90mm Tele-Elmarit "Thin"

[Ozytripper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There are two kinds of photographer - those who have gotten flare from a 90TE, and those who will.

 what really counts is bright light just outside the picture area -

 

The lens is good enough and small enough that I work around this little quirk.

Adan,

I think you are right about flare with light "just outside" the picture area. I had a look last night with the lens straight into the light. No flare.

However my other Leica lenses are so prone to flare it is not funny. With the light sources as described - just outside

135mm - crazy flaring

Mate - flaring could not be worse than this lens

50mm F2 APO - mine (production date less than 12 months ago) has some flare too

74mm F1.4 - flares

 

Will check this situation out with my 90mm thin when I have time.  

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[lct]

Just received a German copy of the "thin" Tele-Elmarit-M 90/2.8 from 1987. It flares less than my Canadian copy from 1979 when light sources are into the frame but it has still flare problems when light sources are just outside the frame. Interesting to compare it to the Elmar-C 90/4 from this viewpoint (link).  

https://lctphot.smugmug.com/Diverse/Leica-9028-TE-1987-vs-904-C-1973-re-Flare

[Susie]

Hi Guys,

 

Just a quick question about these flare-prone lenses. When you get this flare with "the light souce just outside the picture area" is this even when using the dedicated lens hood?

 

Susie

[Ozytripper]

Hi Guys,

 

Just a quick question about these flare-prone lenses. When you get this flare with "the light souce just outside the picture area" is this even when using the dedicated lens hood?

 

Susie

Just my personal experience. The original dedicated lens hoods are just about useless when the light source is just outside the picture area. Buying longer after market hoods helps.

[lct]

Just a quick question about these flare-prone lenses. When you get this flare with "the light souce just outside the picture area" is this even when using the dedicated lens hood? 

 

The longer hood the better to avoid or reduce that kind of flare.

For E39/A42 90mm lenses (Elmar 90/4, Elmar-C 90/4, Macro-Elmar 90/4, Elmarit 90/2.8 v1, Tele-Elmarit 90/2.8 v1 & v2), the longer Leitz/Leica hood is the clip-on metal hood 12575 (hood cap 14033) as far as i know, or the similar IUFOO (hood cap OROBI).

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/IUFOO

It my modest 30+ years experience, better bring some more shade with a hand or a hat eventually. 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[UliWer]

The longer hood the better to avoid or reduce that kind of flare.

For E39/A42 90mm lenses (Elmar 90/4, Elmar-C 90/4, Macro-Elmar 90/4, Elmarit 90/2.8 v1, Tele-Elmarit 90/2.8 v1 & v2), the longer Leitz/Leica hood is the clip-on metal hood 12575 (hood cap 14033) as far as i know, or the similar IUFOO (hood cap OROBI).

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/IUFOO

It my modest 30+ years experience, better bring some more shade with a hand or a hat eventually. 

 

LeicaM_12575_hood_boxes.jpg

 

Unfortunately the 12575/IUFOO only fits the earlier version of the Tele-Elmarit - the "fat" one. The later "thin" version - aka v. 2 - is too thin.

 

That's another reason why I don't quite understand the popularity of the "thin" Tele-Elmarit. Optically it has no advantages, it seems to show more flare and uses the uncommon hood.

 

Of course the "fat" version is more expensive - especially in chrome I think the price tags you often see are really exaggerated.  

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Unfortunately the 12575/IUFOO only fits the earlier version of the Tele-Elmarit - the "fat" one. The later "thin" version - aka v. 2 - is too thin.[...]

 

Why so? Both "fat" and "thin" T-E are E39/A42 lenses aren't they? Below 12575 hoods on Elmarit 90/2.8 v1 and Tele-Elmarit "thin" 90/2.8. Same on Elmar-C 90/4 BTW. Been using those combos for 30+ years.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[adan]

Unfortunately the 12575/IUFOO only fits the earlier version of the Tele-Elmarit - the "fat" one. The later "thin" version - aka v. 2 - is too thin.

 

That's another reason why I don't quite understand the popularity of the "thin" Tele-Elmarit. Optically it has no advantages, it seems to show more flare and uses the uncommon hood.

 

Of course the "fat" version is more expensive - especially in chrome I think the price tags you often see are really exaggerated.  

 

You'll have to explain that to the half-dozen+ 12575 or IUFOO hoods that have fitted perfectly on my various "thin" 90TEs over the past 17 years.

 

Pretty much all of the clip-on hoods for E39 lenses (35/50 Summicrons, both 90 TEs, 135 Tele-Elmar/Elmar/Hektor) are completely interchangeable in mounting - although obviously some will vignette if used on too short a focal length. The 12575 is marked in some cases as for both/either 90 or 135.

 

The rubber "default" hood (similar to that for the CL lenses) is pointless - assuming they haven't corroded to dust by this time.

[Susie]

You'll have to explain that to the half-dozen+ 12575 or IUFOO hoods that have fitted perfectly on my various "thin" 90TEs over the past 17 years.

 

Pretty much all of the clip-on hoods for E39 lenses (35/50 Summicrons, both 90 TEs, 135 Tele-Elmar/Elmar/Hektor) are completely interchangeable in mounting - although obviously some will vignette if used on too short a focal length. The 12575 is marked in some cases as for both/either 90 or 135.

 

The rubber "default" hood (similar to that for the CL lenses) is pointless - assuming they haven't corroded to dust by this time.

 

My point exactly.  The rubber hood that originally came with my T-E thin perished years ago. Since then I have used a IUFOO/12575 with perfect reliability,

 

Susie

[tsleica]

My rubber hood doe TE ..is still in mint cond....kinda surprised me it lasted so long..the one for my Rollie35 is still good too..

But if I need some extra shading..its a reg hood..with some black felt taped to the edge of the hood where the light is spilling in..that works great..or..your hand..

[lct]

I would not say that rubber hoods are useless personally. I still have copies in great shape of them that i use when i don't need the size of the 12575. They take little room in the bag, have a hood cap and can be found easily on e**y. That of the Elmar-C 90/4 (12517 hood, 14191 hood cap, pic below) is a bit taller than that of the "thin" Tele-Elmarit (11250 hood, 11251 adapter, 11252 hood cap) but has not the same thread pitch as the latter. 12517 hood can be screwed into Leica 39mm filters with no problem at all though and can be used on all E39/A42 90mm M lenses this way. 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited February 21, 2018 by lct

[bocaburger]

My rubber hood cracked long ago also, maybe from long period of being stored in the collapsed position, idk.  Anyway I have used the 12575 clarinet-bell hood however it fattens the lens considerably in the bag, so most of the time I pack one 12585 35/50 vented hood for use on 35-50-90.  Never had a flare problem with it. 

[Pyrogallol]

If the rubber hood of the Elmar-c has rotted away, do not throw it out, keep the series 5.5 screw base and glue it onto another hood.

[iwc852]

does anybody know the difference between the two version made in Canada?

One is called Tele-Elmarit and the other version Telle Elmarit M (later version); there seems to be a difference in the coating you can detect by the color of the reflections....