantages and lacking all disadvantages of the thin TE and the 'cron

AA. Not too heavy, not too light, no diseases. Anybody got an e-mail

address of Santa Claus?