I want to get a 90mm lens for portraiture, but don't really want to spend $1900 on the new ASPH version. Most people here think the Elmarit is a great compromise and has much better optics than the old Summicron. However I want an f2 lens so that i can get that short depth of field that will pop out a portrait (i recently tested the elmarit and found it to be comparably sharp to the ASPH, but that wide open at 2.8 it still didn't do what i wanted in terms of depth of field). So, I'm stuck. I went to a camera store yesterday and saw a newer version of the Summicron (a little smaller than the ASPH version, but not nearly as big as the old Summicron version). Is this newer pre ASPH version at all better optically than the old Summicron version (or worse)? How would this newer pre-ASPH version compare to the Elmarit in terms of optics? Any quick reactions would be appreciated.

Carlos Goodman los2499@aol.com

-- Carlos Goodman (los2499@aol.com), September 23, 2001

Answers

The version you describe (E55 filter, from 1980)is optically a little better than the predecessor but its main advantage was the great reduction in size and weight. I owned one for several years until I realized that I never used it wide open, and bought the smaller and optically superior Elmarit-M. From f/4 and f/5.6 the Summicron in question has almost the same sharpness and contrast as the current 90/2.8. At f/2.8 constrast is slightly lower and corners are less sharp, and at f/2 Leicaphiles have put a postive spin on its sharpness and contrast by deeming it a "great portrait lens". I also own the 90/2-R and 2nd-version 90/2.8-R, of which the former is quite similar and the latter identical to the M versions, and while I recognize the across-the-board superiority of the Elmarit, I find myself carrying the Summicron on travels in preference, because of its "split personality"--giving the option of a full stop more speed for low-light shooting (where the lower contrast is msny times an advantage)yet becoming crisp and contrasty when stopped down to the apertures (f/4-f/11)where I normally shoot the vast majority of daylight images.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), September 23, 2001.

My 90AA is an incredibly sharp lens - sharp wide open all the way down to f16 - often way too sharp for portraiture even wide open, so you'll probably need to factor in the use of a soft filter. So yes, it is better than the prior non-asph model in terms of resolution, but resolution is not the only factor in a good photograph. I also use a 90TE, and like Jay, have come to admire its split personality - a bit soft at f2.8 and hence great for portraits, but very sharp from f4 on, so great for most other shots. As an added bonus it is only slightly larger than a 50 'cron, and relatvely cheap by Leica standards.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), September 23, 2001.

Faced with the price of the Summicron and the Elmarit 90s, I took the $1000 price of the Elmarit-M. It's a wonderful lens, razor sharp and very contrasty, worth every penny.

Godfrey

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), September 23, 2001.

The short version: grab the compact 90 if it's under $750, give it strong consideration if it's under $900 (depending on condition, of course).

The long version: CLICK HERE to see some previous answers to a similar question AND some great shots showing off the portrait qualities of the non-AA 90s. I think these shots are great because they demonstrate perfectly the 'liquid' qualities of the older lenses and the far crisper but (to borrow someone else's word) somewhat 'clinical' image of the 90 APO/ASPH.

Steve Gandy at cameraquest.com says the large and small 90 f/2s are "generally agreed to be very close in quality." I just tried the older, larger size this weekend (I USED to own the compact version) and would say they are very similar: my impression is that the big version may be just a hair sharper at f/2, but with lower contrast, while the compact has more contrast at big apertures and peaks out a tad sharper at the middle apertures. A distinction without much difference, because it will vanish as soon as you shoot anything faster than Pan F or Velvia anyway. Both lenses show some color fringing, which is, IMO, the biggest source of any missing resolution, and is, of course, what the 90 APO-chromatic does the most to correct.

Oddly, the small version does not 'feel' all that much lighter (although it is by 150g or so), probably because it is 'denser' - a little less weight in a much smaller package.

FWIW I may well be buying that 'large' Summicron today, inspired by Peter Hughes' "Goths' portraits, among other things.

RE the Elmarit-M f/2.8: !!personal taste only!! - I've discovered, at great cost, that I much prefer the Mandler lens designs of the 60s/70s to the more modern designs. I find the modern 90 EM to be extremely 'hot' for use with slide film and much prefer the lower macro-contrast and long tonal range of the older lenses. If you're shooting color negative, the contrast may not be an issue.

The EM is clearly 'sharper' down to at least f/5.6 than either early Summicron. Nowhere near as beautiful, IMO.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), September 24, 2001.

Gee, Andy, I'm genuinely honored. Here's another 90mm Summicron-M Goth portrait, hot off the scanner. Shot at f/2, naturally.

You may be interested to know that the 6x6 images were shot with another classic chunk of German glass, the 80mm f/2.8 Planar.

The 'bouquet' on both lenses is, as they say, to die for.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), September 24, 2001.

Peter:

"Bouquet" - I love it! I'm going to steal that and use it from now on whenever Bokeh discussions come up :-)

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), September 24, 2001.

To get back to Carlos' original question - one argument against the older 'large' 90 is that it has a 'pusher' to connect the focusing cam in the lens to the rangefinder, whereas the compact 90's cam touches the RF roller directly. It's not a big thing, but it's just one extra part in the focusing chain that can jam or get stiff/sticky.

Go for the compact version if the price is right.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), September 25, 2001.

I'll vote for the older 90 Summicron. It was a long focus lens, and the more recent was a true telephoto. Long focus lenses are sharper, and I find that their extra bulk gives me a slightly steadier hold.

My M3 with the 90 has a lovely balance to it that seems to make it easier to hold.

For more details, have a look at my web site.

-- Tom Bryant (boffin@gis.net), September 25, 2001.

I'd only quibble with Tom on one point (nice site, by the way):

"Long focus lenses are sharper".

In theory, maybe. In reality, whether a lens is 'telephoto' or 'long focus' in design becomes secondary to 1) how recent the design is, 2) who designed it, 3) who manufactured it to what tolerances, etc. etc. The new 90 APO/ASPH is a telephoto - eats the lunch of the old 90 'long focus' for sharpness.

That being said, I will refer you to my previous answer - which 90 Summicron is sharper varies with aperture, IMO, but the 'long' one seems a hair better at f/2.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), September 25, 2001.

Carlos

The immediate pre-ASPH 90/2.0 lens (Cat. No. 11136, 5 element) is significantly smaller and lighter (470 gm weight) than its predecessor (Cat. No. 11123, the 6-element), which weighs in at 685 gm. The newer lens is probably a little better optically than the older lens, although its major selling point is the more compact size rather than its performance.

However, the older 11123 lens has one thing in its facor: it has a detachable lens head suitable for use on a Visoflex unit (with the appropriate focus mount adapter), such as the Visoflex III. The 11136 lens was introduced after Leica made the decision to discontinue the Visoflex system, so they saw no need to provide a detachable lens head. The Visoflex unit plus the 11123 90/2.0 lens head/adapter allow ground glass focussing, similar to what you get using an SLR. It is clumsier than an SLR, but still useable.

Finally, the 11123 lens has a tripod bushing, whereas the 11136 lens does not. Leica decided that in slimming down the lens, a separate provision for tripod attachment was no longer required.

Hope this is helpful.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), September 26, 2001.

Andy,

Thanks for the clarification. I should have said "Long focus lenses are sharper all other things being equal", which, of course, they're not.

FWIW, I take about 80% of my 90mm Summicron photos wide open. There's no lens sharpener like a faster shutter speed. I also put the lens on a table top tripod, and then put the tripod on my chest. This lets me get away with exposures of 1/15-1/30 second, which means I can shoot (with ISO 800 film) in rather low light (2 footcandles or 22lux)

-- Tom Bryant (boffin@gis.net), September 26, 2001.

guys, thanks for your input. i bought the newer pre-asph 90 cron and look forward to using it. with the savings from NOT buying the APO-ASPH, i was able to get another lens i had been coveting also. the contributions here really helped me a lot. i'll report back after i get some use out of it.

-- carlos goodman (los2499@aol.com), September 27, 2001.