90mm Tele-elmarit

[phovsho]

Howdy
I've been looking at a few second hand tele-elmarits. Was wondering what folks think og this lens. My intention was to use it on film primarily, though will stick it on the M8 once and a while. I like the relative size, plus the fact that I found a couple of "90% new examples" around the USD 500 +/- $50. My questions are:

1. what are thoughts on the performance of this lens? I understand it has low contrast and less sharp than some of the newer lens, but very compact and nice bokeh (opinion?)

2. anything I should look out for and test for?

3. any advantages of "made in Germany"? currently looking at four examples, of which only one is German made, the others being Canadian.

4. any advantages of the later body shape over the early fatter style?

My other longish lens is the 75 lux.

Best

M

[adan]

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).

[phovsho]

Hi Adan

Thanks very much for taking the time to answer my post in a detailed manner. Much appreciated. I'll go back and take another look tomorrow.

Best

Murray

[fishblimp]

I am also looking into the 90mm tele-elmarit. there seems to be quite a bit of information that people have posted but I am still having trouble identifying which is the FAT and which is the THIN. Does anyone have an image/example of each?

thanks

[lars_bergquist]

Here is the dope on the Tele-Elmarits. Both use 39mm filters and can use the clip-on all metal # 12575 hood, the same as still used for the 90 mm Macro.

First version 1964–1974. Five elements. Fairly heavy chromed or (usually) black brass construction, weight 355 grams.

Second version 1974–1989. Black anodized aluminium only. Serial number above 2585501, but some overlap with previous version possible. Four elements. Weight 225 grams. This lens does often come with its special fold-down screw-on rubber hood, with a retaining ring for threadless Series 5.5 filters.

Both lenses are of about equal performance, maybe with the first version somewhat ahead in the corners, which is of course of no account with an M8. Medium contrast but good resolution wide open, quick improvement from f:4 and excellent performance at 5.6.

BTW, if you find a 1958–1974 90 mm Elmarit 2.8 in good shape optically and mechanically, this is no slouch either. It is at least as good as the Tele-Elmarit lenses but inevitably slightly longer, as this is a long-focus and not a tele design. It is usually found in bright chrome. Same filter size and 12575 hood as above. Most often silver chromed brass, very late specimens black.

The old man from the Age of Berek

[Mauribix]

Originally Posted by fishblimp

I am also looking into the 90mm tele-elmarit. there seems to be quite a bit of information that people have posted but I am still having trouble identifying which is the FAT and which is the THIN. Does anyone have an image/example of each?

thanks

Hi Sean, I posted you the picture of a "Fat" or "mini" or "nano" (it's just the same lens) in the other thread, anyway these are the pictures.
First is the FAT (i.e. NANO, MINI)
and then there is the THIN, also called simply tele-elmarit.

The Tele elmarit-M is the current version, instead. (third picture)

Best

Maurizio
MAURIZIO BEUCCI.com - Official web site

[jaapv]

The Tele-Elmarit M (last version) is the preferable lens quality-wise. It is one of those that are so good that only the modern apo-lenses improve upon it, and marginally at that.

[Mauribix]

Originally Posted by jaapv

The Tele-Elmarit M (last version) is the preferable lens quality-wise. It is one of those that are so good that only the modern apo-lenses improve upon it, and marginally at that.

Well said Jaap, I second that!

regards

Maurizio

[fishblimp]

thank you Maurizio!

So the third version (Tele-Elmarit M) is the one that I can buy new in a Leica shop, yes?

As for the length (from filter ring to mounting side), are the "FAT" version and the "THIN" version roughly the same lenght? it's a little hard to tell scale in these images.

[malland]

While I agree with Jaap that the last version has the best image quality, I like the characteristics of the "fat" one better, both in terms of the way it draws and its bokeh: very good for portraiture while still sharp enough for landscape.

In terms of size and weight, the last one is heavy, while the fat one is not much larger in size and weight than the Summicron-50. I originally had the fat one which developed the "creeping crud" disease mentioned above and Leica gave me a cheap price on the current version, which I ended up selling a few years to buy another fat one.

—Mitch/Bangkok
Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

[xrogers]

I have both a 90 tele elmarit thin and a 90 apo asph. Up to f4 the AA is a far far sharper lens. At 5.6, they are both excellent, but the AA is still better. At f 8, the TE is as good as it gets--the AA is still better, but not by enough to matter.

For wide open shooting, the TE isn't a great lens, in my opinion. For stopped down shooting, the TE can be fantastic, and it is amazingly small and light. I'm keeping both.

Until later,

--clyde

[Kent10D]

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned that the TE-90 can be a bit flare prone in tricky lighting.
I have a "fat" TE-90 that I use quite a bit. It is a nice lens, and very compact, but you really need to use the lens hood at all times and watch out for backlighting and strong side lighting. Love the bokeh though.

[xrogers]

I think adan did mention the flare, and you're right, it should definitely be considered.

Later,

--clyde

[dennersten]

Can somebody please post some samples? I've got one also, i've got it together with a Leica CL kit, i guess i did'nt give it very much of a chanse, so far i maybe shot 25 - 50 pictures with it.

The only photo i am really happy about, taken with that lens is this one:

Just after sunset

I have the 90 AA also.

So please convince me to take the lens down from the shelf were it's just collecting dust right now.

[ndjambrose]

Originally Posted by dennersten

Can somebody please post some samples? I've got one also, i've got it together with a Leica CL kit, i guess i did'nt give it very much of a chanse, so far i maybe shot 25 - 50 pictures with it.

The only photo i am really happy about, taken with that lens is this one:

Just after sunset

I have the 90 AA also.

So please convince me to take the lens down from the shelf were it's just collecting dust right now.

All of these were taken with the Tele-Elmarit (thin version). Providing you use a lens hood flare is not an issue, and greatly improves contrast. I appreciate the Summicron is widely recommended for its performance, but I actually much prefer the TE. It's got an interesting character all of its own, and its small size is perfect for my needs. BTW - note that these were shot either wide open or at nearly open apertures - between 2.8 and 5.6 - and that they're all in strong directional light. Amazing what a difference a lens hood can make.

[Mauribix]

Originally Posted by fishblimp

thank you Maurizio!

So the third version (Tele-Elmarit M) is the one that I can buy new in a Leica shop, yes?

As for the length (from filter ring to mounting side), are the "FAT" version and the "THIN" version roughly the same lenght? it's a little hard to tell scale in these images.

Yes Sean, it is.
You won't regreat the choice in that case!

best
Maurizio

P.S.
Yu have to hurry up in buyin' a tele-elmarit-M new, it seems as the new summarit 90 will remove it from production! and , for me , it's a pity.

[adan]

CONFUSION ALERT!!

The current 90mm f/2.8 (the one in Maurizio's third picture) is NOT-NOT-NOT a "Tele-Elmarit"!

It is simply an "Elmarit" - no "Tele-" in the name!!! Never made in Canada. Much different optics. Much different size and weight (bigger/heavier). Usually more expensive used. Based on the optics of the 90 f/2.8 designed for the Leica R cameras in 1980.

True Tele-Elmarits have not been sold new since 1990. They are the ones shown, correctly, in Maurizio's first two pictures.

The name Tele-Elmarit-M means the "thin" version.

Neil Ambrose's shots show a signature feature of the "thin" TE 90 - the silvery highlight tones in the bike/moped and the plaza (Defence?) produced by the lower contrast and long tonal range.

[fishblimp]

thanks for clearing that up Andy. Like I said before, finding out which 90 is which has been confusing. So that third image looked to me like the current Summarit 90, am I correct?

I think that I've decided to try to look for a "THIN" Tele-Elmarit 90, but now I'm just trying to find one that isn't subject to the fungus/haze issue on the back element. Does anyone have any references/samples of what this looks like?

[Mauribix]

Originally Posted by adan

CONFUSION ALERT!!

The current 90mm f/2.8 (the one in Maurizio's third picture) is NOT-NOT-NOT a "Tele-Elmarit"!

It is simply an "Elmarit" - no "Tele-" in the name!!! Never made in Canada. Much different optics. Much different size and weight (bigger/heavier). Usually more expensive used. Based on the optics of the 90 f/2.8 designed for the Leica R cameras in 1980.

True Tele-Elmarits have not been sold new since 1990. They are the ones shown, correctly, in Maurizio's first two pictures.

The name Tele-Elmarit-M means the "thin" version.

Neil Ambrose's shots show a signature feature of the "thin" TE 90 - the silvery highlight tones in the bike/moped and the plaza (Defence?) produced by the lower contrast and long tonal range.

Yes Adan, you are correct, sorry, the third lens shown in picture (the current cersion) isn't called Tele-elmarit, nor Elmarit as you wrote too; it is the ELMARIT-M.
But for a detailed description here is the link:

Leica Camera AG - Photography - LEICA ELMARIT-M 90 mm f/2.8

that's why i posted the pictures, sometimes it's the best way to recognize the lens.
The ELMARIT-M derives from the second version ELMARIT-R born in 1984 (for what that concerns optical design), while it recalls the first version of ELMARIT-R in its shape.

Thanks!

Best
Maurizio

[Shootist]

Originally Posted by fishblimp

thanks for clearing that up Andy. Like I said before, finding out which 90 is which has been confusing. So that third image looked to me like the current Summarit 90, am I correct?

I think that I've decided to try to look for a "THIN" Tele-Elmarit 90, but now I'm just trying to find one that isn't subject to the fungus/haze issue on the back element. Does anyone have any references/samples of what this looks like?

No the third lens is a Elmarit 90mm f/2.8. It is NOT the newest 90mm Summarit f/2.5.
Different name and different Max f/stop.