New 90 elmar compared to older 90 elmar collapsible

[elijah_free]

Can anyone tell me how much difference there would be between the new 90 elmar

and the older 90 elmar collapsible? Thank you. If you have pics of the two to

share, that would be greatly appreciated. regards, elijah

[john_gleason1]

"how much difference there would be between the new 90 elmar and the older 90 elmar collapsible?"

 

You mean, in size? And "new 90 elmar" is the 90 Elmar Macro?

[elijah_free]

Thanks for making that clear, John. I meant difference in the images that the two take. And I do mean the 90 elmar macro.

[ronald_moravec1]

All the older 90 elmars including the collapsible have the same optical formula except for

the one with 39mm filters which as slightly different and the three element last version

which was slightly better. All are slightly soft at 4 and sharpen a 5.6

 

The new 90 coll is an entirely different lens you would be hard pressed to tell form a

Summicron APO or new 2.8 tele Elmarit except it maintains it sharpness right into the

very close focusing range which the other two do NOT. It is as good as it gets at 4.0 and

you only gain debth of field by stopping down. I will never part with mine.

[john_elder1]

There is no "NEW" 90 Tele-Elmarit and the 90 APO blows away the 90 Tele-Elmarit. So saying the new 90 elmar is comparable to the APO AND the Tele-elmarit is not very worthwhile. He asked for a comparison of the older vs newer 90 Elmar. I personally haven't shot the new 90 Elmar so I can't answer the question. But I do know the Tele-elmarit and the 90 APO are nowhere near equivalent.

[john_elder1]

I have compared the older 90 Elmar to the 90 Tele-Elmarit and got rid of the 90 Tele-Elmarit .

[Troll]

I can't speak to the new lens, but the old (since 1930) f:4/90mm Elmar is not particularly sharp nor contrasty. Terrific portrait lens (B&W or color), not so great for landscape. Optically the collapsible is the same as the non-collapsible, but much larger and heavier, with a non-rotating mount.

[ronald_moravec1]

The new 90 TE I referred to is the one made from the optics of the 90 TE reflex lens. No it

is not brand new, perhaps from 1990. But it is newer than the the thin or original fat TE.

[john_gleason1]

"The new 90 TE I referred to is the one made from the optics of the 90 TE reflex lens. No it is not brand new, perhaps from 1990"

 

<p>

But that would be the 90 f/2.8 <i>Elmarit</i>, not <i>Tele-Elmarit</i>, correct?

[ronald_moravec1]

Yes I mean the 90 2.8 Elmarit from the reflex line, the second version which as put into

the M mount.

 

I tried one a few times on the R camera and was not impressed and kept my original

from 1966. Leica claims all three 90`s in the M line are indistinguishable so maybe

there was a secret formula change somwhere along the line.

 

But we are getting off track here, this is about the 90 Elmar Coll. It is a fine line and

matches performance of my 100 APO R lens and is far superior to any of the originals if

you want the ultimate in sharpness. If you want that beautiful soft/sharp rendition of

early Leitz glass, then find an old one that has been well maintained. They were loved

for decades.

[mohir_ali]

I had a TE slim that I used for night photos, it was too etched by fungi to use in the day (low contrast). However, I took some photos from several hundred of meters away of the aqueduct in Segovia, Spain. From an 8X12 enlargement and using a 4X loupe I can see the individual links in a chain-link fence located near the aqueduct. My advice is to pass over the "lab" and newsprint "tests" and just shoot with what you have. The weak link will ALWAYS be you and your technique, ALWAYS.

[elijah_free]

Thank you everyone. Much appreciation!

[blowingsky]

Mohir, so true...