ijonas
Established
Hi folks,
What are the lense characteristics of the Leica 90/2 and the 90/2.8 ? Is one sharper than the other ? Is the extra stop worth it ? etc, etc.
Looking for your opinions on my first piece of Leica glass... for the purposes of travel photography and informal portraits.
As ever much appreciated.
Ijonas.
P.S. I don't mind using film such as Neopan 1600 for portraiture so the extra stop might not be necessary for me.
What are the lense characteristics of the Leica 90/2 and the 90/2.8 ? Is one sharper than the other ? Is the extra stop worth it ? etc, etc.
Looking for your opinions on my first piece of Leica glass... for the purposes of travel photography and informal portraits.
As ever much appreciated.
Ijonas.
P.S. I don't mind using film such as Neopan 1600 for portraiture so the extra stop might not be necessary for me.
Steve Hoffman
Leicanutt
I have the 2.8, got it new from Tony Rose for around 1k. It's nice and compact, lighter than the 90 f2 and costs half as much. Takes perfect portraits! You can find them used all the time; many people find they just don't use a 90 as much as they thought they would.
Oh, the 1.25 mag add on really helps with focusing.
Oh, the 1.25 mag add on really helps with focusing.
I do not have the 90mm F2 Summicron, I do have the 90mm F2.8 Tele-Elmarit, "Thin" version. It is very sharp, small, and light. Not much bigger than the F4 Elmar. I have used it mostly outdoors with the M3 for very good results. Have not used it for portraits yet. I also have an 85mm F2 Nikkor and like it for portrait shots. I would not hesitate to pick up an older Summicron 90mm. The older Summicron is not much more cost than the Tele-Elmarit. Bottom line: I think size and weight are the drivers here.
ijonas
Established
Steve,
What's the "1.25 mag" you're referring too ?
Ij.
What's the "1.25 mag" you're referring too ?
Ij.
Steve is "offline". Leica makes a viewfinder magnifier for use with longer lenses. The 1.25x changes the 0.72 finder to a 0.9x finder, like on the M3. It adds cost and weight. The 0.72 finder should be good enough to focus a 90mm F2.0; I have no problem with the 85mm f2 on the 0.8x Canon 7.
85mm F2, wide-open on the Canon 7.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/1281/size/big/sort/1/cat/539
10.5cm F2.5 at ~F4 on the M3.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/3484/size/big/sort/1/cat/539
85mm F2, wide-open on the Canon 7.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/1281/size/big/sort/1/cat/539
10.5cm F2.5 at ~F4 on the M3.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/3484/size/big/sort/1/cat/539
Last edited:
T
Todd.Hanz
Guest
I had a 90/2 summicron once, here are a couple images. The girl was shot wide open at f2, the baby was at f8. Both were scanned on a flatbed and look alot better in reality.
The lens is very sharp, almost too sharp, but still has nice bokeh when you need it. It is also large and heavy but feels very nice and stable on the camera, I'd go for the 90/2 if you don't need the light weight.
The lens is very sharp, almost too sharp, but still has nice bokeh when you need it. It is also large and heavy but feels very nice and stable on the camera, I'd go for the 90/2 if you don't need the light weight.
S
Stu :)
Guest
Brian Sweeney said:10.5cm F2.5 at ~F4 on the M3.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/3484/size/big/sort/1/cat/539
That's the lens I quietly lust for. Every photo I've seen shot with a 10.5cm/2.5 Nikkor, I look at the bokeh/sharpness compromise and mutter "gosh!".
Stu
Steve Hoffman
Leicanutt
ijonas said:Steve,
What's the "1.25 mag" you're referring too ?
Ij.
It is this:
http://www.cameraquest.com/LM1.25x.htm
It weighs about what a small feather would weigh.
It turns my .72 90mm frame line into the size of the 50mm line making it VERY easy to do critical focusing with ease in dim light. Crucial for getting the eyes in focus. I recommend it highly!
peter_n
Veteran
Like Brian, I have the Leica Tele-Elmarit "thin" 90/2.8. A great little lens that is a bit susceptible to flare, is sharp but not too sharp for portraits. I've attached two pics taken with the lens below. The one of the violinist is taken wide open at f2.8, the shot of the cellos was taken at f4.
richard_l
Well-known
The first Leitz lens I bought was the thin 90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit. It's a great little lens.
Here's a shot with the lens at about f/8.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/8292/sort/1/cat/500/page/1
This rose was taken wide open at closest focus to minimize DoF.
http://pw2.netcom.com/~rlsaylor/m6/rose.htm
Here's a shot with the lens at about f/8.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/8292/sort/1/cat/500/page/1
This rose was taken wide open at closest focus to minimize DoF.
http://pw2.netcom.com/~rlsaylor/m6/rose.htm
MCTuomey
Veteran
OT, but Todd your color portrait and Peter your violinist are just wunnerful. I am so impressed with what you both can do with your 90s. Wow.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Another vote for the 90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit. I have not used mine a lot but it has impressed me with it's small size and image quality. Mine is the fat version made in Canada. Unless you really need F2 and more bulk and weight the 2.8 is worth seriously considering. Here is a nothing tourist type shot .
Bob
Bob
T
Todd.Hanz
Guest
MCToumey,
thanks ,
if travel or lightweight is an issue the 2.8 is the way to go, both lenses are great but the 90/2 is heavier, larger ,
Todd
thanks ,
if travel or lightweight is an issue the 2.8 is the way to go, both lenses are great but the 90/2 is heavier, larger ,
Todd
peter_n
Veteran
Thanks Mike! Film was Kodak T400CN. The "thin" Tele-Elmarit is the perfect travel 90. 
skimmel
Established
Sorry to be a bit dense, but I have 2 questions:
1) What is the "thin" version of the 2.8?
2) In terms of size and weight: on the B&H website, they have the 90/2.8 at 0.9lbs (14.4 oz) and the 90/2.0 at 1.1 lbs (17.6 oz). Not sure these are the same lenses being discussed here. Are they? If so, doesn't seem to be a huge weight difference, although I can certainly appreciate that every ounce counts.
Thanks.
1) What is the "thin" version of the 2.8?
2) In terms of size and weight: on the B&H website, they have the 90/2.8 at 0.9lbs (14.4 oz) and the 90/2.0 at 1.1 lbs (17.6 oz). Not sure these are the same lenses being discussed here. Are they? If so, doesn't seem to be a huge weight difference, although I can certainly appreciate that every ounce counts.
Thanks.
Designer
Keven
Hi! Skimmel,
The thin type Tele Elmarit is this one,
And the Fat type is here,
The thin type Tele Elmarit is this one,

And the Fat type is here,
Thin vs "Fat" Elmarit:
http://www.kbcamera.com/elmarit90mm.htm
And my Tele-Elmarit appears to be only 225 Grams! It looks like it gained weight a little later on!
The Summicron looks like it lost weight. I have only handles the first type at 685 grams.
http://www.kbcamera.com/summicron90mm.htm
http://www.kbcamera.com/elmarit90mm.htm
And my Tele-Elmarit appears to be only 225 Grams! It looks like it gained weight a little later on!
The Summicron looks like it lost weight. I have only handles the first type at 685 grams.
http://www.kbcamera.com/summicron90mm.htm
Last edited:
skimmel
Established
Thanks everyone for clarifying.
peter_n
Veteran
Keven, I don't think that's a thin Tele-Elmarit. I'm at work so I can't post a pic of mine but to begin with the lens tapers in diameter toward the front and the front ring is labeled "Tele-Elmarit" not "Elmarit". Also I don't think the lens has a knurled focusing ring, I think its simply ridged. I'm pretty sure about that, but I'll confirm when I get home tonite. Or back down... 
richard_l
Well-known
The 90/2.8 Elmarit is still in production. Both the fat and the skinny Tele-Elmarit 90/2.8 are discontinued. My skinny Tele-Elmarit weighs just a tad over 8 oz, and it's only slightly longer than the 50/2 Summicron.
The original Tele-Elmarit was the fat one. The skinny was designed to cut production costs, but like the M2, they produced a winner in the process.
The original Tele-Elmarit was the fat one. The skinny was designed to cut production costs, but like the M2, they produced a winner in the process.
Last edited:
Share:
-
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.