Hi there. After months of deliberation, I just made the jump from the Minilux (which I plan to keep, especially since it's black) and bought a slightly used M6 TTL .72 and a LN Summilux 35 1.4 ASPH. I got a "good" deal on both, although this purchase did set me back quite a bit. (I actually had saved the money to travel the Middle East as a college graduation gift to myself, but those plans were pre September 11, so I bought the Leica.) I know already that I'll never regret this purchase.

Anyhow, in the feverish buying mode I made a rash decision to bid on a used thin Tele Elmarit 90 2.8 on eBay, and ended up winning the auction. I paid $375 for the lens which was rated by the seller as "Excellent" by Tamarkin standards, where it had recently been overhauled. Not a smart move on my part...should have done the research. I have since read that there have been some problems/complaints with the Tele Elmarit. I haven't received the lens so I don't know how the images will come out. Basically, I want to know if: 1) the Tele Elmarit leaves a lot to be desired, 2) I paid too much, 3) should I try to sell it on eBay and save my money for a Summicron 90 APO ASPH, and 4) should I just concentrate on learning the M6 with one lens, the 35 Lux? I know that a 90 is the next lens on my list after the 35, but did I make the mistake of moving too soon on a substandard piece of glass? While I have no buyer's remorse for the M6 or the 35, the extra $400 I just blew gives me concern. It's money I could have saved or used to buy a tripod and some filters for the 35.

But, then again, this may be a good lens to have until I can acquire a new 90. Or maybe it's a perfectly acceptable lens altogether and one I should keep. I just don't know...this Leica kick is not helping my already manic, obsessive tendencies, and I can't stop thinking about this uninformed purchase. Any words of wisdom and/or opinion will be carefully considered.

Also, I welcome any advice you can give to this M6 virgin.

Thanks, Luke Dunlap

-- Luke Dunlap (luked@mail.utexas.edu), November 20, 2001

Answers

I had a thin Tele-Elmarit-M several years ago. Mine had no problems, and produced very nice images. I got upgradeitis, and traded it (and a wodge of cash) for a current Elmarit. I still wish I had it, because the size of that lens is much better suited to an M than the larger lenses.

$375 isn't a lot of money (especially in Leica terms), and you'll be able to resell it for that much if you decide you don't like it. My advice would be to accept the lens and shoot with it for a while. That will help you decide a number of things - whether you like using a 90 on the M6, whether you'd like a larger aperture lens, whether you'd be prepared to accept the weight penalty of a bigger lens, and not least what kind of performer this specific lens is - you may be surprised.

-- Paul Chefurka (chefurka@home.com), November 20, 2001.

You said you've already bought the lens so right now there's nothing you can do until it arrives. First thing is to grab a penlight and shine it through one end while looking from the opposite end. Look at about a 45-deg angle, not straight into the lens. If you see a few dust specks or even a very faint coating mark or two, don't worry. As long as you don't see a definite mottled or milky haze, the lens is free of "Thin Tele-Elmarit Syndrome" and will most likely stay that way. IF it was truly serviced at Tamarkin recently, you could try calling them with the serial# to ask if they found any serious problems they couldn't correct. If all checks out OK, then by all means keep the lens and use it. The Thin T-E is a fine lens, very light-weight, and at $375 about 60% of the cost of a 8+/9 grade used current 90/2.8 and about 25% the cost of a 90 AA. From f/4-5.6 you would be truly hard-pressed to tell the difference other than in very strict controlled testing (fine-grain film, big enlargement,tripod etc.) At f/2.8 the contrast is a tad lower than the current lens. I own both and much of the time the thin T-E wins out on size alone. If the lens doesn't come with a shade, you will want to look arounf for one. The deep metal hood 12575 (which reverses over the lens for storage) is more effective and durable than the rubber folding hood which came with later samples of the thin T-E, but a hood of some type is advisable in sunlight because this lens has a propensity for flare.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), November 20, 2001.

You can find a recent full pdf report on the 90 2.8 Tele Elmarit on the LHSA (Leica Historical Society of America) web site. Click on the viewfinder link on the left of the screen, then choose in the latest entries (Volume 34 No. 2, 2001) the report named 'Legendary Leica lenses'.

-- Xavier Colmant (xcolmant@powerir.com), November 20, 2001.

Hi Luke, I think you did a good thing. Soon you will appreciate the ligth weight and the size of the lens. The optical quality at least the one I owe is very good and the quality of the picture will much more depend on your eye, your imagination and thus the composition of the image, than on the optical quality of the lenses your taking your pictures with. This lens has a size and a weight that you can easily put it in your pocket. I do a lot of traveling with a 35mm and a 90mm lens because of the size and the filter size of my two lenses (both have 39mm filter size), although I personally prefer the angle of view of the 28mm lens. Don't worry about it the lens was cheap and you will have a lot of fun with it and the perfect outfit for traveling

Johannes

-- Johannes Fleischhauer (j.fleischhauer@vsao.ch), November 20, 2001.

Luke,

spending money on Leica gear as you have said is never a bad investment. The Thin-TE seems to be nice - I'd rather accept the poorer picture quality (which is not really poor at all) than leave a lens at home due to it's size. Rather have an old working one than a new one still in the store. BTW, upgrading to the 2.0 is something some posters here have regret. If I were you I'd buy the 2.0 if the 2.8 is at its limits (which I doubt will be the case in the next time).

The 35 to start with is very nice, but one of the M's pluses are interchangeable lenses - so why not get one to start with ? The 35 and the 90 are far enough apart that the decision for a lens is clear, so this wouldn't confuse you too much and the views causes you enough to still think about framing.

Filters are fine, but another lens is something more concrete than 'just plain coloured glass', at least in terms of watching these items. I'd also not start with a set of filters but just one or two for BW photography (and maybe a skylight for color, depends on taste). And that one last filter is not too expensive. A tripod sometimes is essential, but usually you buy an M not for tripod work. A small tabletop tripod is usually enough, extending up to 1 or 2 feet, and these cost about 10-20$ used, so they also might fit into your budget. I'd rather spend money for (slide) film and enjoy shooting more than worrying about bad decisions ;-)

Congrats to you purchase and happy shooting -

Kai

-- Kai Blanke (Kai.Blanke@iname.com), November 20, 2001.

Hi Luke, forgot to answer your last question. The good advice I can give you is: use the camera, don't put it in a cupboard and admire it (a destiny for many Leica cameras, that's why you find so many excellent used cameras out there). I think the good thing about this rangefinder is that you have to compose the image in your head, you have to take into account the focal length of your lens and the resulting perspective. You don't see this when you look through the viewfinder. You have to condsider the aperture your going to use and the resulting depth of field. I personally thingk you are much more active while you shoot compared to using a SLR. That's probably whiy it is still much more fun to use this camera than a automatic SLR. I personally don't believe that the pictures are much sharper than with e.g. a Nikon SLR, except with long exposure times (you will be astonished what exposure times you suddenly can use handheld). So dive into this new field and enjoy your pictures. Start doing black and white (you don't need a darkroom, just develop your films yourself and give the negatives for printing, the rest can come later), you will suddenly enjoy photography as your form of art how to perceive your surrounding.

Enjoy

Johannes

-- Johannes Fleischhauer (j.fleischhauer@vsao.ch), November 20, 2001.

I saw that lens on ebay, and couldn't help but wonder what exactly was serviced on it and why was it needed. My 90TE had the rear element seperate on it and I basically sold it for scrap as the repair was more costly than the value of the lens. Check it out carefully as was mentioned, and if it is free of internal problems, enjoy the most compact f2.8 90mm ever made for a Leica camera (or any rangefinder for that matter). If it is messed up internally, I'd be emailing the seller right away to find out how they wanted to handle the return.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), November 20, 2001.

You may be surprised with the performance of this lens. I also bought mine in Tamarkin , it's mint cost me $630.00. I followed Jay's advise to examine the lens carefully the glass inside/ out was clean and perfect and eventually bought it. I have no regret. It's light and good for portrait and travel photography. Goes well with a 35 mm cron. But the metal hood was expensive $70.00 and i think this is better than the rubber hood which is prone to flare.

-- ed gaddi (edgaddi@yahoo.com), November 20, 2001.

Hi Luke,

I have the thin Tele Elmarit and an very happy with it. In conjunction with my M6 35 and 50 Summicrons it makes a terrific travel kit. I use a 12575N hood I bought used for $25. US that takes care of any flare problems. The hood also fits my 135mm Tele Elmar. You got your lens at a very good price barring any mechanical or seperation issues. When you recieve it take a few rolls with it and you will not regret having aquired it.

Regards

Steve

-- Steve Belden (otterpond@tds.net), November 20, 2001.

Luke,

I had a TE 2.8 that I purchased new in 1983 for my M3. I regret ever selling it (and the M3 for that matter). Shoot some Kodachrome 64 through yours. I think you will be pleased.

If I ever get back into an M camera (screwmounts are my passion) I will seek out the TE 90nn f/2.8.

-- Tony Oresteen (aoresteen@lsqgroup.com), November 20, 2001.

Luke:

Don't sweat it - the lens will either obviously have a disease (allowing a return) or it will not, making it a great buy at $375. The market for these in decent shape is $450-600.

1) I'm a 90 TE partisan. It has SLIGHTLY low contrast and some corner softness wide open, compared to the newest leica 90s, and a tendency to flare in strong backlight. But it is quite sharp in the middle at any aperture and gains at the edges stopped down. We've had several 90TE discussions in the past 2 months, so scan the top of the Leica-M subdirectory. IMHE the TE beats 95% of the short teles out there, including the Nikkor 105 f/2.5 - at least I get sharper clearer results. In Leica-land second place still gets you a silver medal.

2) Your price is excellent unless there's a disease already in place, in which case NO price is excellent - send it back.

3) As mentioned - ALMOST everyone who's used a 90TE and sold it has regretted the sale - including me!

4) the 35/90 is a great combination, and you've gotten in cheap. If I were you, I'd set a time period (6-12 months) and just shoot with that combo - don't upgrade, don't change anything for that time, don't sweat anything. Learn the manual RF. Find out how tricky it can be to nail focus every time with ANY 90 on a rangefinder. Find out if your pictures constantly cry out for a larger aperture or higher shutter speed. Do your research on the APO and the other 90's and the 75 etc. etc. THEN you can make an informed decision based on reall hands-on experiene with the camera. Trust me, you have NO idea how much your perspective will have changed by then.

I can give you some links to 90 TE images, showing the beauty and the beast, but you'll probably care more about what YOUR pictures look like. Let me know.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), November 20, 2001.

If the lens is mechanically ok why not keep it.... A few years ago I asked Keith at Tamarkin the same question about the quality of this lens and his recomendation was to keep it....it's so light and feels great on the M.You will always use it. Since then I've taken some of my best compositions and portrait shots with this lens.My favorite portrait of my beautiful wife on tech pan is going on the back cover of her first novel...this lens was used...keep it...use it.The only downside is it's closeup performance....my DR 50mm summicron is a killer in the closeup range but if I didn't own the DR I might not be bothered by it.

-- Emile de Leon (knightpeople@msn.com), November 20, 2001.

Luke,

Did I answer this question on another forum? Anyway...I used to have a TE (don't remember if it was the "fat" or "slim" version) and if fit in the "never-ready" case that was standard for the Leica even though I never used cases.

It was a fine lens with good contrast though I found myself not using the 90 focal lenght that often. My most used lens was a 21 followed by the 50. I would have loved a 35 but couldn't see the frame lines easily on my M4-2.

If you ever get the chance, try some shots with a 21...the 3:4 is a great travel lens...small size and great sharpness!!

-- Todd Phillips (toddvphillips@webtv.net), November 21, 2001.