Made the mistake of stopping by the local camera shop today at lunch and just happened to see a 90mm APO sitting on the shelf. As this was the first opportunity I’ve had to actually see and hold one in the flesh, I just had to play with it for a while. Not as big and heavy as I thought, balance wasn’t much different than the Elmarit-M…

As a result, I would like to request that someone post (or email to me) portrait photos for the purpose of comparing DOF when taken with the 90mm APO at f/2 and at f/2.8. If possible, I would also like to see the 90mm APO at f2.8 vs. the current version of the 90mm Elmarit-M at f/2.8. (I'm beginning to feel guilty for asking for too much!)

At f/2, when focused on the eyes, will ears and nose also be in focus? How much more is the background blurred at f/2 as opposed to f/2.8? Is it realistic to use a 90mm lens at f/2 when focused on anything closer than infinity? Does the APO produce photos with more “pop”, 3D effect, color saturation, etc?

I realize that some form of this question has been discussed in theory ad nauseam. However, actual photos might make the decision easier for those unconvinced one way or the other.

Thanks very much in advance to anyone who might be able to accommodate my request.

-- Bob (robljones@home.com), May 02, 2001

Answers

I don't have direct comparisons between f2 and f2.8, nor do I have any experience with the APO version. Here are a couple of photos taken with the older 90 Summicron at f2--perhaps they'll answer some of your questions.

The scan on the next one kind of sucks (highlights and deep shadows are still nicely detailed on the slide), but it give you an idea of the DOF.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), May 02, 2001.

Oops. Let's try that again. . .

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), May 02, 2001.

DOF varies with the distance between film and subject. In other words, your question needs to be rephrased. However, there are depth of field calculators on the web that will give you some information that may help.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), May 02, 2001.

Thanks Mike. Interesting how the out of focus background in the photo of the dogs ;-) isn't as out of focus as I would have thought, given the f/2 aperture.

As Jeff points out, the film to subject distance and distance of the subject to background makes a difference. Perhaps I should have specified head and shoulder portraits of attractive women with a background more than 10 feet away?

-- Bob (robljones@home.com), May 02, 2001.

P.S. Won't the DOF calculator tell me only how much is in focus for a given subject distance? I am also interested in the degree of background blur. Maybe there are just too many variables?

-- Bob (robljones@home.com), May 02, 2001.

I have the Nikon 85mm f1.8, and never use it at anything larger than f2.8 for close up portraits. At 1 meter, you can not get the nose, eyes, and ears in focus at f2.0-not even close. You can barely get both eyes in focus if they are not in exactly the the same plane. Even at f2.8, the backround is totally abstracted. I can send you some imnages taken with my 85mm at f2.8 that show the shallow depth at even that f stop. I often use f4.0 to make sure most of the face is in focus, especially on close ups.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), May 02, 2001.

Another way to look at it is that the 90 f2.0 has the same depth of field at 2.0 focused at 3 feet as a 45mm f1.0 lens would have, shot wide open, focused at 1.5 feet. All you Nok users should be familiar with shallow depth of field! I suggest you go back to where you saw the f2.0 and bring your camera body, take some portraits of the sales staff at f2.0 and see first hand.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), May 02, 2001.

OOPs, I meant to say the depth of field of the 90mm at f2.0 at 1 meter is the same as a 45 f1.0 also focused at one meter.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), May 03, 2001.

One trick I use to give an impression of a more shallow DOF is to focus slightly IN FRONT of the subject. By looking at the scale on the lens you can still keep the main subject in focus but as in the picture with the dogs they will be more out of focus.

-- Gerald Widen (gerald@sfa1.com), May 03, 2001.

Mike's photos have a special quality to them- I wonder how they compare to most 85's. I wonder if anyone has similar shots from say the Nikkor 85/1.8 they could post to compare- or are the differences likely to be lost on the web?

-- Tse-Sung Wu (tsesung@yahoo.com), May 03, 2001.

Mr. Dixon's second shot, the close up portrait, is so beautiful that it blows away technical discussions--or does so until you start to deconstruct the image. Could this shot have been made as well with a 90mm f 2.8 or f 4 ? What is obvious is that the photographer has a excellent feeling for the lens. When I was looking for a modern 90mm lens I toyed with buying the 90mm f 2 but got a very nice Rokkor 90mm f 4. Why? Price and portability. I rarely use a 90mm and when I do it is in daylight. For available light f2 is often not quite enough. For many years I used an old Nikon 85mm f2 in Leica screw mount. It is heavy, the rear element is slightly scratched, and stopping down while focusing is not as swift as with a modern lens. But the pictures this thing took and takes are great. It has a certain magic- -that's all I can say--that goes beyond mere lens tests. Do shoot a roll if you can with the Leica 90 f2 and see if it works any sort of magic for you. Is there something this lens can do for you that no other lens can? If the answer is Yes, consider parting with some hard earned cash and be prepared to eat peanut butter sandwiches for a while. If the answer is a maybe, wait a while. Think about it. Maybe have a steak in the mean time.

Same thing with the Leica f1, to footnote another discussion. You are going to be using that monster for only one thing--heavy duty available light photography. Consider that you'll have the lens at f 1 90% of the time and that the other f stops are pretty much standbys.

My fastest RF lens is a 50 f 1.2. and for speed I prefer the easier to handle Leica f 1.4 I've considered the Leica 50 f 1 but so far have decided it is more practical to buy faster film. (Should mention I am a street photographer.) Should mention : When playing with the 90mm f2 I found it pleasant in the hands. One thing I do not like about some of the newest Leica lens is the built-in lens shades. Consider how you like this set up when considering a 90mm f 2 lens.

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4u.or.jp), May 03, 2001.

I have a Tele Elmarit 90/2.8 (thin version) and a Tele Elmar 135/4. I like to use a 90 in indoor or studio portraits and the 135 in outdoor portraits. Both are execellent lenses. You try to have your own experiences, but I like much de 90/2.8, the new versinon, I think is better then mine old version. Lucky in your choice.

-- Edson Redivo (redivoclick@terra.com.br), May 12, 2001.