I have trawled listings for an overall comparison, but previous have been either the 90AA vs. 90cron Pre-ASPH, or 90 Elmarit vs. 90 T-E. I would like to hear from people which 90 (ever made) they think has the best balance of sharpness, soft 'glow' and bokeh. The overall majority think the 90 AA is too sharp for portraiture (in which case is it better suited as a landscape lens). So is the 90 pre-ASPH version (11136/11137) the best, or is it the latest Elmarit, or even the thin T-E? with it being not as sharp as the Elmarit making it ideal for that soft edge look, it's small and less intimidating (ideal as a travel portraiture/people lens?). It's a subjective question, but which is your favourite and why? TIA,

-- sparkie (sparkie@mailcity.com), January 07, 2002

Answers

I like my 90/4 Elmar-C, it produces a pleasant bokeh, is quite small and not as treatening as the larger 90s and has even enough DOF for quick shooting ;-). The small size makes it very good for travel and takes the same slip-on filters as my other lenses (A39). Moreover it is not that expensive, so if it get scratched / stolen / lost it isn't that hard.
A faster lens would be a nice alternative, but also a bit bigger and I never needed f2.8 or f4 for my pictures until now - f4 for portraiture is mostly sufficient.

But the best lens is always the one you have when you need it - and since this is my only 90 you needn't expect anything but praise ;-)

Kai

-- Kai Blanke (kai.blanke@iname.com), January 07, 2002.

I used to own a 90f4 rokkor for the M which had excellent performance at f4. My current 90 is the f2apo for m which I don't really find too sharp - it has a very flattering kind of sharpness - but I do find a bit cumbersome. Let's face it, portraiture isn't often carried out at f2 (although it can be, of course) and I often wish I'd settled for the elmarit which I had in my possession for a few weeks and which seemed to have an especially beautiful tonality. My reasoning at the time was that I would have to stop down to f4 on the elmarit to get the sharpness of the summicron at f2. Now I tend to think that any of the elmarits has such a fine performance even wide open that worrying about these things is senseless - that's the trouble with reading too many reviews. To answer the question directly - I'd be surprised if there were many better options than the current elmarit in terms of glow etc. If you need sharpness, close the aperture to f4-f5.6 and you'll be laughing all the way to the skin imperfections clinic. BTW, IMO the 75 is the most flattering/glowing lens of the lot - and possibly because of a slight sharpness fall off towards the edges of the frame more suitable for portraiture...

-- steve (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), January 07, 2002.

IMO, the best "people 90" would be the latest 90 Summicron pre-APO. It has great bokeh, limited DOF with f2.0, and a neat "glow" at f2.0. The 90TE at f2.8 is not bad either, having similar charachteristics. The 90 APO or current Elmarit are also very good for people IF you add on a soft FX2 or 3 soft-focus filter and use them wide-open.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), January 07, 2002.

I never understood how a lens can be too sharp. If you want to get the kind of portraits done in studio with wrinkles and blemishes suppressed you do that in the darkroom (or with photoshop).

If you want to have a small and light 90mm you can carry everywhere, the thin T-E is probably hard to beat. If you want to be able to get ultimate sharpness, go for the latest 90 AA. If you want a super good lens and save some money, the 90 pre-Asph might be the one...

Personally I own the latest 90 AA. Subjectively I find it's the best Leica lens I own (my other Leica lens are: 21mm ASPH Elmarit, 35 ASPH. 'cron, 50 'cron and latest 50 Elmarit). This being said, because of its weight I do not carry my 90mm with me all the time.

-- Xavier Colmant (xcolmant@powerir.com), January 07, 2002.

I often use a lens that is not mentioned that often on this board - the 90mm Elmarit (11129) which preceded the current Elmarit (11807). (I also use the 90 SAA and 75 Summilux.) The benefit of the older Elmarit is size and economy in addition to its optical properties. The older Elmarit does not have quite the contrast of the newer lens at its widest two stops; but in portraiture this is not usually of paramount importance. This older 90 Elmarit is more than the optical equal to the 90 Tele-Elmarit, and is available for $400-500 for mint examples on the used market. Unless size is of primary importance, I suggest that you borrow an older 90 Elmarit for trial. Every Leitz/Leica lens that I have ever used has been a good experience, each possessing its own wonderful optical properties.

-- David (pagedt@chartertn.net), January 07, 2002.

I use the 90 mm TE (thin) and find the imaging characteristics ideal for portraiture. Particularily at F4. You can save alot of $$$$ on the Canadian versions of this lens because of the bad rap they're getting. If you can find a MINT Canadian version above 31xx xxx it will probably sell for quite a bit less than the latest German runs. Just make sure you check the glass before you buy.

-- John Chan (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), January 07, 2002.

The only Leitz/Leica telephoto I own is the 90/4 collapsible Elmar, & it's a fine lens, but my favorite short telephotos are non-Leitz oldies--the pre & post-WWII 85/2 Zeiss Sonnars (the 85/2 Nikkor-P & Jupiters have a similar look) & the 100/2 Canon.

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@cris.com), January 07, 2002.

Sparkie

I think any of the lenses you mentioned will do the job quite well, as Leica had long ago mastered the art of producing excellent quality 90 mm lenses. I used the 90/2.8 T-E (thin type, 4-elements) for many years and found it excellent for portraiture. I liked the 90/2.8 Elmarit (Wetzlar version, black finish) from the 1970s even better. This lens was extremely sharp, even in the close range, and will outperform any of the 90 Summicrons (except the current ASPH version).

Re 90/2.0 Apo-Summicron-ASPH.: If the worst you can say about it is that it is too sharp for portraits, that is hardly a terrible flaw. If you're not happy with the sharpness of the portraits, you could always use a central spot filter or soft focus. For non-portrait applications where sharpness is critical, this lens will outdo most all other 90s.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), January 07, 2002.

Just out of curiosity, has anyone tried the Cosina Voigtlander 90mm f3.5 APO Lanthar lens? I have read excellent reviews of the lens, but I wonder how it shakes out in the field.

-- Dennis Couvillion (couvilaw@aol.com), January 07, 2002.

I absolutely adore the 90mm Summicron, think it's the best portraiture lens I've shoot with in over 40 years of photography. But I couldn't use it wide open with an M6 because I got a lot of OOF shots, so now I have an R8 and I'm a happy camper.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), January 07, 2002.

I've got an early-70's Summicron. It's only "soft" wide open; close it down a stop or too, and it's brutally sharp. It is rather big and heavy, and it has noticeable flare with strong backlighting. On the bright side, black ones in excellent condition can often be found for about $500.

Any of the lenses are good enough optically. Max. aperture, size, and cost should drive your decision. Mine spends over half its life at f2.8 or wider and seldom get stopped down smaller than f4. I really like being able to control DOF with the wide aperture. Even at close range, it can be focused accurately wide open on my M3.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), January 08, 2002.

Sparkie...

How about this: I don't own an M 90 but I've tried out several types. I don't know when I'll buy one, but when the time comes, it'll be a present day Elmarit. It's not too sharp, but sharp enough. It's not too big, too heavy, too imbalanced, too expensive, or too stiff to focus (like the 90 AA). IMO.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), January 08, 2002.

So many factors, so little time.

If you need f/2, for either the speed or the blur, you need f/2. I don't think the 90 APO is 'too sharp for portraits', but it also isn't enough sharper than the older 'cron IMHO to warrant the extra bucks (yet!).

I find that I get prettier portraits (slightly) with the 90 pre-APO that with the 'thin' TE, but that I often get better PICTURES (including some portraits) with the TE because of its size. It's certainly a little easier to carry and shoot with, and I have noticed people getting a little more nervous on occasion when faced with the gaping maw of the f/2. I use both, as the light requires, or based on what I have with me. 8^)

I've tried the original 60's Elmarit and it has beautiful 'bokeh' - right up there with the pre-APO 90 'crons - possibly even better. My (VERY) limited experience with one example gave results that were not as sharp as the 90 TE. Since this differs from other people's experience and evaluations, take that with a grain of salt.

All the Leica-M 90s do pretty well for sharpness. The biggest difference with the current Elmarits/APO 'crons is more contrast wide- open, which can be (matter of opinion) detrimental in portraits - contrast emphasizes flaws and coarsens the B***h (hard-edged train- headlight OOF circles on occasion).

Here's a LINK to a portrait shot with an early small version pre-APO 90 'cron.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), January 08, 2002.

My favourite 90mm M lens for portraits is the one I've got: the 90 Elmarit-M (current version). I don't have any experience with other 90mm M lenses, so I can't say whether I think it's the best choice but I enjoyed using the 90 Elmarit-R for many months (essentially the same optical formula) and my experience with that lens led me to select the Elmarit-M without hesitation. It seems very suitable for portraits. I use it wide open most of the time, which may help to soften the resolution slightly.

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), January 09, 2002.