Shortest 85/90/100?

[squirrel$$$bandit]

That is, the one that protrudes least from the camera. Is it the fat Tele-Elmarit?

 

[analoged]

Maybe the old Nikkor 8.5cm?

 

[charjohncarter]

I have an Elmar 90mm that is 3 3/8 inches overall and 3 1/16 protruding.

 

[Jockos]

Collapsing included? My macro elmar gets pretty darn small when collapsed.

 

[analoged]

Probably fatter lenses take up more of the viewfinder than longer?

 

[Ronald M]

collapsible 90.

 

[sleepyhead]

The fat TE is roughly the same size as the E43 50mm Summilux, if that helps.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

The fat TE is roughly the same size as the E43 50mm Summilux, if that helps.

Yeah, it does! I was not counting collapsible lenses, in my mind—though I'd forgotten the Collapsible Elmar even existed.

Probably fatter lenses take up more of the viewfinder than longer?

Not inclined to worry about that, since the 90mm framelines take up so little of the viewfinder…but you could be right?

 

[jonmanjiro]

Collapsing included? My macro elmar gets pretty darn small when collapsed.

The Macro-Elmar is pretty darn small even when extended. I use an Elmar-M 50/2.8 hood on mine instead of the standard hood to keep the lens extra compact.

 

[pyeh]

Yes, that Macro-Elmar hood almost defeats the compact purpose of the lens. I'll try the 50/2.8 hood now. Thanks for the tip, Jon.

 

[michaelwj]

The fat TE is roughly the same size as the E43 50mm Summilux, if that helps.

Don't forget the thin TE is only a filter width longer than the fatty, with only 2/3rds the weight.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/images/90mm-f28-tele-fat/D3S_0097-1200.jpg

 

[Jockos]

The Macro-Elmar is pretty darn small even when extended. I use an Elmar-M 50/2.8 hood on mine instead of the standard hood to keep the lens extra compact.

I mean, it wasn't even that hard to convince my girlfriend I need 2 90mm lenses!

https://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffgallery/showphoto.php?photoid=276355&showall

:angel:

 

[Richard G]

I also use the 50 Elmar M hood on the Macro 90.

 

[Michiel Fokkema]

ELmar C maybe?

 

[sleepyhead]

Yes, that Macro-Elmar hood almost defeats the compact purpose of the lens. I'll try the 50/2.8 hood now. Thanks for the tip, Jon.

You know that the 12 575 hood for both the fat TE and the 90 M-E-M reverse on the lens for storage. So I don't find them too big.

 

[pyeh]

Sleepy, yes I know. It's when the Macro-Elmar is mounted and extended, with its hood on, that it all becomes too unwieldy for me. Of course the hood gives the lens a certain purposefulness that is attractive.

 

[Huss]

I also use the 50 Elmar M hood on the Macro 90.

Honestly, why bother? It provides zero coverage for that focal length.