Shortest 85/90/100?
Old 10-12-2017   #1
mabelsound
Registered User
 
mabelsound's Avatar
 
mabelsound is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Age: 47
Posts: 6,216
Shortest 85/90/100?

That is, the one that protrudes least from the camera. Is it the fat Tele-Elmarit?
__________________
flickr insta twitter
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-12-2017   #2
analoged
Registered User
 
analoged's Avatar
 
analoged is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: HNL/TYO
Posts: 217
Maybe the old Nikkor 8.5cm?
__________________
M6, 35mm Pre Asph Lux

IIIasync, 5cm Summar, 5cm Sonnar, 3.5cm Elmar, 13.5cm Sonnar

Leicaflex SL, Leicaflex SL2, R6.2, 28mm Elamrit Ver II, 50mm Lux Ver II, 100mm Apo Macro Elmarit, 180 Elamrit, 400mm Telyt

Epson R-D1
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-12-2017   #3
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 7,826
I have an Elmar 90mm that is 3 3/8 inches overall and 3 1/16 protruding.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-12-2017   #4
Jockos
Registered User
 
Jockos's Avatar
 
Jockos is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Sweden
Age: 30
Posts: 933
Collapsing included? My macro elmar gets pretty darn small when collapsed.
__________________
Don't trust anything I say or write before I get my morning coffee, at least I don't.

Da gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-12-2017   #5
analoged
Registered User
 
analoged's Avatar
 
analoged is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: HNL/TYO
Posts: 217
Probably fatter lenses take up more of the viewfinder than longer?
__________________
M6, 35mm Pre Asph Lux

IIIasync, 5cm Summar, 5cm Sonnar, 3.5cm Elmar, 13.5cm Sonnar

Leicaflex SL, Leicaflex SL2, R6.2, 28mm Elamrit Ver II, 50mm Lux Ver II, 100mm Apo Macro Elmarit, 180 Elamrit, 400mm Telyt

Epson R-D1
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-12-2017   #6
Ronald M
Registered User
 
Ronald M is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,258
collapsible 90.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-12-2017   #7
sleepyhead
Registered User
 
sleepyhead's Avatar
 
sleepyhead is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 1,669
The fat TE is roughly the same size as the E43 50mm Summilux, if that helps.
__________________
__________________
Film for B&W, digital for colour
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2017   #8
mabelsound
Registered User
 
mabelsound's Avatar
 
mabelsound is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Age: 47
Posts: 6,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepyhead View Post
The fat TE is roughly the same size as the E43 50mm Summilux, if that helps.
Yeah, it does! I was not counting collapsible lenses, in my mind—though I'd forgotten the Collapsible Elmar even existed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by analoged View Post
Probably fatter lenses take up more of the viewfinder than longer?
Not inclined to worry about that, since the 90mm framelines take up so little of the viewfinder…but you could be right?
__________________
flickr insta twitter
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2017   #9
jonmanjiro
Moderator
 
jonmanjiro's Avatar
 
jonmanjiro is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Yokohama
Posts: 4,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jockos View Post
Collapsing included? My macro elmar gets pretty darn small when collapsed.
The Macro-Elmar is pretty darn small even when extended. I use an Elmar-M 50/2.8 hood on mine instead of the standard hood to keep the lens extra compact.
__________________
flickr
Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2017   #10
pyeh
Registered User
 
pyeh is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Taylor Square
Age: 57
Posts: 369
Yes, that Macro-Elmar hood almost defeats the compact purpose of the lens. I'll try the 50/2.8 hood now. Thanks for the tip, Jon.
__________________
Peter
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-13-2017   #11
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 1,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepyhead View Post
The fat TE is roughly the same size as the E43 50mm Summilux, if that helps.
Don't forget the thin TE is only a filter width longer than the fatty, with only 2/3rds the weight.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/ima..._0097-1200.jpg
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-14-2017   #12
Jockos
Registered User
 
Jockos's Avatar
 
Jockos is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Sweden
Age: 30
Posts: 933
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonmanjiro View Post
The Macro-Elmar is pretty darn small even when extended. I use an Elmar-M 50/2.8 hood on mine instead of the standard hood to keep the lens extra compact.
I mean, it wasn't even that hard to convince my girlfriend I need 2 90mm lenses!


https://www.rangefinderforum.com/rff...276355&showall

__________________
Don't trust anything I say or write before I get my morning coffee, at least I don't.

Da gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-14-2017   #13
Richard G
Registered User
 
Richard G's Avatar
 
Richard G is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 37,47 S
Posts: 4,598
I also use the 50 Elmar M hood on the Macro 90.
__________________
Richard
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-14-2017   #14
Michiel Fokkema
Michiel Fokkema
 
Michiel Fokkema's Avatar
 
Michiel Fokkema is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the Netherlands
Age: 52
Posts: 989
ELmar C maybe?
__________________
Some Pictures
The BLOG
The website
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-14-2017   #15
sleepyhead
Registered User
 
sleepyhead's Avatar
 
sleepyhead is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 1,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyeh View Post
Yes, that Macro-Elmar hood almost defeats the compact purpose of the lens. I'll try the 50/2.8 hood now. Thanks for the tip, Jon.
You know that the 12 575 hood for both the fat TE and the 90 M-E-M reverse on the lens for storage. So I don't find them too big.
__________________
__________________
Film for B&W, digital for colour
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-14-2017   #16
pyeh
Registered User
 
pyeh is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Taylor Square
Age: 57
Posts: 369
Sleepy, yes I know. It's when the Macro-Elmar is mounted and extended, with its hood on, that it all becomes too unwieldy for me. Of course the hood gives the lens a certain purposefulness that is attractive.
__________________
Peter
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-14-2017   #17
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 4,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard G View Post
I also use the 50 Elmar M hood on the Macro 90.
Honestly, why bother? It provides zero coverage for that focal length.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:08.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.