fat or thin nineties
in another thread, the thin version of the tele-elmarit 90 was recommended as a great travel lens. i'd chime in and say for travel, the 90 elmar or elmar-c would be a good choice, assuming one was doing more out door shooting.
but the thread got me thinking- i've always heard preference expressed for the "fat" tele 90/2.8. i wonder why, and what the differences are between the fat and thin versions; ergonomics or optics?
i have a few 90s, an early thread mount elmar, an elmarit 90, a fat tele-elmarit 90/2.8, and the wonderful 90 elmar-c. they are all nice, but since i haven't used the thin version of the tele-elmarit, i'm curious about why it is recommended?