Hello all. I own a 1:2/90 mm SUMMICRON (Canada #2624106), purchased in the early '70s. It has rendered very nice images and is in pristine condition. I am considering the purchase of the 90 ASPH, primarily on the basis of the glowing testimonials of so many forum members. As a practical matter, however, I am wondering if I would be gaining that much more with the newer lens. I do not intend to own a stable of lenses of the same focal length. Instead, I plan to own only one representative of those focal lengths I use most often, i.e., 21, 35, 50, and 90. What will I gain/lose with the 90 ASPH vs. my older 90 SUMMICRON? From the questions posed on the forum, I think variations on my quiry are shared by others, especially those of us new to Leica. Those of you who are long-time Leica photographers truly render an inestimable contribution to so many. Thanks for your time and insights, and most especially, your patient and willing attitude. Max

-- Max Wall (mtwall@earthlink.net), August 10, 2001

Answers

I haven't used one of the older Summicrons since the 70's, so my prediction is based on use of the thin Tele-Elmarit, the current Elmarit-M and the AA. I think what you'll get with the AA is a lens that has higher contrast overall, has better flare resistance, is noticeably sharper at 2.0 and 2.8, and is a bit sharper at 4.0.

I think its worth to you will depend on how much you use the wide apertures and also depends on what you usually use the lens for. I think the AA is a very "incisive" lens. It's a remarkable general- purpose tele, with uncompromising clarity. Pics that I have from my old Summicron and Tele-Elmarit show a much more gentle character (basically composed of lower contrast, maybe a touch of flare and a bit less sharpness) that is very appealing, especially in portraits.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul_chefurka@pmc-sierra.com), August 10, 2001.

Something I posted a couple of weeks ago...

"Many times there are complaints that the current 90mm APO-Summicron-M ASPH is "too sharp" for portraiture. Human skin reflects a lot of red light. The APO correction specifically works to better focus red light. Thus skin blemishes are in sharper focus with any APO lens. Before laying out extra money for this lens, consider what you will use it for."

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), August 10, 2001.

I know this is not exactly the information you are requesting, but here is an option. My first Leica 90mm lens was the same model that you have now. I was never in love with it because of the size in relation to the M body, but I bought it because of the deal I got. I replaced it in the early 1990's with the current Elmarit M, which was in every way a superior optic. It was shocking how much better it was on film, not to mention the smaller size and weight.

If you have not really ever felt restricted by the lens speed, or find that you are using your lens at f/2.8 or less, then the Elmarit M might be an alternative for you. The Summicron APO is supposedly better, but when I look at my slides, I don't know how much better it could be in real life. To exploit the optical advantage, I would have to change the way I use the M, (slower film, tripod, cable release, etc...). For real hand held, dynamic shooting, the Elmarit M is a killer, and would indeed justify your upgrade from ther older Summicron in my opinion.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), August 10, 2001.

There are really only 2 reasons to own a 90/2. You shoot a great deal at f/2, or you need the finder brightness for focusing. With a rangefinder, the latter is moot. So if you need f/2 for enough subjects that the size and weight penalty seem worthwhile, go for it. If not, you will find the current 90/2.8 is inferior to the 90AA only if you truly *want* to believe it. Coming from an early-70's 90 Summicron, though, the 90AA is a featherweight!

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), August 10, 2001.

I have experience similar to Al's. I had an old Summicron 90/2 which I sold in '96, and I bought an Elmarit-M 90/2.8 in '99. The difference is stunning ... I much prefer the new lens in every way.

Godfrey

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), August 10, 2001.

I agree with most of what has been said already. All I can add, is to ask what factors are important to you? If you need (want) the sharpest 90mm lens period, regardless of price or weight - or regularly shoot in dim light and hence need f2 regularly - or like the look that the shallow DOF at f2 provides - the 90SAA will be hard to beat - it is a stunning performer, period. Perhaps even the sharpest lens Leica has ever produced for the M. (However, if you're going to do a lot of portraiture with it, you'll probably need a soft- focus filter to knock the edge off of the resolution - hence your version 'cron is probably better for portraits than the 90 SAA.) As a plus, you'll find the 90SAA is a lightweight relative the version you have. If, however, you rarely need f2, and f2.8 will do, then the 90 Elmarit is probably the best choice due to its lighter weight and lower cost, while still offering outstanding performance. If weight is even more of a primary concern, I would consider the 90TE (Tele- Elmarit), as it is very compact and lightweight, and is a great performer - probably even a bit better than your version 'cron. (However, you'll need to find a good TE - see the archived threads for more discussion on this topic.)

As an aside, I had a 90TE and sold it when I purchased the 90SAA. I regretted selling the TE the moment I did it. Don't get me wrong, I love the 90SAA. It is a stunning performer. There are just times I want the 90, but don't want to carry the SAA due to its size and weight, or don't anticipate needing f2. And my 90TE was a very good performer... So, I just recently re-accquired a (pristine) German 90TE. And I paid way too much for it. But, I am very happy to have a TE again! Truthfully, if after today I could have only one 90mm lens, I would sell my SAA before the TE. Yes, really.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), August 10, 2001.

Second the above comments. The 90 Asph for landscapes and still life, but too harsh for portraits. The 90 elmarit as an ideal compromise for general use and portraits. The older 90 summicron for portraits, or slowed down, for general photo. When shown portraits taken with the 90 Asph, 90 elmarit and 75 Lux, my subjects most of the time prefer the elmarit. The lux comes in sceond. Most subjects are upset by the 90 Asph's remarkable ability to render skin blemishes, the blood vessels in the eye and facial hair (peach fuzz on women). I have tried to tame the 90 asph with a zeiss #1 softar, but prefer the 90 elmarit.

-- pedro lastra (plastra@webmail.bellosuth.net), August 11, 2001.

Many of you says the APO is heavier than the Elmarit-M. Well that is not true: the Silver-Chrome is heavier than the APO.... I don t know where the extra weight is coming from. Any idea?

-- Samir (sjahjah@club.lemonde.fr), September 05, 2001.

Samir,

check this current thread out for your answer.

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=006G3A

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), September 05, 2001.

I tested the 90 f2.8 against the 90 f2 ASPH the other day at the camera store. Just took pictures of the security guard. I was surprised that the 2.8 did so well against the 2, with one important exception -- the shallow depth of field that you get with the f2. Other than that, there was no difference i felt in picture quality -- if anything, maybe the 2.8 pictures were a bit sharper in a difficult to describe way. HOWEVER, I'm more than a little stuck because I like portrait lenses that can give that kind of shallow depth of field pop and i would feel frustrated without it -- it think that kind of in focus out of focus picture can make a portrait shot much more interesting. Notably, the 2.8 wide open didn't have anything like that feeling -- the ears were pretty close to focus; whereas on the f2, you had this interesting mood of something interesting going on because the eyes, nose, and cheeks were in focus and everything else kind of blurred a bit in an interesting way. I like the 2.8 size and think i would want to carry it around more, but i fear that i won't be able to get an effect that i like to get. The 75 f1.4 is interesting but i think i want more of a difference from my 50.

-- Carlos Goodman (cgoodman@lgna.com), September 06, 2001.

I'm going to try to upload a portrait I did today with my 90mm f/2 Summicron-M.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), September 07, 2001.

Just thought stir the stew a little more.

I bought a 90TE which proved to be sharp, but rather low contrast. After hearing about the various maladies (fungus, rear-element splorch, haze) that affect this lens, I sent mine to Sherry Krauter for cleaning.

When it came back the images it produced bore very little resemblance to the pre-cleaning ones. Now it makes sharp, contrasty and more saturated images. The difference is scary.

Is it as good as a new 90mm Elmarit? Probably not on an MTF test and certainly not wide-open. But it's so much closer that it's worth carrying for its small size and fast focus.

-- Phil Marcus (pmarcus@swbell.net), October 19, 2001.