Leica 90/2 or 90/2.8 ? What are their characteristics ?

[Designer]

Thanks Peter, yes, I've made a mistake that the 1st photo shown on my post is not Tele Elmarit, but the first version Elmarit. 😀

 

[Designer]

Here should be the thin type (2nd version) Tele Elmarit (code 11800) 😀

 

[peter_n]

OK this is good Keven - it means I'm not going senile... 😀 That picture is the right one! 🙂

 

[StuartR]

I have the Tele-Elmarit-M -- it was the latest lens before the production of the current larger, heavier model. I have not had any flare problems, but that is because I always use the giant hood that came with it. It is a very sharp, contrasty lens that weighs next to nothing. It is a great portrait and travel lens. If you don't need high speed I highly recommend it. If you do need speed, I would recommend avoiding the 90s altogether and getting the 75 summilux. It is faster than any of the 90s, and it has a nice character to it that can't be beat. Not that the 90 summicrons aren't excellent...I just prefer the 75...and it's faster.

Here are some shots with the 90/2.8 tele-elmarit M:

 

[Todd.Hanz]

Nice shots Stuart, what's the minimum focus range on that lens?

Todd

 

[StuartR]

Thanks Todd, it focuses a bit closer than 1 meter, so I would say .9m.

 

[MCTuomey]

Richard, the rose and church pictures are very, very nice - and both suggest the lens' versatility is excellent. Peter, Todd, Richard - do you think focussing a 90/2.8 would be beyond the capability of a Bessa R2A? I've read that focussing longer, faster lens are beyond my camera's baselength design, especially wide open?

 

[richard_l]

Richard, the rose and church pictures are very, very nice - and both suggest the lens' versatility is excellent. Peter, Todd, Richard - do you think focussing a 90/2.8 would be beyond the capability of a Bessa R2A? I've read that focussing longer, faster lens are beyond my camera's baselength design, especially wide open?

Thanks Mike. I've heard that a 90/2.8 can be focussed wide open on the Minolta CLE. The effective base length of the R2A is only about 3mm less than that of the CLE, so it might work, but I couldn't say for sure without trying it out.

It's really nice to be able to use a lense like the Tele-Elmarit wide open because that's where it has that delicious velvety softness which is so useful for portrait and still-life.

 

[peter_n]

I'm the same as Richard, no experience with the Bessa. Is it possible for you to get to a dealer where you could try an f2.9/90 on your cam?

 

[MCTuomey]

Thanks for the quick replies, Peter and Richard. There is one camera shop in the area that carries a small Leica inventory. I'll see what they have - and try out the 2.8/90 if possible. Good suggestion. This'll probably be a close call. I do know the CV 2.5/75 focusses well with the R2 and R2A. A quarter stop slower and 15mm longer may or may not translate into compatibility, esp close up.

 

[peter_n]

It may be a close call. I have no problem with the 90 on my 0.72mag Leica, but my f4/135mm is more difficult to focus. I can focus it OK but the 90 snaps in and out of focus in comparison. Let us know how it goes!

 

[ijonas]

I think I'm going to plonk down the cash for the 90/2.8. I'm not too bothered about the extra stop.

Thanks for the photos Stuart, they shed some nice light on how the 90mm can be used in different situations.

For some info on the Bessa R2A's suitability, check out http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/technics/rfaccuracy.html.

Cheers,
Ij.

 

[former member]

Stephen Gandy's website gives Effective Base Length for most of the RF's that we talk about here:

http://www.cameraquest.com/leica.htm

The Contax III/II had a baselength of 105mm and VF mag of 0.6, but is not on the list. Same as on the Kiev Copies.

 

[jdos2]

I made my decision to buy the 90mm AA Summicron based on several things- first was an admission that Cleveland, Ohio has a long and dark winter- and many of my pictures were going to be inside, restaurants, and so forth, so the extra stop (and Tri-X and Diafine at ASA 1200!) was a Good Thing.
Then there are reports that many of the older 90mm lenses have flare issues that rival my J-9 at times.
So... It was the AA for me.
I can't contrast it with much but the Elmar, sadly, as I've never tried any of the f/2.8 lenses on my cameras.
The Elmar, even stopped down, was soft by my measure. That's not to say the pictures didn't look nice, but I was looking for something sharper than what I had, something to put more detail on the negative, so the Elmar was not something with which I had a great experience. I also didn't have a hood for it and flare was evident, though not image-smearingly strong.

My experience. I'm sure modern 2.8's would be just fine, like my Contax G's. I had the opportunity to buy one with an "extra" stop, so I did.

 

[peter_n]

I think I'm going to plonk down the cash for the 90/2.8. I'm not too bothered about the extra stop.

Then strongly consider the thin Tele-Elmarit, especially since you're going on a trip - as I said above the TE is a perfect travel lens.

Some earlier versions of this lens (it is thought around 5-10% of them) suffered from a peculiar etching of the rear element which developed over a period of time - its called TE disease. If you buy this lens be conservative and get a lens with a higher serial nr. than 31xxxxx so that you will have one from a later production date. The lens was made in Canada and there was a short production run in Germany before it was discontinued. The German lenses are about 50% more expensive than the Canadian ones (collectors). Good luck! 🙂

 

[wlewisiii]

Stephen Gandy's website gives Effective Base Length for most of the RF's that we talk about here:

http://www.cameraquest.com/leica.htm

The Contax III/II had a baselength of 105mm and VF mag of 0.6, but is not on the list. Same as on the Kiev Copies.

Thanks for that info Brian. Just a quick look at the 5 with a ruler gives about 65 - 70mm with it's 0.7x VF mag would mean it's in the same ballpark as the .72 M's for EBL with the original being like the M3 for length. No comparison on other issues, though the 5 is closer than many might think.

Good to know. Thanks!

William

 

[MCTuomey]

Well, I don't think it's a go for the 2.8/90 and the R2A. Could be my aging eyes, but wide open and fairly close it's very tough for me to focus with confidence. I don't have this problem with my new CV 75mm, although the 75 is clearly more difficult than my CV 1.7/35. Even though the R2A's finder is bright, there's just not enough horizontal movement to make me feel I've locked up the focus properly. I kept going back and forth with the ring, squinting hard, sort of a focus stutter, if you know what I mean. Not really fun.

I'm resigned to my CV 75mm. Not a bad problem, really. ;-)) But I do appreciate what leicaphiles have going for them, being able to use these lenses without thinking about it.

 

[StuartR]

Bessa T my friend....they are still available for 185 bucks from Gandy if you want a voigtlander solution to this problem. If you get an accessory viewfinder you should be able to focus a fast 90 very accurately. Plus it gives you an extra body to throw some film into.

 

[peter_n]

Too bad, Mike. 🙁 But you were obviously able to try a 90 on your cam so at least you didn't have to buy one then return it...

 

[MCTuomey]

Yes, Peter. Apparently there's a collapsible 4/90 from Leitz that might be more workable? And Stu brings up another possibility ...

This kind of thinking is promoting GAS, instead of just plain shooting.

I'm getting these hard stares from my spouse who's looking over my shoulder...