Leica User Forum - View Single Post - 90mm Tele-elmarit

adan · 15.12.2007, 07:41

A. There are two 90 Tele-Elmarits. One, nicknamed the "fat' version, was made in the 1960s. The other, known as the "thin" version, was made in the 70s and 80s. The optics are quite different, although the absolute performance is fairly close. The thin version being marginally better.

1. My "thin" version is the lens I have had the longest, and I will never part with it. It has a lower contrast than the current Elmarit or APO 'cron, but for digital I consider that a good thing. Where it is weak is in really strong veiling flare when the sun is hitting the front element. It really needs the 12585 (?) deep metal shade also sold for the 135's of yesteryear and the 90 macro.

My shorthand - performance at least as good as a legendary Nikon 105mm f/2.5, in a package less than half the weight and bulk.

2. The thin version: Check the rear elements carefully by backlighting the lens with a flashlight and looking for hazing or texturing to the glass. Some of the very early copies of this lens from the 70s can develop a disease of the glass or coating (NOT fungus) that requires replacement of the rear element group - and replacement parts are very hard to come by.

Don't know of any special problems with the fat version - although out of the samples I've encountered a few were a bit stiff in focusing (likely just needed cleaning).

3. Not especially - all in all newer will be more important than the country, and since the manufacture jumped back and forth a bit from Midland to Wetzlar to Solms, a "newer" lens's country of origin will depend on what you are comparing it to.

4. primarily weight - thin version weighs 220g, fat weighs 325g. If your other lenses are newer, the thin will fit in better cosmetically. If you have a few 1960s lenses, the fat version's cosmetics (big scallops on the focus ring rather than the simple knurling of today) will match those better. The fat version can be found in chrome - the thin version was never made in chrome, except perhaps for commemorative special models.

Otherwise, see above

The price you mention is about right, or even slightly on the low side. They tend to range from $595-$695 here (mostly).

15.12.2007, 07:41	#2 (permalink)
adan Erfahrener Benutzer Join Date: 04.03.2004 Location: Denver Posts: 2,831	Re: 90mm Tele-elmarit A. There are two 90 Tele-Elmarits. One, nicknamed the "fat' version, was made in the 1960s. The other, known as the "thin" version, was made in the 70s and 80s. The optics are quite different, although the absolute performance is fairly close. The thin version being marginally better. 1. My "thin" version is the lens I have had the longest, and I will never part with it. It has a lower contrast than the current Elmarit or APO 'cron, but for digital I consider that a good thing. Where it is weak is in really strong veiling flare when the sun is hitting the front element. It really needs the 12585 (?) deep metal shade also sold for the 135's of yesteryear and the 90 macro. My shorthand - performance at least as good as a legendary Nikon 105mm f/2.5, in a package less than half the weight and bulk. 2. The thin version: Check the rear elements carefully by backlighting the lens with a flashlight and looking for hazing or texturing to the glass. Some of the very early copies of this lens from the 70s can develop a disease of the glass or coating (NOT fungus) that requires replacement of the rear element group - and replacement parts are very hard to come by. Don't know of any special problems with the fat version - although out of the samples I've encountered a few were a bit stiff in focusing (likely just needed cleaning). 3. Not especially - all in all newer will be more important than the country, and since the manufacture jumped back and forth a bit from Midland to Wetzlar to Solms, a "newer" lens's country of origin will depend on what you are comparing it to. 4. primarily weight - thin version weighs 220g, fat weighs 325g. If your other lenses are newer, the thin will fit in better cosmetically. If you have a few 1960s lenses, the fat version's cosmetics (big scallops on the focus ring rather than the simple knurling of today) will match those better. The fat version can be found in chrome - the thin version was never made in chrome, except perhaps for commemorative special models. Otherwise, see above The price you mention is about right, or even slightly on the low side. They tend to range from $595-$695 here (mostly). Last edited by adan; 15.12.2007 at 07:43.