I have a pre-APO 90 Summicron-M, which is beautiful, but also a brick to carry. I'm looking for a smaller, lighter companion 90, and would appreciate any evaluations or comments on the various E's, TE's and Elmar-C.

I'm especially interested in knowing about image color - it was the warm Rembrandt glow of the Summicron that persuaded me to bail from my G2's. I'd like to know whether the 2.8's or 4 are warmer, colder, the same, etc. Also compare relative sharpness - I know the Elmarit M is the tops, but I'd like to gather info on how the others compare with the 'cron. Wide open sharper, softer or the same? BEST aperture sharper, softer or the same?

From other postings here I'm aware of the mechanical issues with some TE's (element separation, lubricant etching, etc.) so you can ignor those aspects.

Erwin Puts hasn't gotten around to posting ratings for the historical 90's, so I'm counting on you folks...Thanks.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), May 06, 2001

Answers

Many of us have agreed that we put up with the slightly heavy current Elmarit because it is so good even wide open, and at least not as heavy and bulky as the older f2.0 90's. I have tried a 90 f4 and the smaller tele elmarit, and they are not in the same class as the current 90 Elmarit or the 90 Summicron, even stopped down. The new Voigtlander 90mm f3.5 may be an option, but the quality is still unknown. So is the 75mm Voigtlander lens, which give a nice sized box on the M6, and has gotten a lot of praise. I personally found the early style 90 Summicron and 135mm f2.8 lenses to be way to big for an M body, and wouldn't care how good they were.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), May 06, 2001.

Well, I'm no Erwin but I do own a 1950 screw-mount 90/4 Elmar, late 90/2.8 "thin" T-E (with "90" engraved on barrel and shorter focus- ring throw), and current 90/2.8 Elmarit-M; and I used to own a "fat" T-E and a late pre-APO/ASPH Summicron. I also have the 90/2 and 90/2.8 (late) in R-mount and before I sold the older T-E and Summicron I did shoot a tripod-mounted comparison on K25 at all the apertures while I had the chance. Of all, the color rendition is as close as a gnat's whisker except the screwmount 90/4 which is noticeably colder. The sharpness and contrast of the thin T-E and Summicron are quite similar when both lenses are at their widest stops and fairly well parallel each other as the aperture is closed down. I am not a "bokeh buff" so I will not comment on that. The current Elmarit-M has noticeably higher contrast at f/2.8 and a bit more at f/4, than the T-E, but that isn't to say the T-E's contrast is below par, this is just a very critical comparison. From 5.6 you would be hard put to tell them apart. I have heard but could not duplicate that the T-E is more flare-prone than the current version. With hoods fitted they both flared or neither did, for me, depending on how severe the light-source was I directed at it. The T-E is certainly the flyweight, and takes E39 filters, and it looks smaller until you mount the hood (the rubber hood is smaller, I use the clip- on 12575, maybe that's why I don't get as much flare). I would surely go for the Elmarit-M (current)right now, as I've seen them at very reasonable prices that have been traded on the new 90 APO. When the T-E's were half the price it was a different story. I still keep my T-E for hiking, because it, the 21/3.4 S/A and my Canadian 35/2 are the smallest and lightest M lenses I've got in those focal lengths, although pure peformance may lag a bit behind the latest (and larger)crop.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 06, 2001.

Thanks Jay and Andrew; very useful info. I decided to try out a TE for myself to see if it's something I can live with...cause I'm really feeling withdrawal from the size and weight of the CZ Sonnar 90 on my late, great G2.

See more recent post on "Tele Elmarit Spot", though, 'cause I've got another problem now.....

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), May 10, 2001.