Which LEICA 90mm lens for travel?

Which LEICA 90mm lens for travel?

  • Elmar

    Votes: 60 24.6%

  • Elmarit

    Votes: 46 18.9%

  • Tele-Elmarit

    Votes: 88 36.1%

  • Summicron

    Votes: 50 20.5%
  • Total voters
    244
The OP, being on a Tele lens, could have been more specific: a 90 for portraits, a 90 for isolating landscapes, or a 90 for both.,, Trips and intentions are different from one time to another...

If it's for sharp landscapes, it should be the latest f/2 Apo-Asph, or a slower one if you prefer to loose speed and quality and carry a few less grams.

If it's for portraits, the summicron pre-aspherical: heavier but better.

If it's for whatever, I prefer the bigger summi, because it can be sharp for landscapes, and the other lenses aren't that good for portraits...

If you're decission goes on size and weight only, portraiture and bokeh will stay away from you... I carry three cameras in a small bag, with a 15, a 40 and a 90. I could carry more. In fact, sometimes I have another small bag hanging from my other shoulder with a Nikon SLR with a 20, a 50 and a 105. Few pounds in total, but I can shoot quickly and have several kinds of film for contrasty and flat scenes in b&w and color.

Could be lighter, but no better.
 
Last edited:
I have the Collapsible 9cm F4 Elmar and it's a nice lens. I've also had the thin Tele-Elmarit, but it turned out to flare heavily when pointed anywhere near the sun so I returned it. However collapsible elmar is a heavy beast and I would be hesitant to take it on the travel as a 4th lens.
 
The 50s collapsible Elmar is not quick to focus and the Elmarit-M and especially the new Summarit 2.5 are not too big to travel with. It may not seem so, but the 'heavy' 90 collapsible is quite a bit lighter than an Elmarit-M. I expect the new Elmar-C is much lighter.
 
I sometimes take with me the Elmar 9cm 4 or the Elmarit 90mm 2.8. More often do I take the Nikkor 105mm 2.5 LTM, even though it is heavy.
 
Is there an optical reason that there aren't any rangefinder lenses at this focal length that are actually compact; ie., don't stick out very far from the camera? Thickness/weight are less important to me on a trip than the amount the camera, with lens attached, takes up in my bag. This is one of the reasons I usually turn to my Pentax film rig when I want to shoot 85-100.
 
mabelsound said:
Is there an optical reason that there aren't any rangefinder lenses at this focal length that are actually compact; ie., don't stick out very far from the camera? Thickness/weight are less important to me on a trip than the amount the camera, with lens attached, takes up in my bag. This is one of the reasons I usually turn to my Pentax film rig when I want to shoot 85-100.
Click to expand...

The Steinheil 85mm/2.8 is compact in size. The Canon 100mm/3.5 is tiny and tack sharp. Maybe the Canon is the best overall travel tele lens.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Perhaps I am biased in the 'saving ounces' department, because if I went on a diet I could probably lose the entire weight of a Leica outfit, plus bag, plus tripod -- 10 kg/22 lb, let us say -- without becoming in the least bit scrawny.

I greatly admire those who have not succumbed to middle-aged spread, but to those who have, might I suggest that losing weight might be a desirable alternative to buying lighter kit?

Personally, I just live with it. As long as I can walk five or ten miles, carrying a couple of cameras and four or five lenses, I reckon I'm probably not too fat. Even though I am.

Tashi delek,

R.
Click to expand...


Please Roger, Gravitationally challenged at worst. Besides, what the hell is the point of living in France and dieting. ;-)

Almost Fois Gras and Sauterne season?

John
 

Attachments

  • d'YquemSs.jpg
    d'YquemSs.jpg
    42.4 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
I am quite happy with my thin Tele elmarit.

This was taken by night from one km distance.

4034640668_cf54923dbe_o.jpg
 
I have two, the old Elmar f4, never use it anymore, because I don't think it provides sharp images at least not what I expect from Leitz quality, and the early sixties Summicron f2 which provides quality sharpness but is much to heavy. Therefore both don't get used anymore....
 
Screw the weight

Screw the weight

I go against the crowd and say use the big Summicron.
At least I do like it. Screw the weight, it's about 200 grams at most, the difference we talk about.
And the extra stop is niiice.


I agree, screw the weight, if I were planning a trip convenience is the last thing I think about. What matters is image quality, IMO get the best your wallet can afford. We only live once so let the good times roll.
 
I travelled with the 90 f2 Summi for 3 months in my last long trip in Asia. This one is not light or collapsable, but Im glad I brought it b/c of its f2 capacity: I like to keep it simple with film, and load my M6 with ASA 400 almost every day. Thus, the f2 is great for low light: not only for cloudy days, but can be used during sunny days and then into the evening while the sun is going down without having to change films
The second main reason also has to do with the f2: you can get macro like effects without a macro lens or having to carry around the macro attachments. Just get close to the subject and watch the background blur.
enjoy yer trip! and dont make the same mistake some of us already have: worrying about all the gear and attachments rather than focussing on having a few good lenses, living in the moment, and watching the beauty of the scene unfold right in front of you..............
 
marduk said:
I have the Collapsible 9cm F4 Elmar and it's a nice lens. I've also had the thin Tele-Elmarit, but it turned out to flare heavily when pointed anywhere near the sun so I returned it. However collapsible elmar is a heavy beast and I would be hesitant to take it on the travel as a 4th lens.
Click to expand...
While I have made some of by best photos with a collapsible Elmar I sometimes wish I had a faster lens so now I have a 90/2.8 Elmarit type 1. I'm gonna do some test shooting to figure out the sharpness and bokeh differences between them. I got them as low as $160 for Elmar and $180 for Elmarit 🙂 Not that they are lightweight but both should pair well with my other lenses, such as DR Summicron and Summaron. My good friend rates a classic 90mm Elmarit higher than M-Summicron 90mm f2.0 and Nikkor lenses. Also x-ray's post in these threads: 1 and 2 rouse my interest to Elmarit. There are plenty excellent options in this focal length range. Mind the 3-element Elmar.
 
Last edited:
As far as this poll goes I use a Collapsible Elmar 90/4. My fav in this range is the Nikkor 105/2.5, one terrific lens. if you want to feel "heavy" try one of the old 90/135mm Nikkors in chrome. Wow.

Kent
 
If you don't need f/2 either the "thin" T-E or Hexanon-M. The T-E for maximum compactness or Hexanon for greater sharpness. Both are good performers. The trick to the T-E is to always use the hood and make certain focus calibration is spot on or it will appear slightly soft. Properly calibrated, it's plenty sharp even wide open.
 
Al Kaplan said:
The best deal would be the Elmar-C or Rokkor-C made for the CL back in the mid seventies. The Minota badged Rokkor usually costs less than the Elmar but was made by Leitz in Germany. They're the same lens. Either way, they're small, light, and sharp.
Click to expand...
I also vote the Minolta 90/f as the smallest and best. However the present Elmarit isn't that big and that's the one carry with me.
 
Actually, the 90/2.8 "thin" T-E and 90/4 Minolta/Elmar-C are the same size and weight (maybe the T-E is lighter by 25 grams), that's one reason it stays popular as the most compact 90/2.8 available from Leica. The Elmar-C uses a similar overall barrel design, just different optical unit.
 
Last edited:
I have a collapsible Elmar 90/4 I paid way too much for from Leicashop, although it is a very nice and clean specimen. Don't have any basis for comparing it to other options. But, the best part is that when it's extended and wearing its hood, it looks like a ray gun from a bad 1950's flick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom