Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I know something that tele-elmarit 90(thin) comes later than tele-elmarit 90(fat).

 

But I don't really know the difference between tele-elmarit 90(thin) and tele-elmarit-m 90.

 

They look quite similar to each other!!!!

 

Can anyone give me a lesson about them?

 

Thanks!!

 

Miao

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forum Zmever!

The two lenses have a very similar performance with the later one just having the edge despite being a four — instead of a five — element lens. For that reason it is also lighter at 220g against 325g for the earlier lens (mind you, I have never had a lens that weighed what the catalogues said!).

I trust you will enjoy using either; the 90mm focal length will teach you a lot about photography.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for reply!!

 

So that means tele-elmarit(thin) more similar to tele-elmarit-m instead of fat TE?

 

Does thin TE has better performance than fat TE?

 

Should I use a 12575 hood for thin TE?

 

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know something that tele-elmarit 90(thin) comes later than tele-elmarit 90(fat).

 

But I don't really know the difference between tele-elmarit 90(thin) and tele-elmarit-m 90.

 

They look quite similar to each other!!!!

 

Can anyone give me a lesson about them?

...

 

 

Leitz and Leica caused some confusion with naming their 1:2.8/90mm lenses.

 

The first was the Elmarit - no "Tele-" and no "M". It was produced from 1959 to 1974; most came with M-bayonet, a few with screw mount. The early ones - produced in bigger numbers - were in silver chrome with a typical vulcanit band at the rear end. Later ones were black. You may call it the "long" Elmarit. You can screw off the lens element - which is very useful for the Visoflex where the lens still gives excellent results today. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/Elmarit_f%3D_9_cm_1:2.8

 

Then came the first Tele-Elmarit (no "M") - produced from 1964 to 1974, so at the same time as the Elmarit. This is the "fat" Tele-Elmarit, or better the short one, as it was a real telelens, which builds shorter due to its different optical design. It was first made in silver chrome (rather rare and rather expensive today - looking great on an M 3) but most examples are in black. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/90mm_f/2.8_Tele-Elmarit

 

Then came the Tele-Elmarit-M (now the "M" joins the name even if the precedessors also were M-lenses). This is the "thin" Tele-Elmarit with four lenses, while the "fat" one had five. Built from 1973 to 1990 it was the successor of the first Elmarit. I am not completely sure if the "M" was added to the name "Tele-Elmarit" from the very beginning; may be they started later with this in order to make a difference to R-lenses. Anyway there is no difference optically and I don't think the mount was changed during the production time. It was made only in black. So to answer your question: There is no difference between the "thin" Tele-Elmarit and the Tele-Elmarit-M - it is the same lens. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/90mm_f/2.8_Tele-Elmarit-M

 

Last but not least came the Elmarit-M - they dropped the "Tele-", but of course kept the "M". Certainly the best lens of the family, built from 1990 until 2006. Most were in black, some in silver chrome, and very few in titanium. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/90mm_f/2.8_Elmarit-M

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not completely sure if the "M" was added to the name "Tele-Elmarit" from the very beginning; may be they started later with this in order to make a difference to R-lenses.

 

The "M" was introduced sometime midway, there are early examples of the thin Tele-Elmarit without the "M" on the front ring. IMO, to avoid confusion it's preferable to refer to this lens as "Tele-Elmarit (thin)".

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you very much!!

 

Now I understand!

 

I have a tele-elmarit (thin). It has no "M" on the front ring. and has no big,bold "90" on the berral.

I only can find this two differences.

 

version as tele-elmarit-m, only except tele-elmarit comes earlier than tele-elmarit-m.

 

 

Am I right? ^_^

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you believe it?!

I found that there are at least 5 different types of tele-elmarit (thin) by far ....

 

[1] words on front ring"TELE-ELMARIT 1:2.8/90 LEITZ CANADA XXXXXXX";

without big, bold, yellow "90" on the barrel;

with "00" on the barrel;

straight field-depth lines(no broken line);

((((( example serial number: 2695599 my own lens )))))

 

[2] words on front ring"TELE-ELMARIT 1:2.8/90 LEITZ CANADA XXXXXXX";

without big, bold, yellow "90" on the barrel;

with "05" on the barrel;

straight field-depth lines(no broken line);

((((( example serial number: 2831959 )))))

 

[3] words on front ring "TELE-ELMARIT-M 1:2.8/90 LEITZ LENS MADE IN CANADA";

serial number on barrel;

with big, bold, yellow "90" on the barrel;

I cannot see it's "00" or "05" on the barrel;

straight field-depth lines(no broken line );

((((( example serial number: 2960184 )))))

 

[4] words on front ring "TELE-ELMARIT-M 1:2.8/90 LEITZ LENS MADE IN CANADA";

serial number on barrel;

with big, bold, yellow "90" on the barrel;

with "05" on the barrel;

field-depth lines are broken-line;

((((( example serial number: 3216046 )))))

 

[5] words on front ring "TELE-ELMARIT-M 1:2.8/90 LEITZ LENS MADE IN CANADA";

serial number on barrel;

with big, bold, yellow "90" on the barrel;

with "00" on the barrel;

field-depth lines are broken-line;

((((( example serial number: 32162?? & 3096306 )))))

 

 

 

I am totally confused.

 

You can see the serial number of [4] and [5]. It's very weird.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally found another "fat" Tele Elmarit in chrome after having one years ago. Of all the 90s that I have shot, not yet the ASPH though, it is unrivaled. It is small, but very solid and best of all, it has a Lanthanum lens element that is not in the black version. I think that this is why it performs so much sharper and contrastier than the other 90s. You pay a premium, but it is well worthwhile IMHO.

 

Cheers,

 

Joel

Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally found another "fat" Tele Elmarit in chrome after having one years ago. Of all the 90s that I have shot, not yet the ASPH though, it is unrivaled. It is small, but very solid and best of all, it has a Lanthanum lens element that is not in the black version. I think that this is why it performs so much sharper and contrastier than the other 90s. You pay a premium, but it is well worthwhile IMHO.

Interesting! I used a friend's chrome one in college in the 1960s and was very impressed, which led me to buy an M4 with the black model TE when it came in at the local dealer. I never thought it was as good as the chrome one I had tried, and it was my least-used Leica lens for decades.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Leitz and Leica caused some confusion with naming their 1:2.8/90mm lenses.

 

The first was the Elmarit - no "Tele-" and no "M". It was produced from 1959 to 1974; most came with M-bayonet, a few with screw mount. The early ones - produced in bigger numbers - were in silver chrome with a typical vulcanit band at the rear end. Later ones were black. You may call it the "long" Elmarit. You can screw off the lens element - which is very useful for the Visoflex where the lens still gives excellent results today. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/Elmarit_f%3D_9_cm_1:2.8

 

Then came the first Tele-Elmarit (no "M") - produced from 1964 to 1974, so at the same time as the Elmarit. This is the "fat" Tele-Elmarit, or better the short one, as it was a real telelens, which builds shorter due to its different optical design. It was first made in silver chrome (rather rare and rather expensive today - looking great on an M 3) but most examples are in black. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/90mm_f/2.8_Tele-Elmarit

 

Then came the Tele-Elmarit-M (now the "M" joins the name even if the precedessors also were M-lenses). This is the "thin" Tele-Elmarit with four lenses, while the "fat" one had five. Built from 1973 to 1990 it was the successor of the first Elmarit. I am not completely sure if the "M" was added to the name "Tele-Elmarit" from the very beginning; may be they started later with this in order to make a difference to R-lenses. Anyway there is no difference optically and I don't think the mount was changed during the production time. It was made only in black. So to answer your question: There is no difference between the "thin" Tele-Elmarit and the Tele-Elmarit-M - it is the same lens. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/90mm_f/2.8_Tele-Elmarit-M

 

Last but not least came the Elmarit-M - they dropped the "Tele-", but of course kept the "M". Certainly the best lens of the family, built from 1990 until 2006. Most were in black, some in silver chrome, and very few in titanium. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/90mm_f/2.8_Elmarit-M

 

There is no question the Elmarit-M is the "best" optically, but it is significantly heavier than the "thin" Tele-Elmarit. I tend to carry that lens now that I have it where I would tend to leave my Elmarit-M home leave often just because it added bulk to my camera bag.

 

If you can put up with some flare now and then, the "thin" Tele is a nice lens and handles nicely. I also understand the new 90mm Summarit is also really good.

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally found another "fat" Tele Elmarit in chrome after having one years ago. Of all the 90s that I have shot, not yet the ASPH though, it is unrivaled. It is small, but very solid and best of all, it has a Lanthanum lens element that is not in the black version. I think that this is why it performs so much sharper and contrastier than the other 90s. You pay a premium, but it is well worthwhile IMHO.

 

Cheers,

 

Joel

 

Do you have any source or reference to substantiate your claim regarding the exclusive use of lanthanum glass in the chrome version? I don't doubt that your chrome fat TE is a superb performer, but it seems rather unlikely to me that an element of a specific glass type is simply swapped against a different one without necessitating a complete recomputation of the optical design, which in return would likely necessitate changes in the mount etc. It is not clear to me, why Leitz should go to such lengths if the lens was such a good performer? Lanthanum glass was widely used in the Leitz lenses of the 1960s, e.g. in the Elmar 2.8/50 (1958-1974), the rigid Summicron 50 (1956-68), the 3 element Elmar 90 (1964-68) the Elmar 135 (1960-65), the Summaron 2.8 (1958-1974) and probably more. Why should Leitz have stopped using Lanthanum with the introduction of the black TE in 1966?

Edited by joeswe
Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have any source or reference to substantiate your claim regarding the exclusive use of lanthanum glass in the chrome version? I don't doubt that your chrome fat TE is a superb performer, but it seems rather unlikely to me that an element of a specific glass type is simply swapped against a different one without necessitating a complete recomputation of the optical design, which in return would likely necessitate changes in the mount etc. It is not clear to me, why Leitz should go to such lengths if the lens was such a good performer? Lanthanum glass was widely used in the Leitz lenses of the 1960s, e.g. in the Elmar 2.8/50 (1958-1974), the rigid Summicron 50 (1956-68), the 3 element Elmar 90 (1964-68) the Elmar 135 (1960-65), the Summaron 2.8 (1958-1974) and probably more. Why should Leitz have stopped using Lanthanum with the introduction of the black TE in 1966?

 

Well, that's a good point. It's just something that I have "known" for many years. I can't substantiate it, but remember being told by a person that would know. I might be biased, but I have done tests that seem to me at least, demonstrate a much sharper and contrastier image with the silver model. Nothing scientific or side by side so, like I said, I could be biased. Why did they stop using it, I can only guess. Perhaps by 1966, lanthanum was expensive so since they changed the mount materials, they changed the lens element so that it would be less costly to Leitz. Perhaps radioactive glass was going out of vogue?

 

I wonder who might actually know, it would be good to find out. If anyone in SoCal has a black version, we could arrange some side by side comparisons.

 

Cheers,

 

Joel

Link to post
Share on other sites

... Why did they stop using it, I can only guess. ...

Perhaps because the increasing speed of film emulsions would result in a higher risk of fogging from radioactive lens elements. (Just a guess.:))

 

Pete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Everybody,

 

I think if you check you will find that it was lens elements containing radioactive Thorium that were replaced. They were replaced in early collapsable 50mm Summicron lenses. Possibly also in some other lenses.

 

The different refractive index & dispersion of the elements used to replace the Thorium glass originals meant there had to be a recomputation of the lenses involved.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for reply!!

 

So that means tele-elmarit(thin) more similar to tele-elmarit-m instead of fat TE?

 

Does thin TE has better performance than fat TE?

 

Should I use a 12575 hood for thin TE?

 

:)

 

Maybe that's the hood. It is the same hood that comes with the 90/4 Macro lens new. A bit long and a bit expensive, but greatly helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...