fat or thin nineties

[tajart]

in another thread, the thin version of the tele-elmarit 90 was recommended as a great travel lens. i'd chime in and say for travel, the 90 elmar or elmar-c would be a good choice, assuming one was doing more out door shooting.

but the thread got me thinking- i've always heard preference expressed for the "fat" tele 90/2.8. i wonder why, and what the differences are between the fat and thin versions; ergonomics or optics?

i have a few 90s, an early thread mount elmar, an elmarit 90, a fat tele-elmarit 90/2.8, and the wonderful 90 elmar-c. they are all nice, but since i haven't used the thin version of the tele-elmarit, i'm curious about why it is recommended?

 

[markinlondon]

See this page for the construction differences. The "fat" lens is manufactured in the old Leitz style and is much heavier and more solid in feel than the "thin" lens. But, and it's a big but, the "thin" TE is a great lens when you want to travel light. Apart from its susceptibility to flare (use the hood!), it performs very well indeed.

Here's a picture from the first roll I shot with my thin TE.

Link

 

[peter_n]

Tom I'm the guy who recommended the "thin" TE. My previous 90 was a Hexanon-M which is a great lens but a wee bit too heavy for travel. I currently also use a 90/2 Summicron AA (in the shop for repair 🙁 ) but I still use the TE for travel. As Mark says the TE is susceptible to flare, and it is a wee bit soft wide open but it is so tiny and light it is perfect for travel.

 

[tajart]

hey thanks peter and mark. nice shot mark- i love the light, space, and patterns on the walls, and everyone reading...