What are the differences in final image quality or contrast between these two lenses ?

-- stuart babcock (stubab@camcomp.com), March 27, 2002

Answers

obviously there are people who disagree, but i have to say that the 2.8 yields higher subjective sharpness rite up to f8. this is probably a contrast issue, but i would be curious to check res figs on photo.do. contrast, of course, has more to do with perceived sharpness than res.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), March 27, 2002.

lazyboy checked himself!! photodo rates the 2.8 at 4.5 (a truly stellar rating) but the summi at "only" 4.3. res is higher at all stops, and quite a bit higher at 2.8. the summi, however, has infinitely higher res at f2. fast lenses are (and should be) optimized for wide open perf. why bother with a 2.0 otherwise when you have a stellar 2.8??

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), March 27, 2002.

From looking at the site, I suspect the 90 Summicron they tested is the previous version, not the APO. As a result, I'd expect the 90AA to rate as highly as the Elmarit, even with the extra stop factored in. I certainly feel my 90AA is sharper/contrastier at 2.8 than the current version Elmarit it replaced, though that could be personal bias. I really bought it for the extra stop, and wide open the AA is a killer.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul@chefurka.com), March 27, 2002.

After looking again at the site, the MTF-tested Summicron is definitely the previous version. The 90AA is listed, but it hasn't been tested.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul@chefurka.com), March 27, 2002.

First off there are two distinct 90 f2.8 lenses; the 90 f2.8 Elmarit and Tele-Elmarit (fat or thin), and two distinct 90 f2 lenses; the 90 Pre-APO Sumicron and the 90APO Summicron, so we need to clarify which you are referring to. I have shot with three of the four above- mentioned lenses; the 90 TE, 90 Pre-APO and 90APO, so I can only speak to those directly.

Secondly, the term "image quality" can be very subjective, and IMO you need to define what you mean by it above before an accurate answer can be given. For example, there is a unique and very pleasing quality to the pre-APO Summicron, especially with people- portraits, that IMO is not achievable with any other 90. However, of the four lenses mentioned above, it is probably the softest in terms of resolution. In terms of resolution, I would say this: The 90APO is the hands-down winner at f2 and f2.8. At f4 and above, the 90TE is very good, and quite frankly very tough to distinguish any difference between it and the 90APO when hand-held. I'll add that given what I have heard form others who own it, I expect the 90 Elmarit is better than the 90TE, further narrowing the resolution gap between it and the 90APO. The 90 Pre-APO shows its age to about f5.6, but from there on out I also found it very difficult to distinguish any differences between it and the 90APO. The 90TE wins hands-down in terms of size/weight.

So, in conclusion I would say that any of the above lenses 90's will serve you very well, depending on what you want to do with it.

Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), March 27, 2002.

i assume we are talking baout the current versions of both lenses -- the elmarit-m and the 90 apo summi. if someone wants to ask about a discontinued lens, they should certainly indicate that in their post.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), March 27, 2002.

Roger: By your first post you feel that the 90 Elmarit is sharper than the 90APO... Have you tested them both side-by- side? As I said, I have not tested the current Elmarit, but I find it hard to believe it could be sharper than the 90APO.

Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), March 28, 2002.

The only people to say that the 90 Elmarit is sharper than the 90 APO are people who own the 90 Elmarit!

The 90 APO is the better lesn and not much bigger/heavier than it's slower brother. Anyone who thinks otherwise just can't afford the APO.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), March 28, 2002.

According to various reports, there is a difference. Now, as usual, if you want to take advantage of it, you'll need:

- Enlarge by a factor of at leat 12

- Take your picture with a sturdy tripod

- Focus very very carefully

- Use a very fine film

- Have an enlarger or slide projector of a very high quality

Any of the above missing, and there's no point besides the extra stop.

Oh, and to focus a Summicron 90 at 2, you'd better have a well calibrated rangefinder.

In those conditions, it must be terrific :)

-- Stephane Bosman (stephane_bosman@yahoo.co.uk), March 28, 2002.

Sorry, my comment was quite arrogant. There is a slight size and weight difference and is not significant to me, but maybe to others. I just love my APO and if you can afford it, buy it. The extra stop may not be necessary for low light to everyone, but it's out of focus areas can be enhanced and DOF shallowed when shooting at f/2 compared to f/2.8.

Just for the record, Erwin Puts has this lens about a stop ahead of the Elmarit, and better than the much heralded 100 Macro (said to be Leica's best lens). His reason: It is a stop faster!

Shoot at f/2, get the focusing accurate and WALAH!!!

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), March 28, 2002.

Considering I shelled out for the Canon 300/2.8IS and the Hasselblad 40CFE which are each about 3x the cost of the 90AA, I think I'm credible when I say money had nothing to do with me choosing the 90Elmarit over the 90AA. The performance advantage of the AA over the 2.8 is another one of those comparisons that borders on the pedantic. In practical photography you can call it a draw and choose the 90AA *only* if you can't live without f/2 and you can live with the added bulk (significant, even if the weight isn't). For me the lenses such as the 90/2 and 75/1.4 and 135/2.8 negate the only reason I use the M system in the first place: compactness.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), March 28, 2002.

I have the current Elmarit and it is a superb lens - as good as anyone needs. I may one day "upgrade" to the APO, as I prefer faster tele lenses, but it will not be for improved image quality. That being said the APO is the best performing 90mm out there at f2 (probably in the 80-100mm range) so would probably choose it over the pre-APO Summicron (as nice as it is). There is something special about Leica APO lenses that is for sure. At the present I am contemplating whether I can put up with the extra weight and size. The size/weight difference is real and the user needs to decide what they like and prefer.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), March 28, 2002.

I meant..the 90mm APO is probably the "best" performing lens in the 80-100mm range from any manufacturer as detectable on MTF graphs..

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), March 28, 2002.

acording to Kristian coments on own lens rates, there is nothing like my 90/2 non asph, ;),

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), March 28, 2002.

in fact, i own a black paint apo 90 and a chrome elmarit-m. the 90 elmarit, in my view, yields higher subjective sharpness. the elmarit bettered the old 90 in every res test i have ever seen, and i will be curious to see how the apo fares once more INDEPENDENT mtf info becomes available on the recomputed lens. i will say that chasseur d'images tested both of the lenses (apo 90 and elmarit-m) and found that, for both low and high contrast subjects, the 2.8 had slightly higher resolution at 2.8 and 5.6 (the lenses were equal at f8). however, even if the apo were to better the elmarit in res, my experience is that the contrast perf of the elmarit is sufficiently better than the apo to swamp small differences in resolution (in terms of perceived sharpness). now, please remember, i am not saying that the apo is a bad lens. indeed, it is the finest f2 short tele available in my view. i own one, and use it oftenish. however, when i want the absolute best sharpness, and light level is not an issue, i always take the elmarit. as i said above, it is the sharpest lens i have ever used. maybe it's merely sample to sample variation (of which there is a shocking amount, a fact never discussed on this forum), but i think not.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), March 28, 2002.

Roger: Thanks for the clarification, and I accept your evaluation. As for sample variation, I agree with you wholeheartedly, and perhaps you also have an exceptionally poor example of the 90APO.

:-),

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), March 28, 2002.

"photodo rates the 2.8 at 4.5 (a truly stellar rating) but the summi at "only" 4.3."

Tokina and Tamron 90mm Lenses have ratings of 4.6 and 4.3 respectively at the Photodo site. Does that make them better than the Leica 90mm Summicron-M?

-- Vikram (VSingh493@aol.com), March 28, 2002.

fwiw: check out this lens comparison between 90AA and 90E.

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), March 28, 2002.

I have to agree in part with Rogers findings in that after owning both the 90 APO and 90 Elmarit I too considered the Elmarit from 2.8 through to 5.6 better than the APO. The APO had a tendancy to lose contrast and had an overall veiling flare in bright conditions till 5.6 where it then started to outperform the Elmarit through to minimum aperture. From 2.8-5.6 nothing beats the Elmarit, in fact after purchasing it I sold off my 90APO and 100APO R!

-- Gary Yeowell (gary@yeowell.fsnet.co.uk), March 28, 2002.

Test results mean nothing. Popular Photography tested the Tamron 90/2.8, the Nikkor 85/1.8, and Leica's 90/2 (AA). At f/5.6 (according to pop photo) they are all at their sharpest. I listed them in order of their ratings. Seems ridiculous, eh?

"Image Quality" is not MTF. Image quality is one's own opinion.

From the time a photographer learns the basics of exposure through his (hopefully) life-long passion, he knows, understands and sometimes grapples with the fact that if you want to gain more contrast, more tonal range, better low-light capability, true pocketability, ULTIMATE RESOLUTION, and other equipment/process related "desirable attributes", he must give up SOMETHING.

It's all about the comprimise, folks. Do we expect anything less from the craft of film photography?

-- Mike DeVoue (karma77@att.net), March 30, 2002.

The test Dexter links to SAYS that it's between the 90 APO and the TELE-ELMARIT-M - which is NOT the current lens. It's the ultra-compact lens from 1974-1989.

The site creator may have made a mistake and actually used the current ELMARIT-M (no 'Tele). But I think I recognize the slight veiling flare of the TE in the pictures.

Stuart - in comparing any 90s always remember that there can be and are subtle differences in focusing calibration between camera bodies and lenses - and they make a big difference given the narrow DOF of a short telephoto. I have 2 90s and 2 bodies and each lens has a 'favorite' body (and vice versa) and does not perform as well on the other.

I also tried the current f/2.8 lens - and it did not perform especially well on either body, even though I'm sure it's a better lens in an absolute sense.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), March 30, 2002.

just for the record, i really do think the elmarit m produces sharper images, primarily due to better contrast perf than anything else. and this leads into my final point: no, i don't put much stock in measurements -- at least not mtf figures. contrast perf is such a huge factor that it usally swamps small diffs in resolution. in any event, sharpness is not the MOST imortant thing anyway. in LF and, to a lesser degree, MF, it is not even a very important thing. in 35mm, however, with the huge mag factors for even modest enlargements, sharpness is always a consideration.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), March 30, 2002.

I know this thread is about image quality, but an important difference I've noticed in the samples I've handled is that the focusing ring seemed quite stiff on 90APOs and pre-APOs. The ring on my new 90E is as easy to turn as on my 50 cron. I couldn't justify the extra ~$800 for the APO with its disadvantages of added size, weight, and slow focus ring.

-- Ken Geter (kgeter@yahoo.com), March 31, 2002.