I'm thinking about getting a 90mm and wanted to get opinions on the current version lenses and whether it is worth the extra dinero to get the Summicron APO ASPH instead of the Elmarit. I definitely want a new 90, so no need to suggest the 75 or 135 or previous version 90s.

Sorry if this question has been asked numerous times, but I looked at the "My Next Lens" threads and didn't see it. Thanks for any advice.

-- Ken Geter (kgeter@yahoo.com), October 18, 2001

Answers

Both lenses are great performers; it really comes down to your use. Do you need the extra speed, and will you accept the larger size and weight? Traveling light, shooting slides in daylight, or musicians in night clubs? I think there are more posts under "M series."

-- Phil Stiles (Stiles@metrocast.net), October 18, 2001.

The 90 APO ASPH is a relatively recent addition to the Leica M lens line. It is the best 90mm lens that Leica has ever produced! Be sure to read the lens test reports on Erwin Puts' website. But it is heavier and more expensive than the 90/f2.8 lens. Which 90mm lens you buy will depend on your budget and your photographic needs. I have the pre-APO version which is so good that I have never thought about selling it to buy the new 90 APO ASPH................

-- Muhammad Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), October 19, 2001.

I am selling my 90mm Elmarit for $700, like new, I am going to buy the 90mm APO.

-- Mitchell Li (mitchli@pacbell.net), October 19, 2001.

I have the 90 APO and wish I had bought the Elmarit. Reason being the lighter weight of the Elmarit, less viewfinder interference and of course a lot less expensive. I usually use the APO at 2.8 for portraits anyway so the extra stop is wasted on me. I doubt whether you would see the difference between the two lens resolution wise.

-- sam smith (Ruy_Lopez@hotmail.com), October 19, 2001.

Ken,

Optical performance of both lenses is equal. I use the elmarit, and find it irreproachable. I use the classic 0.72 M, and can live with the small 90mm frame and feel quite comforable at focusing, evening at close range.

Undoubtly, in low light situations, having the ability to shoot a scene twice as fast by accessing f2 is an important asset. The faster the lens the more pictures you are likely to capture and the less rejects due to movement blur. That extra stop is even more of a bonus on longer focal lengths than it is on a wide angle.

However, the few inches loss on DoF when opening from f2.8 to f2 might be pushing ease of focus beyond the limits. That is why I do not really feel apo-asph lust and kind of wait for such a lens for the R. Though the new 1.25 magnifier might be exactly what is needed to encourage such lust even for M users... ;-)

Oh yes, weight and volume: the difference is marginal for all practical purposes. But price is certainly a real differenciator.

-- Alan (alan.ball@yucom.be), October 19, 2001.

I have the current elmarit 90 in silver and I like it a lot. When using it for portraits at 2.8 that lens is very sharp and contrasty but the DOF is already very narrow and I have quite often pictures which are out of focus, especialy when I'm photographing my children which are moving all the time. If I had the summicron 90, I'm afraid that I would have little use for that extra speed and thus even narrower DOF. I also have to warn you for the silver version, it looks very nice but it is extremely heavy. That is a matter of taste. By the way, I was satisfied with my old rigid summicron 50 until I saw the pictures made with that elmarit 90 which made me want the more contrasty current design.

-- Frederik Boone (frederik.boone@harol.be), October 19, 2001.

I think that the main difference (after price and size and weight and speed) is the fact that the 'cron is in some cases too sharp. The Elmarit is also very sharp, at least "sharp enough", but forget about the 'cron if you're thinking about using it a lot for nice portraits (at least the skin here).

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), October 19, 2001.

No one talks about color. The 90 Summicron is an Apochromat. Doesn't that make a difference? I suppose if it did, it would only show up with color reversal film.

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), October 19, 2001.

Bud is right! The colors on slides shot with the 90 APO ASPH are stunning!

-- Muhammad Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), October 19, 2001.

The advantage of Apochromotaic correction is more noticeable the longer the focal length. Conversely the benefit of aspheric lens technology is most evident with wide angle lenses. The 90 APO-ASPH being neither, should in reality gain only incrementally by either APO or ASPH and in fact this is the case. The difference between the 90 AA and the current Elmarit is academic. The advantage of the 90AA over the predecessor Cron is particularly increased contrast and overall performance at the widest couple f-stops, which is a characteristic of every new-generation Leica lens over the older generation. It boils down to whether you'll be shooting primarily wide open and need f/2.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), October 19, 2001.

Well Jay, you just saved me $600:-) I assume you're not basing your opinions on results using print film (which is going to mask most differences).

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), October 19, 2001.

This subject comes up very often. I did about a 5 minute search of the archives, and found the following information, which I created links for.

My own feeling is that when all of the potential quality and theoretical advantages are done being talked about, the photos are all that remain. I have never seen the sharpness and color saturation from any medium telephoto like I have from my Elmarit M, (yes, even color slides). If the Summicron is sharper, I prefer to remain ignorant... I would not be willing to do the things to make it show its full potential. The money differential between these lenses buys a lot of film.

Look through the following links for more opinions:

90mm info

more 90mm info

even more info

90mm stuff

more stuff

about the 90mm

more about it

let's talk 90mm

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), October 19, 2001.

I agree with Jay on this one. The ONLY difference between the Elmarit-M and Summicron-AA is the extra stop. I traded my 2.8 for the 2.0 because I needed the speed.

Cheers,

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), October 19, 2001.

Well then, if I photographed a Caucasian face with both lenses at f/2.8 using Kodachrome 25, I should see absolutely no differences in color rendition, in imperfections in the face because of correction of the red spectrum, no differences in contrast, no differences in overall brilliance in the transparencies....right? If so, one pays a heavy price for that extra stop on the Summicron.

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), October 19, 2001.

Thanks for all the comments and especially to Al Smith for providing links to older threads on this subject, I'll look at those before making a final decision. I handled both lenses in a shop today and found the Elmarit to be more ergonomic and better balanced on the camera. The Summicron I tried had a distinct stiff spot in the focusing. Not a good thing for a brand-new $1800 lens, so I had a bad first impression. I'm leaning towards the Elmarit because of price, size, and weight. I just dumped a bunch of Nikon gear because of the bulk, so why am I even considering the `cron? Realistically, the Elmarit should suit my needs, and I'll be more likely to carry it because of it's size. Thanks again for the advice, this forum is a great thing.

-- Ken Geter (kgeter@yahoo.com), October 19, 2001.

Just to clear up what seems might be a misconception. When you focus on an object which reflects light of assorted wavelengths (the prime example is a white object, which reflects all the wavelengths), some lenses can't focus all the wavelengths together on the film plane, which causes unsharpness. An Apochromatically-corrected lens overcomes this fault. APO correction has nothing to do with color balance or rendition (warmer, cooler etc.). An APO lens can have a distinct color bias, and a color-neutral lens is not necessarily apochromatic.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), October 19, 2001.

Ken: One more opinion: IMHO Leica's two current 90's are effectively equal for image quality - so it boils down whether you want the extra stop.

You may not need the extra stop for shutter speed purposes, but remember that it also affects how the background is rendered, for good or ill.

I don't find the f/2 SAA to be obnoxiously heavy, but then I have a 'thin' 90 TE to fall back on if my shoulder gets sore. 8^) (I don't own ANY 90 f/2 - like you, I'm still considering my options.)

On the price difference: The 90 f/2 costs, what? about 60% more than the f/2.8 for the extra stop? (Between gray market and rebates and Leica day 10% reductions I get confused sometimes - I'm assuming $1195 vs $1995)

To get a Nikon 85 f/1.4 you pay 150% additional over the price of a Nikon 85 f/1.8, for just a 2/3 stop improvement ($780 vs. $310).

So everything is relative.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), October 20, 2001.

I had the privilege of shooting some tripod comparisons of the 2.8, the 2Apo, and the penultimate summicron. The above folks are generally right -- although there is an observable difference between the newest and the prior summicron, particularly in edges and on the APO color scene (the APO aspect -- taking photos of a 6 foot section of a store wall, looking at price tags and lettering only 2-4 mm high, the was a sharpness difference depending on color, and the edges of white paper had a minimal color fringe with the older lens, not visible with the newer summicron). And, at f2, the older was softer in contrast. That shows the degree of care needed when looking for "objective" data, though clearly the newer is better, eye popping images on Provia, etc. Not as much as the 3.4 135 compared to its predecesor 2.8, but noticeable.

On the other hand, at 2.8, very much harder to tell a difference between the elmarit and the APO summicron -- the 2.8 was already bunch ahead of the older summicron. Marginally the APO is better than the Elmarit in this "real world" (as if careful tripod shots are ever real world, to those talking about nightclub shots), but the advantage small enough, and even less so 1 stop down (f4), that I really think the difference is simply size versus speed. The color fingerprint, is, for all purposes, the same for all three. Flare, I don't know about; I've had some with the elmarit under extreme circumstances, but I can bring about flare with any lens if I put my mind to it.

Most will curse me for mentioning it, but the Bokeh is not the same -- the Elmarit retains relative sharpness and "natural" rendition a little deeper into the background. Focus on something at, say 3 feet, have legible print or picture 18-24 inches deeper, and the blur versus recognizable image is apparent (wide open). Which is better, that's a matter of taste, and Puts would have that the APO is following the more modern Leica trait of a more sharply limted plane. Some would say it better for portraits, maybe so. I kind of like the elmarit here, too.

I picked the 90 elmarit, primarily for compactness, after looking very hard at images that showed a marginal advantage for the APO. I had had the prior Summicron, and really liked it. I join the myriads who miss our older lenses, and wish I had them all, new and old. I also miss the ability to shoot at 2.0 at 1/250th, instead of 2.8 at 1/125, because that is as big an effect on sharpness as the lens itself (and I'm no shaky holder-- I can do presentation ok 50mm shots at 1/15-1/30, but there is a difference). Folks who shoot these lenses handlheld at 1/30th shouldn't care which lens performs best on bench, maybe (inflammatory?).

I can also attest that the 90 summicron, like the 75 1.4, the 135 3.4, all are very close to the accuracy of most rangefinder focussing. Lay out a yardstick moving away from you, a really good rangefinder target (I like an "x" of strng or wire, slightly at an angle to the focus plane), and shoot these things wide open, refocus, shoot a few times. Another area that Puts has put the measure to text, and (I think) the real reason the 75 1.4 was chosen (not the oft quoted "maximum size that did not obscure the viewfinder"). At any rate, the point is that wide open use takes extreme focus care, preferbaly an M3 or 0.85, not the shorter based rangefiders. At 2.8, not so critical.

Sorry if this is too wordy.

-- Lacey Smith (smithmem@bellsouth.net), October 22, 2001.