Here's a link to test pictures shot with the 'thin' Canadian 90mm Tele-Elmarit and the current 90mm Elmarit-M. There's an overall, and then cropped details showing what each lens resolved wide-open and at f/8.

90mm comparisons

The only comment I'll make now is that this series of shots shows the BIGGEST difference between the lenses - in most of my other series (with crisper lighting) there was a far smaller visible difference between the current lens and the 27-year-old design.

And if the photographer in "Blow-up" had used a Leica instead of a Nikon, there would have been no mystery (and no movie plot!) Count the wires on the fan guard in the hotel window!! 8^)

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), August 25, 2001

Answers

If you want to see the blowups from each lens at each aperture side-by- side, open additional browser windows and copy/paste the "location: for each picture (you'll need 4 to see all the variations). Use the "Large" version of the pictures for highest resolution.

Sorry my presentation couldn't be as stylish as Paul's tests.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), August 25, 2001.

...or for that matter, if you have Photoshop, I think you can "save this image as..." (you have my permission) to your own computer and open all of them side-by-side that way.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), August 25, 2001.

Andy, thank you for your postings to this group. As Leica users, we certainly have our preferences when it comes to lens choices. I find it remarkable how well older Leitz lenses represent the marque. In addition to the new 90 SAA, I use an older 90 Elmarit. This 40 year old lens has wonderful characteristics that I hope to utilize for the next 40 years (Ha!). Although I use some of the latest offerings, I like the images that the older glass produces. I think that too often we can get bogged down in the perception that only the latest lenses can produce "the best" results. Thanks for your efforts on behalf of Lusenet Leica users.

-- David (pagedt@attglobal.net), August 25, 2001.

Andy:

Great post -- somebody is going to have to teach me how to use photoshop! Anyway, I know it's tough to tell on a computer screen, but it looks like your results were similar to mine - the TE shows its weakness at f2.8, but is darn close to newer optics at f8! (Great shot of the fan... but did you try it with the TE also?)

Thanks for your post,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), August 25, 2001.

Thanks Andy.

All of the Leica literature that I have that mentions the limitations of the older lens (Tele-Elmarit), specifically talk about the slightly deduced performance in the close range.

In Dennis Laney's "Leica Lens Practice", he has the actual data sheet from each lens as provided from Leica printed for every lens. For the Tele-Elmarit he mentions the point, "... it is a true telephoto and in the near focus range it gives the best performance when stopped down somewhat."

In the book, "Leica M, The Advanced School of Photography" by Gunter Osterloh, for this lens the comments are made, "... In the near focusing range and at full aperture, this lens produces a slightly softer image. Therefore it is advisable to stop it down to f/5.6 or f/8.0 when highest demands are placed on image quality."

I already know how good the Elmarit M is throughout the full range of use, but I have always wondered about the Tele-Elmarit due to its more user friendly size on the M body. So... in addition to the infinity, (or near infinity), shots in your test, have you tried anything in the normal portrait range? With the 90mm lens being such a strong lens for head and shoulder portraits, this performance would be of great interest to me. I won't sell my Elmarit M, but if the tiny Tele-Elmarit is capable of good results in this range, buying one might make me like using the 90mm focal length more.

Please consider a follow-up test, perhaps using a mannequin with a busy background for tight head shot to check the blur / sharpness effect of both lenses under the normal use for a portrait lens. This would be a valuable test for me and I would assume others.

Thank you for your effort.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), August 25, 2001.

I've got an original mint black Wetzlar Elmarit (and yes, even the boxes and Import Certificate) that I've thought about updating with either the new Elmarit or APO Summicron. A well known Leica dealer wants my lens/hood and $200 for a new Elmarit.

The APO would probably cost another $550 (which would buy me a nice used Tele-Elmar).

In any case, I'd appreciate feedback from anyone who has used both the early Elmarit and the new 90's. I suppose color rendition and contrast are most important to me. I use only color reversal film and project the slides with a Prodovit.

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), August 25, 2001.

Al:

The most recent issue of Viewfinder magazine (the LHSA publication, vol. 34 #2) had a review of the 90TE in by Dick Gilcreast. The article is not online yet, but should be soon. I quote the following sentence from the article if it is of any help to you... "The Tele- elmarit's performance at one meter is also surprisingly good, making it a useful emergency closeup lens for an M camera in the field." He goes on to compare it to the DR Summicron and adds an anecdote and a "closeup" photo he took with it.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), August 25, 2001.

Jack,

I have no question of the close-up performance overall. My question is about the performance at the widest aperture(s). My Elmarit M is fully usable at f/2.8 at any distance, while numerous publications mention the need to close down the T-E for best performance.

I'm just wondering how valid these comments are. I look forward to the LHSA on-line article... thanks for the "head's up".

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), August 25, 2001.

I was disappointed with the article in the latest Viewfinder as I felt it did not mention some well known problems with the TE. It is a good/excellent performer, and I have many slides to prove it, but, it has a significant problem with flare. I even have slides with flare problems that were taken with the sun at my back! I used the 12575 shade but even strong white tones in the frame could induce flare. The other problem is the well documented problems with the rear optical group which are impossible to clean, repair or replace.

I sold mine, with full disclosure, and purchased the Elmarit-M and have no regrets. Judging by the widely varying comments on the TE, one must at least admit that it an unusually large amount of variation from sample to sample.

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), August 25, 2001.

Sorry for the garbled tenses and verbs but I just got up...

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), August 25, 2001.

Nice test, Andy. When the prints are displayed on the monitor, do tye appear at "Actual Pixels" size? What was the scanner and ppi?

This sure proves that there's no such thing as a bad Leica lens. Now I really wish I'd kept my thin TE. It looks like the EM has a touch more contrast even at f/8, but the TE is only a hint softer at 2.8. The difference is sure less than a cup of coffee when you're hand-holding.

Ahh, "Blow-Up" - the movie that convinced me to try my hand at professional photography. All these years later I'm still waiting for Vanessa Redgrave to come to my house and take her top off :-)

-- Paul Chefurka (chefurka@home.com), August 25, 2001.

John: Just for the record, Dick mentions the problem with sidelight flare in the article... Also, I agree that there must be significant variability in the performance of TE's, BUT if you get a good one, they perform so well that my advice would be to never, ever sell it.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), August 25, 2001.

Thanks all.

Jack: The TE image of the fan was essentially identical to the EM - probably a tad less resolution, but you could still count the wires. See response to Paul below regarding scanner resolution limits.

Al: The TE may well lose a little close-up and wide-open - but it is still very good in my experience (i.e better than any non-Leica short tele - non macro, of course) I will try to post something that shows what it can do. Same with bokeh-effects shots. Certainly the TE has variable bokeh depending on subject/background distance. The TE aperture has blades that curve inwards, making the aperture 'gear' or 'star' shaped between f/4 and f/11. This makes for occasional gear- shaped OOF circles and a slightly 'busy' bokeh if the background is only moderately OOF. When things are REALLY OOF this becomes a non- issue, but I'll dig up some examples.

Bud: The TE (which is very different from the non-tele Elmarit) has, as John noted, some overall veiling flare a lot of the time. Pointed near the sun it can really wash out. In normal side/front light it is just a little lower in contrast than other 90s. The veiling flare picks up a color tint from bright colors within/just outside the frame, so the TE runs a little blue under blue skies, but can run a little yellow/red shooting near a brick wall or under sunset skies. One of the main reasons I recovered my TE from the camera store is that on slide film (Velvia) I just found the modern (1989-present) Elmarit to be a bit too 'hot'. I generally prefer the TE's contrast range for sunny-day color work. I've never worked with the early Elmarit, so I don't have a useful opinion on how it compares with the TE or modern Elmarit (but I'm sure someone here does 8^).

John: All very true (and worth mentioning every time the TE is discussed, as caveat emptor). But sometimes the TE's reputed weaknesses seem to overshadow the fact that it is a very nice lens that Leica was perfectly happy producing for 15 years. My late 1970s lens has a coating disease (pinprick coating corrosion), fortunately on the inner FRONT element, so it can (and will) eventually get a recoating from the Focal Point. But if it gets something incurable I will retire it gracefully and buy (carefully) another, until they disappear completely or I quit shooting slow, contrasty color slide film.

Paul: I used a Nikon LS-1000 scanner. At 2700 dpi on film it resolves 106 lines per mm (53 line pairs). Both the EM and TE at their best are bumping right up against my scanner resolution, so they are at or better than 106 lines per mm. When looking at the posted scans click to the 'large' version of the picture and you are seeing every pixel my scanner captured.

This comparison DID clear up my doubts about the modern EM - I'd had some softness in previous shots that worried me, but now I'm sure that either the M4-2 needs a rangefinder tuneup AND/OR I was shooting film fast enough to require small apertures past the peak for performance. These tests were with the M4-P.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), August 25, 2001.

Update for Al Smith: I have added comparison pictures at portrait distance (1.4 meters) with the TE and EM to the original set.

HOWEVER I don't totally trust the Elmarit-M cropped detail, which actually seems softer than the Tele-Elmarit. Could be camera motion, since the focus seems to be correct.

But you can use the TE shot as an absolute measure of how well the TE does close up - i.e., not too shabby, if not up to the EM, SAA, or APO- Macro-R 100mm.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), August 26, 2001.

Andy,

You are the man! I really appreciate your follow-up here, it is exactly what I wanted to see. I guess when discussing Leica lenses, words like "slightly reduced performance" and "should be stopped down for best results" are relative. You could flip a coin when picking the best portrait.

Again, many thanks for so quickly accomplishing this side by side test.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), August 26, 2001.

I agree with John Collier's cautions. I had a love/hate relationship with my late 70's 90 TE. Loved the small size & weight and picture quality under some conditions, but found too many situations in which flare dominated, even with the large 12575 hood. Traded for the larger, heavier Elmarit--no regrets. Also, the smaller, lighter TE is more difficult to hand-hold steady than the larger/heavier Elmarit, at least for me. Maybe it's just an issue for me as I get more shaky with age, or drink too much coffee?

-- Tim Nelson (timothy.nelson@yale.edu), August 27, 2001.