awilder
Alan Wilder
Having recently purchased a clean 90 TE (thin version) from a forum member (thanks Steve), I took some test shots against my 90 APO ASPH to see how well it did. I was pleasantly surprised to find it did quite well considering the circumstances. The enclosed shots made at f/4 are: full frame, tight crop with the TE and lasly the same crop with the AA. To be fair to the TE, at f/4 it hasn't yet reached peak sharpness (f/5.6-8) but f/4 is peak sharpness of the AA. My own resolution tests using USAF targets showed that compared to the early Elmarit I once owned, the TE is a big jump in sharpness especially at f/2.8 and f/4 where the difference is significant. Compared to the Hexanon-M or current Elmarit-M, sharpness of the TE lags behind by the same slight degree as with the AA. All lenses were quite sharp at 1 meter especially closed down a stop or two. The main drawback of the TE is it's reported propensity to flare in adverse lighting or the curious "TE disease" in about 5% of the lenses that by now either have it or not. Very good optical performance aside, it's raison d'etre is it's diminutive size and weight (less than half the AA and about 35-40% less than the Hexanon or Elmarit-M) making it a favorite travel companion of it's fans. It's even about 2 oz. lighter than the compact 90/4 Elmar-C yet build quality leaves nothing to be desired compared with any other lens in the Leica stable. Ergonomics of the TE are fantastic, looks and feels just like the black Wetzlar 50 Summicron (ver. 3), only a tad longer.
Attachments
Last edited:
JRG
Well-known
"it's raison d'etre is it's diminutive size and weight (less than half the AA and about 35-40% less than the Hexanon or Elmarit-M) making it a favorite travel companion of it's fans"
Actually, the thin T-E is essentially the same size as the Elmar-C, the 90 Macro-Elmar, and the CV Apo-Lanthar (if you discount the hood of the latter). I've owned all four of those, and once had a side-by-side photo of them, that I seem to have now lost.
I don't think there's bad performance to be found anywhere in that group of four. The MEM is superb, at about four times the cost of the Apo-Lanthar. I don't use a 90 very often, which I why I sold my MEM in favor of the Apo-Lanthar.
Actually, the thin T-E is essentially the same size as the Elmar-C, the 90 Macro-Elmar, and the CV Apo-Lanthar (if you discount the hood of the latter). I've owned all four of those, and once had a side-by-side photo of them, that I seem to have now lost.
I don't think there's bad performance to be found anywhere in that group of four. The MEM is superb, at about four times the cost of the Apo-Lanthar. I don't use a 90 very often, which I why I sold my MEM in favor of the Apo-Lanthar.
awilder
Alan Wilder
I use to own the MEM. Optically superb, equal to Leica's current siblings. It's raison d'etre is the compact size and closer focus just under 0.8 meters without the macro adapter giving a repro ratio like the old DR Summicron with goggles attached. Main drawback is the steep price and slowish maximum aperture. The macro adapter costs almost as much as another lens.
awilder
Alan Wilder
Additional testing with my 90 TE indicates that with minor rf focus tweaking, I can coax even greater sharpness out of this amazing lens. This brings sharpness to same level as my AA at f/4. Based on this I would also venture to say that sharpness is at least as good as the 90 M Hexanon and that the only advantage of these later optics is greater flare resistance. It appears that Walter Mandler's superb design really holds up quite well even by todays standards with exception of flare issues.
Last edited:
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
the TE is an awesome lens but to compare it to the 90 Hex is not very fair. If you are talking about overall sharpenss to shoot bricks with, thats one thing, but the two lenses draw very very differently and have totally different looks. One is really strong for shooting men and I would *never* shoot beauty with it for women.
The TE registers black completely different than the hex and the shadow detail you get between them are entirely different.
Suggesting that the only advantage the hex-m has over a TE is flare resistance is tragically under estimating what the hex is all about.
The TE registers black completely different than the hex and the shadow detail you get between them are entirely different.
Suggesting that the only advantage the hex-m has over a TE is flare resistance is tragically under estimating what the hex is all about.
awilder
Alan Wilder
I'm not entirely sure about the drawing and black registration differences between the lenses, maybe you could clarify. I would assume that the Hex has greater contrast thus making blacks appear more so while the TE registers black as a very dark grey. Is that correct? Judging from my own MTF measurements of the TE, at 40 lp/mm I get 75% on axis at f/4, a figure in line with modern highly corrected 90s like the Hexanon. This figure represents only micro-contrast levels so I have no idea how it performs at 5, 10 and 20 lp/mm. I suspect at these level one would get a better idea about overall contrast.
Last edited:
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
I dont get much into mtf measurements and all that, but if this means anything, the tele elmarit looks like a tessar on steroids and the hex looks like a completely modern lens in comparison. Both are exceptionally sharp, especially at f/4, but when it comes to their look, they couldnt be more different.
awilder
Alan Wilder
Thanks, I've always love the Tessar look. Does that mean the Hex with it's more modern look is better or worse for portaiture?
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
I guess that stuff is sooo subjective in regards to what you are trying to convey with a portrait. I always like the hex better on women but when you want to go for some super heavy look, its pretty damn hard to compete with the tele elmarit, that tessar look really is kind of alien compared to other designs, its pretty far out there. Shoot someone in a black jacket in front of a black wall with just a hint of an edge light with a tessar, you just get something that you cant get with a different lens, Im never good at describing the ether...
ChrisN
Striving
"Im never good at describing the ether..."
I don't know; I thought that was a pretty good description. Mind you, I'd still like to see a photo!
KM-25
Well-known
I am considering the economical and compact thin TE 90 2.8 strictly for compressed land / streetscapes when traveling in good non-flare direction light. How is it at infinity?
Last edited:
KM-25
Well-known
What should a clean thin 90 2.8 Tele Elmarit cost?
__hh
Well-known
$400 shipped
calexg
Established
I'd love to get my hands on a 90/2.8 TE. I love how small it is--it uses E39 filters!
KM-25
Well-known
$400 shipped
Cool, I went for a really clean one at $350, can't wait to give it a try on my M3.
Last edited:
peter_n
Veteran
An old one of mine taken from the gallery. This is an excellent little lens but susceptible to flare.
KM-25
Well-known
Shot this an hour after I got the lens, good lens....good, good lens.
This is going to be a blast on my M3, I can't believe how light it is!
This is going to be a blast on my M3, I can't believe how light it is!
