Hi,

I've got a chance to buy a Tele-Elmarit lens, the seller doesn't know if it's a thin or fat version.

I checked the s# number it's made in 1974, so I'm not sure it's thin or fat. The serial # is 2728xxx, made in Canada. What's the price range for a nice condition fat/thin ones.

Also, what's the difference regarding optics/performance of these 2 versions. From Mr. Gandy's site, seems later Thin version is better, but by how much?

Thanks. Fred

-- Fred Ouyang (yo54@columbia.edu), May 22, 2001

Answers

Fred, according to my Leica Lens book the serial number makes it one of the later fat ones. Can't help on performance I'm afraid. Neil

-- Neil Philip (philipnc@mail.aramco.com.sa), May 23, 2001.

I'd be very careful buying a Leica lens from someone who doesn't know what they are selling !-)

-- Alastair Cowe (a.cowe@ucl.ac.uk), May 23, 2001.

The "Thin" T-E is marginally contrastier, and sharper in the corners at the wider 2 or 3 apertures. They seem to sell for around the same, +/- $450 in decent condition in the US. Since the 90 APO there seems to be a (temporary) oversupply of used current 90/2.8's in the $600-700 range so now may be a good time to get one of those, which are quite remarkable lenses and better at least at the wider apertures than either T-E. IMO the "Thin" T-E still has merit due to its small size and weight, whereas the "Fat" one is quite close to the current 90/2.8 in weight, and also length once you factor in the shade.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 23, 2001.

The fat ones are the earlier TEs methinks. The later one is the thin one and is meant to have marginally better performance. I had a fat one once and it was a beauty - classic Leica performance - lower contrast than the current Elmarit, but this is not a bad thing at all. I don't know whether what he is offering is likely to be the fat or the thin version, but I would guess a fat one - you will need a picture or a careful description.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 23, 2001.

Hi,

I found this web site, it seems that there's overlap production period for Fat and Thin versions.

Also from the website, the way to identify is base on the minimum-aperture, f16 for thin and f22 for fat. Anyone can verify this?

Thanks.

http://www.leicagallery.com/elmarit90mm.htm

-- Fred Ouyang (yo54@columbia.edu), May 24, 2001.

Can't verify squat. But I have the thin one and it only goes to f/16.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), May 24, 2001.

Jay's comment is well taken. Until very recently, Black finish Elmarits, (the old ones) and thin Tele-Elmarits sold on Ebay and elsewhere for $400 to $600, depending on condition. Chrome Elmarits were less, Fat Tele-Elmarits a little more (probably more because of rarity than performance). The most recent Elmarit-M's sold for not less than $1000. Suddenly, something has changed. I just bought a pristine Elmarit-M from KEH for $650. (Don't tell anyone, but as of today (June 2, 2001)], they have 5 more between $645 and $750.) Under the circumstances, I'd be wary of buying an older one until the prices shake out. KEH is usually a little high, but absolutely reliable, so either they know something we don't know, or they just fell on several of the newest 90's really cheap. One warning: if you really want a Tele-Elmarit (and that's understandable, because they're really handy.) never, never, NEVER buy one without shining a flashlight through it and inspecting the rear element for Weird-white-spot disease. It's not subtle at all: the inside of the rear group will be covered with white spots of different shapes, as though it had been splashed with something corrosive. When I was shopping for mine, I found 3 in a row that had it. It cannot be repaired, and as of 2 years ago, Leitz would sell you a new rear group for $270, and the labor to install it was another $200 or so.

-- Scott Paris (asparis@ix.netcom.com), June 02, 2001.