90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit-M vs. 90/4 Macro-Elmar

[cobbu2]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello All,

 

Recently an opportunity to purchase either of the above lenses has arisen, and I'm trying to decide which way to go (no I can't afford both).

 

I'll be traveling to Banff National Park next year and I'll be using the lens on my M240 primarily for landscape situations that call for 90mm. Occasionally I would be empolying it for street use also. I've read a lot of reviews for both lenses and both seem excellent and are easy to travel with. The f/4 min aperture of the Macro Elmar is not a factor and I know it will make great landscape images. But it is also $1000+ more than the Tele-Elmarit.

 

I guess my question is, will the Tele-Elmar be up to the task with the M240 for landscapes? Is the Macro Elmar worth the extra expense for my purposes?

 

Thanks, Allan

[dkmoore]

Are you talking about the $500 tele-elmarit or are you referring to the 90 2.8 Elmarit?

 

If you are referencing the 90 2.8 Elmarit (sells for about $1k used), I would purchase that over the 90 macro solely based on the multiple mentions of finances being a deciding factor. Both the elmarit and macro-elmar are excellent lenses of similar IQ. 

[ktmrider2]

I have owned a really nice copy of the 90 Tele Elmarit M for several years.  It is one half of my two lens travel kit, the other being a 35 C Biogon.  I have never had a problem with sharpness and it is the same length and size as the latest version of the 50 Summicron.  But I admit to not putting the results under a magnifying glass.  I suspect not using a tripod more then makes up for any difference in the sharpness of the older lens vice the 90f4 Micro.  The 35 C Biogon and 90 Tele Elmarit M lenses may be the lightest lenses available in these two focal lengths. 

 

I suspect the 90f4 may be a bit sharper (just a guess) as it is a more recent design.  And I am a bit of a traditionalist when choosing focal lengths for my Leica which is why I go with 35/50/90 and have never owned a 75.  And they are the frame lines in the M2.  And I think you can get a nice copy of the 90 Tele Elmarit M for under $700.  And you can have it CLA'ed for under $200 if needed.

 

And my current digital M is an MP240 and my current film M is an M5 and the 90 Tele Elmarit M does just great on both.  Have never really felt much of an urge to get a newer or faster 90 as I don't use it that much but it is nice for portraits.  And again, the results have met my standards.

Edited September 3, 2018 by ktmrider2

[TomB_tx]

The 90s I use are the 2.5 Summarit, the original (fat) TeleElmarit, and the Elmar-C (originally for the film CL). All are better than you might expect from Internet comments. The TE was the first Leica lens I bought in 1968. It had an element shift and was soft until I had a good tech re-align it a decade ago, and it’s been great since.

The Elmar-C is the real surprise, and was a bargain at under $300 used. It has good contrast and resolution, and is smaller and lighter than the others. It’s great on my M9. The optical design is quite similar to the Macro-Elmar, and Puts notes it seems to be optimized for closer distances; so perhaps not best for landscapes. However, the cost may be worth a trial.

The 2.5 Summarit is a good all-around lens, but for exact focus I prefer the longer throw of my TE. Of course the Summarit is 6-bit, which is an advantage on digital M.

[vikasmg]

If you’re not interested in it’s macro capabilities, the Macro-Elmar doesn’t make sense. The Macro-Elmar is a wonderful lens if you want one lens and also do macro work. Otherwise probably not worth extra expense.

 

Regardless of what you think of his style, you may find this useful for a commentary on Leica’s f2.5 and f2.8 lenses - https://kenrockwell.com/leica/90mm-lenses.htm

 

I have in fact used the Summarit f2.5 and I found that very good as well.

[cobbu2]

Thanks everyone for the fast responses! The Tele-Elmarit-M I was referring to is the 1974-1990 version. It’s not so much a matter of affordability for me, but I guess more one of value for my requirements. They both seem to be easily “pocketable.” The advantage to the 90 MEM is closer focus and apparent blistering sharpness, and from what I’ve read, makes an excellent 90mm lens for all-around use. The disadvantage is the f/4 aperture.

 

What I wonder is how the respective lenses directly compare at smaller apertures (which would mostly be applicable in landscape situations). Also in the TE’s camp is the f/2.8 aperture which might come in handy street shooting at night... but my primary interest will still be the landscape genre.

 

Cheers, Allan

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The 90/4 macro has more acutance than the T-E 90/2.8 and also less flare than the latter so my reasons to keep the T-E are f/2.8 and its smoother rendering on portraits. On landscapes and closeups, the 90/4 macro is my favorite compact 90 by far.

[ktmrider2]

As I said above, I have the 90 Tele Elmarit M which is the same version you are looking at.  I just read the Ken Rockwell link and it is his favorite 90 Leica lens. I don't know why it is so cheap compared to 35's or 50's of the same era(probably due to focal length as longer lenses are just better on an SLR).  I had my lens CLA'ed by Ye a couple years ago and it really is perfect.  If I am shooting scenics for travel, I try and use f5.6-f8 always so it should fit your shooting style just fine.

 

Having said the above, I have never hesitated to use it wide open.  Again, it is perfect teamed with a small and lightweight wide-angle like a 35 or 28.  And, it is so small that a separate camera bag really is not needed.  Either the small wide angle or the 90 is on the camera and the other in the jacket pocket.

Edited September 4, 2018 by ktmrider2

[JSU]

My own light weight kit is the 90 Tele-Elmarit (thin) and 35 Summicron ver IV. I find they are very well matched either on film or with the M9-P. I find the 90 T-E excellent for portraits wide open and if anything, a bit too sharp for a more classic approach to portraiture. For that reason I keep a very old single coated 90 Elmar (4 element). Images from both lenses can be seen posted to the older lens thread yesterday. The Tele-Elmarit stopped down to 5.6 or 8 is extremely sharp and delivers a most pleasing contrast. In my opinion Mandler intended for these two lenses to paired together.

[adan]

Sharpness with the 90 TE-M is not an issue - see ship example below @ f/5.6.

 

But when lct said "flare," he should have said "FLARE!!" At least in some situations, with strong light just outside the picture area. Not just a few purple spots, but a shadow-eating, contrast-destroying veil across the whole image. That will occasionally beat even the best lens hood (Leica 12575, same as for the 90 macro, or the earlier IUFOO, either of which will fit reversed over the lens for carrying).

 

The portrait attempt below is "worst case" - strong light from the right from a row of 10-foot-tall shop windows. But sometimes even a bright sky above a darkish mountain/building can start fogging things up. It is light just outside the picture area that is the usual villain, which reflects off the inside of the barrel behind the last glass element.

 

On the whole, I love the little TE - it got me through "withdrawal" from the tiny Contax-G 90 Sonnar when I switched to Leica 17 years ago. But it will flare like a rattlesnake in just the wrong lighting. I won't say "don't get it," because several have served me well - so long as I was very careful any time the main light was ahead of my shoulders (side-light, backlight, stray windows or skies or overhead lights indoors).

 

But be forewarned.

 

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!

 

[cobbu2]

Thanks again for the excellent responses! I also read Ken Rockwell's reviews (among others and looking at numerous examples) and the TE 90 compares favorably to just about every other Leica 90mm lens out there. Of note, it is only ever-so-slightly longer than the 90 MEM when extended. Overall for my purposes it would appear to offer the most bang for the buck.

 

Adan - thanks for the great examples... just the kind of assessment I was looking for!

Edited September 4, 2018 by cobbu2

[russell]

The MEM also FLARES by the way.  It's proper image destroying flare. It might be better with the hood, but that destroys the compactness.

Hmm, maybe I'm talking myself into selling my MEM...

[cobbu2]

The MEM also FLARES by the way.  It's proper image destroying flare. It might be better with the hood, but that destroys the compactness.

Hmm, maybe I'm talking myself into selling my MEM...

 

Thanks for the info... I have to say right now I'm leaning toward the 90 TE.

[Kwesi]

Hello All,

 

Recently an opportunity to purchase either of the above lenses has arisen, and I'm trying to decide which way to go (no I can't afford both).

 

I'll be traveling to Banff National Park next year and I'll be using the lens on my M240 primarily for landscape situations that call for 90mm. Occasionally I would be empolying it for street use also. I've read a lot of reviews for both lenses and both seem excellent and are easy to travel with. The f/4 min aperture of the Macro Elmar is not a factor and I know it will make great landscape images. But it is also $1000+ more than the Tele-Elmarit.

 

I guess my question is, will the Tele-Elmar be up to the task with the M240 for landscapes? Is the Macro Elmar worth the extra expense for my purposes?

 

Thanks, Allan

 

"I guess my question is, will the Tele-Elmar be up to the task with the M240 for landscapes? Is the Macro Elmar worth the extra expense for my purposes?"

The answer is "no." For landscapes you want a lens with enough contrast to cut through atmospheric haze. The  90 tele elmarit is NOT that lens. Plus it flares and flares and flares.

For an all rounder that won't break the bank, I would strongly suggest the 90 Elmarit-M. Another option would be the current 90 Summarit-M.

[M.RB]

The MEM also FLARES by the way.  It's proper image destroying flare. It might be better with the hood, but that destroys the compactness.

Hmm, maybe I'm talking myself into selling my MEM...

 

I use the little 39mm threaded hood from the modern 50, f/2.8 Elmar lens with my MEM and haven't had any issues. It works a treat and the whole package is still tiny.

With the original goggled version of the MEM (as I have) the original hood stores reversed on the lens adding no extra size.

 

It's not a lens I use often but when I do it never disappoints. But then I've never used a 90mm Leica  lens in M or R mount that wasn't superb in one way or another to me.

[JSU]

I've never found my example of the Tele-Elmarit M (thin & German) to be particularly flare prone and it was my frustration with flare that prompted me to move away from the 90 Summicron, pre-ASPH after trading my early version with the tripod mount for the later more compact version which, after loosing too many images to flare I replaced with another later pre-ASPH Summicron. I finally gave up and went to the Tele-Elmarit. No regrets and never looked back, my T-E is far more useful to me than the trio of Summicrons that brought me to tears.

 

On a tangental note, a few years ago when motivated to explore non-Leica RF lenses, I acquired a Canon LTM 100/2.0. This is the lens I wish any of the 90 Summicrons I owned had been. Other than it's size, it is a superb lens and actually is a better fit with the 90mm marks in the M9-P than either of my 90's. I also have a 90 Elmar which is a wonderful option for classic head & shoulder portraits.

 

As to contrast, for B &W film, photographers have understood contrast control through exposure and development long before Ansel Adams elaborated on the Zone System. In digital it is a bit easier to manage with a slight tweak of a slider in post processing of the DNG.

Edited September 5, 2018 by JSU

[lct]

The German "thin" T-E 90/2.8 flares the same way as the Canadian one when strong light sources are outside the frame. 

For a comparo with the Elmar-C 90/4, see https://lctphot.smugmug.com/Diverse/Leica-9028-TE-1987-vs-904-C-1973-re-Flare/n-g8ZRRz/

To get better results for little money the M-Rokkor 90/4 for Minolta CLE is the way to go.

[graphlex]

In my use, the Macro-Elmar is worlds better than than the Elmar-C on digital, though not on film.

[Mr.Q]

I also use the 'old' version of the MEM. At close distances (not macro), it's noticably sharper than the 90AA and the latest version Elmarit that I had.  For landscapes it's better than the Elmarit and a very close match to the 90AA. Overall, when considering all focusing distances, the MEM is the best performing 90mm Leica lens.

 

The reversible hood is fantastic for carrying btw. I haven't noticed any unexpected flare with it on.

Another great option for landscapes is the Zeiss 85/4 ZM.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[xrogers]

I've owned four leica 90mm lenses, and have kept the two you're considering (had and sold most recent elmarit and apo summicron---they're great lenses, but too big and heavy IMO).

 

I use the macro elmar all the time. I love the size collapsed, the great performance at all apertures and distances, and the close focusing. I've had no problems with flare. If I could have only one 90, this is the one. A great performer on the M240 for landscape.

 

The TE, while not as compact as the macro, it still quite small and light, and is indeed as sharp as I need when stopped down. It is the most flare prone leica lens I've owned, and the corners are very soft wide open. Still, it's a great lens, and after nearly 30 years, I simply can't part with it. Shoot at 5.6 or 8, use a hood, watch for the flare, and you have a great landscape lens on the M240.

 

For me, the macro is the better lens, but of all Leica 90s, the TE is my next choice, and a real bargain.

Edited September 5, 2018 by xrogers