Tom's take on 90mm M lenses

[Ljós]

I think that f2.8, and if the lens is very lightweight and compact because of it: f4, is a good compromise of speed and overall weight and size, also taking into account how slim the depth of field gets at f2 with a 90mm lens in portrait range.

Granted, there are pictures that cannot be taken (like that) which a f2 lens (let alone f1.4) could... but for my style and usage of 90mm it would be overkill most of the time.

I was very happy with my version 1 (leatherette ring round the mount collar) Elmarit f2.8 from the sixties while I had it. OK, a tad long with the hood mounted, gave the M2 something of a Pinocchio-look 🙂 But then again this simple not-tele-design helped it to awesome performance already wide open...
At some point I will find another one, unless a too-good-to-be true offer of one of the f4 90s (Elmarit-C or Rokkor) "falls into my lap" ;-)

Greetings, Ljós

 

[noimmunity]

You picked well. It's an incredibly sharp lens and very compact. Much undervalued around here ...

Roland.

Thanks. Following your suggestions over a number of threads, I picked up an EXC condition one from KEH, the Minolta version. Just received it out of a customs mix-up today, and it is indeed impressively compact. Beautifully damped. Can't believe that still sells for US$250, given how much everything else has risen. Plan to use it in tandem with the Konica 50/2.4 in LTM (same filter size) as part of my Roland Memorial Backpacking Travel kit. Cheers, Roland!

 

[kshapero]

Picked up a trusty 90/4 Leitz Elmar LTM. Got an M adapter and voila! Paid $125 for it. I have had it for years. Don't use it much but I always have it with me. Love using it at the beach when I am up on the pier looking down.