Which LEICA 90mm lens for travel?

[Vics]

For the landscape, the cityscape, the occasional street portrait, which would you recommend? Then comment on which version of the choice you made best fills the bill!
Thanks,
Vic

[Al Kaplan]

The best deal would be the Elmar-C or Rokkor-C made for the CL back in the mid seventies. The Minota badged Rokkor usually costs less than the Elmar but was made by Leitz in Germany. They're the same lens. Either way, they're small, light, and sharp.

[KoNickon]

Al is dead on. The Rokkor is a great lens. F4 is the only (minor) downside.

[fefe]

Macro-Elmar. It's collapsible and can focus down to 0.8m (without the macro attachment). Collapsed with the hood reversed, its bulk is the same as a 35 cron asph+hood. That's hard to beat in term of bag space. It is not fast (f/4) but it is already at its max performance at f/4.

At least that's what I carry along a 35 cron Asph and a CV15 when I travel. The whole package is really compact and is quite versatile.

[Ronald M]

I vote with fefe, 90 4.0. That plus 50 2.8 late version and 35 2.0 pre asph.

The new 90 4.0 is right up there sharpness wise with 90 APO.

[MCTuomey]

I like my T-E quite a bit. Compact, not expensive, and a nice portrait lens imho.

[BTMarcais]

The only 90mm I have in M-mount is the collapsible elmar. It's NOT light, but it IS compact. F/4 really isn't a big deal most of the time, and I've been pretty happy w/ the results from this lens. And with the size collapsed, it can travel with me pretty much all the time, there's always space for it in the bag!
-Brian

[Beemermark]

Originally Posted by Al Kaplan

The best deal would be the Elmar-C or Rokkor-C made for the CL back in the mid seventies. The Minota badged Rokkor usually costs less than the Elmar but was made by Leitz in Germany. They're the same lens. Either way, they're small, light, and sharp.

Except for the 90 Summicrons none of the 90's are that big. I have the newest 90/2.8 lens and it is one great lens. However I also have the Minolta 90/4 and if size is your major consideration they just don't get no smaller. And optically it's about as good , or better, than any Leitz 90 lens I've owned. Someone was looking for one on here recently and I offered mine for $200 but as usual got no reply.

[sonofdanang]

Originally Posted by Beemermark

- ... Someone was looking for one on here recently and I offered mine for $200 but as usual got no reply.

Are you still interested in selling the Minolta 90/4?

[ampguy]

M-Hexanon 90/2.8.

[Shac]

90/4 m-e without a doubt if you have the $$

[JohnTF]

I bought the 90-C in Paris when I was traveling with the CL, was fine, but swapped it for the 2.8 when the chance came up.

I recently got another 90 f4 in M mount with some other stuff and noticed it was very compact, have not had time to test it.

I have probably used the 90 Tele Elmarit the most, and am quite happy with it, often shooting at 2.8. When I was shooting my G2 I would carry a 28 and 90 as my "two" lenses in pocket, so I am predisposed to the focal length.

The F4 is so slim I need to try it, last one I used was a SM and the colors were a bit warm as I recall, was shooting it on a Bessa.



Regards, John

[sleepyhead]

I voted for the macro elmar because that's what I take traveling - but that was before I read that you wouldd do some portraits.


Then I would consider the thin tele elmarit f2.8

[Roger Hicks]

Doesn't matter a whole hell of a lot. I normally carry the last pre-aspheric Summicron, which I bought new, because I have it. It's still not a big lens. I've tried the Makro Elmar, which is very nice but too slow for me, and the Summarit, which is very nice indeed but of limited interest seeing I already have the Summicron and the 903.5 Apo Lanthar. Any of these lenses will do what I want. The 85/2 Jupiter (which I've also had) doesn't: it is too soft for my liking at full aperture (yes, I know there are those who maintain that a 75-year-old design is just as good as the latest apo lenses) and I'm not wild about its ergonomic. I've considered 90/2.8 Leica lenses but the small savings in weight and bulk don't convince me.

Tashi delek,

R.

[35mmdelux]

After trying a variety (Rokkor, Elmarits, Summicrons) I found I wanted speed, hence the 90AA. Its not as big as some say but it is sharp and fast.

[notturtle]

I fairly well agree that there are so many good choices out there with well know pros and cons that it is easy enough to answer the question for yourself with a bit of reading. if you need speed, get a cron, if you value size, a 90 f4 of some type or if 2.8 works for you, then a elmarit M or similar.

I personally value size more than speed and would prefer a macro Elmar 90 f4, but as I rarely use teh FL I stick to my 90 Elmarit M. 2.8 is fine for me. its kinda heavy tho.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Richard Jenkinson

Is this the new method of giving advise you've been working on?



How does it compare to the Thambar?



Who maintains that?

My advise to the OP would be to try a Jupiter 85/2.
I wouldn't suggest shooting lens charts though, but in real life, everyday situations I find it performs admirably.

No, it's the same form of advice I've always tried to give, viz., as helpful as I can reasonably make it.

The Thambar is of course a good deal softer but the question was for a general-application lens, not a specialist soft-focus lens. Elsewhere I specifically recommended a Jupiter for portraiture.

And there is one person in particular who always comes up with 'How can you say it's not sharp?' whenever I make the slightest adverse comment about the Jupiter. Others over-praise it too. Yes, I exaggerated. But not by much, given the veneration in which some hold the Jupiter.

All right, you have given one specific piece of advice here, to try the Jupiter. Fine. But why did you post the rest? I really am leaning towards putting you back on my ignore list, which would be a pity, because I do admire and respect your opinions -- when they're not just unsuccessful attempts at point-scoring.

Tashi delek,

R.

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Richard,

I apologize for my testiness. Tomorrow, we're having the roof treated internally for parasites and externally for slate repair. This has involved hours of work clearing the attic, with more still to come.

We seem to have an unfortunate knack of taking one another the wrong way. Once again, my apologies.

Cheers,

Roger

[Brian Sweeney]

Well my Favorite 90 for travel is the Collapsible Elmar, 1950's version. Perfect for the M3.

Wide-Open, 1/15th hand-held, Fujicolor 200.
http://camwk.com/picture.php?albumid=48&pictureid=501

http://camwk.com/picture.php?albumid=48&pictureid=502

Outdoors in bright sun, ~F5.6. I like the low-contrast rendition that maintains shadow detail.

http://camwk.com/picture.php?albumid=48&pictureid=506

Nikki, on the "tired side". We did a lot of walking that day.

http://camwk.com/picture.php?albumid=48&pictureid=505

This lens was hazy when I got it, popped the front element and cleaned on each side of the aperture. This lens was only $100 because of the haze, but typically run closer to $200.

The images do not expand on the "polll" forum, and RFF attachments use to much compression to give any idea of performance.

Here is the album:
http://camwk.com/album.php?albumid=48

Maybe I'll post on the Leica M forum. Not too many examples with this 1954 lens.

New Thread with the images in-line here:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...80#post1055080

Feel free to post some IMAGES taken with the various lenses discussed here in that thread. I'd like to see some Thambar images.

[Vics]

Thanks for all that advice! Weight is VERY important to me as I'm 64 and only weigh about 150 pounds. My wife and I travel by train in Europe so there's a lot of walking around just getting someplace. Then lots of time on my feet shooting once we're there. I lust after saved ounces. I use an M3 and a Collapsible 'cron 50 on the road and leave my real preferred lens the DR at home because of its weight. I'm currently using a Nikkor 35/2.5 (on a Contax IIIa) and would like the idea of a small, no-chrome tele for the M3to round things out. So far, the Rokkor does sound good if the sharpness is there.
Thanks,
Vic

[Brian Sweeney]

I have to say something about the Jupiter-9: if you get one that has been well-adjusted, meaning the spacing between the front and rear groups is proper for adjusting the Focal Length AND the main shim is adjusted for focus: they are nice lenses. I have one that is properly adjusted (by me) and a Second one that will need a few hours spent with it. The good one only required the main shim to be adjusted for focus. I added 0.5mm of shim to it. The second one -a beautiful 1960 lens with an Olympic Symbol on it- requires the elements to be spaced, and the main shim to be re-adjusted. This is not uncommon with J-9's.

[charjohncarter]

I know nothing about 90mm lenses, but my 90 mm Leica Elmar from early fifties is easy to travel with and does a very decent photo, here it is in macro on a SLR:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3016/...5af216.jpg?v=0

[thomasw_]

For travel, there is no doubt which 90 I would pick out of the provided list: the macro-elmar 90/4. Compact, superb all-round performer, can do some macro with the accessory, and can be a good lens for portraiture, too.

[BOSS65]

For travel try CV 90mm 3.5 APO Lanthar. Small , sharp and 39mm filter size.

[Rico]

I find the collapsible too heavy for tourist travel, so I carry my other Elmar (the 3-element). ME90 looks ideal, but is expensive.