Hi,

I have a Leica M2 with a f2.0/50mm lens on it. My question is, what would be a good 90mm lens for my camera. I don't belong to the top 5%, so a used lens would probably do just fine. The second question is, how much light does a Leica Infrared filter let through. Is it like a regular #25 filter or does it bock out more light than that? If possible, let me know what the trassition rate in nanometers is.

Thank you very much

Jan Balster

-- Jan B Balster (Jan.Balster@netzero.net), March 27, 2002

Answers

the current 90 2.8 is the sharpest leica lens i have ever used. maybe i just have a good one (but it does so well on photodo . . . ).

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), March 27, 2002.

There are very few 'bad' 90's for the M cameras. Which is most appropriate to the M2 depends on your priorities.

Best image performance period (but somewhat bulky/heavy/expensive) 90mm f/2 APO-ASPH (current lens)

Best image performance for money/size (Leica) - current Elmarit f/2.8

Best " " " " (non-Leica) - probably Voigtlander- Cosina 90 f/3.5 APO-Lanthar

Excellent performance with minimum size/weight - "thin" Tele-Elmarit-M (1974-1989 design) (But research occasional problems with 'diseased' glass and flare shooting into the sun).

Most beautiful object on a chrome M2 body (tie) - Chrome Tele-Elmarit (1964-74 design) - but weaker performance (relatively speaking) --OR-- Chrome/black leather original Elmarit (1959 - 1974) (possibly best performance outside of modern lenses)

Runner-up - huge chrome 90 f/2 (1959-1989 design) - performance still pretty good, just a little behind all the others - plus REALLY big.

...and the envelope, please.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), March 27, 2002.

I use a B+W 093 filter for shooting infrared. Schneider provides a page on B+W IR filters, http://www.schneideroptics.com/filters/ filters_for_still_photography/infrared/. This filter eliminates all wavelengths shorter than 1000nm, effectively all visible light. I know that Leica filters are either B+W or Heliopan, but I'm not sure which one they're packaging in this case.

A couple of pictures taken with this filter and a Sony F707 digital camera are available for viewing at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SeePhoto/files/ Godfrey/Misc/tokyoIR.htm.

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), March 27, 2002.

Errk! "Runner-up - huge chrome 90 f/2 (1959-1989 design)" should read "....1959-1979 design"

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), March 27, 2002.

I currently use the Elmar-C due to it's price and compactness. this one works perfectly. Though I have to admit that f4 is sometimes a bit slow.
I'd really like to try the 85/2 Sonnar if I ever get my hands on one, and the Elmarit seems also like a good choice. And I think that the collapsible Elmar just looks cool (and makes a very compact kit).

-- Kai Blanke (kai.blanke@iname.com), March 28, 2002.

Sheeesh! Yeah. I always forget the 90 f/4 for the CL. Should be in the "best performance for size/weight" category. Although not having tried one I can't tell you how it compares to the 90 TE f/2.8 - they are roughly the same size/weight.

Also should have added (since you mentioned filters) that the 90 Tele- Elmarits and the original 1960 Elmarit share the same 39mm filters as your 50 f/2. The Summicrons and the current Elmarit-M do not.

The 90 f/4 Elmar-C takes Series 5.5 filters, and some folks question whether it focuses perfectly with bodies other than the CL for which it was built - I have no opinion, just wanted to let you know the question is out there.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), March 30, 2002.