Leica-M 90mm 11123 vs 11136

T

telenous

Well-known
Local time
6:45 AM
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Messages
1,753
View My Gallery
I 'm thinking of getting one of the older Summicrons 90mm but I can't make up my mind between these two (11123 vs 11136). Sometimes they are lumped together, as if there is just one pre-asph. Summicron 90mm, but that's clearly not the case as the 11123 and 11136 are very different in size, weight, optical design (the older one is a double Gauss, the later one some variation of Ernostar I think) and (obviously) production era. Perhaps the reason for that is they both seem to perform more or less weakly at the widest aperture.

Has anyone used both of these and has a clear preference for the one or the other? Is there any difference in performance, regardless of cost/size/weight that would sway you for one or the other? Thanks in advance for any insight!
 
11123 (90/2 v2) has no weakness i'm aware of. My favorite 90 ever together with the R 90/2 pre-apo. Only problem it is a bulky lens. Sharp at all apertures but f/2 where it is a bit softer but not by much. Perfect lens for gentle portrait. Almost zero vignetting, CA and distortion. 11136 (90/2 v3) has the same size as the current 90/2 apo. Was an attempt to do as well as v2 in a more compact package. It keeps more or less the same performance as v2 but CA is more pronounced by a significant margin. Reason why it has been replaced by the 90/2 apo. 90/2 v3 remains one of my favorite 90 for gentle portraits though. BTW 90/2 v3 can be 6-bit coded and both v2 and v3 may benefit from a calibration if you use them on digital. FWIW.
 
I assume the one I own is the V2 from the 70’s. I believe this is my 3rd one over the years and have owned the Apo for a while but I dislike the hard rendering so typical of modern lenses. My sample had issues and I eventually got Leica to replace it.

Despite the problems I disliked the look and several years ago bought a very clean 1970’s era. Personally I like the smoother tonality along with it’s pleasing sharpness. Even wide open it’s more than sharp enough and contrast is good without being overdone.

No experience with the V1 or V3.
 
LCT said:
11123 (90/2 v2) has no weakness i'm aware of. My favorite 90 ever together with the R 90/2 pre-apo. Only problem it is a bulky lens. Sharp at all apertures but f/2 where it is a bit softer but not by much. Perfect lens for gentle portrait. Almost zero vignetting, CA and distortion. 11136 (90/2 v3) has the same size as the current 90/2 apo. Was an attempt to do as well as v2 in a more compact package. It keeps more or less the same performance as v2 but CA is more pronounced by a significant margin. Reason why it has been replaced by the 90/2 apo. 90/2 v3 remains one of my favorite 90 for gentle portraits though. BTW 90/2 v3 can be 6-bit coded and both v2 and v3 may benefit from a calibration if you use them on digital. FWIW.
Click to expand...
Thank you so much for this, it is exactly what I was hoping to read.

I have tried two versions of the (non-Apo) Summicron-R 90mm, apparently a lens which is similar to the 11136. The older mount is very, very 'gentle' at f/2, the later mount, which I still have, a tiny bit less. The performance at smaller apertures is superbly rounded. I am using mostly black and white film, so I haven't noticed any CA 😁 but I am sure you are right.
That said, I gravitate heavily towards the older 11123 because I suspect it is an all-round good performer as you say, size and weight be damned. It's a little talked about lens, your advice really helps. Absence of vignetting, distortion and CA are big, big pluses for the 11123.
 
x-ray said:
I assume the one I own is the V2 from the 70’s. I believe this is my 3rd one over the years and have owned the Apo for a while but I dislike the hard rendering so typical of modern lenses. My sample had issues and I eventually got Leica to replace it.

Despite the problems I disliked the look and several years ago bought a very clean 1970’s era. Personally I like the smoother tonality along with it’s pleasing sharpness. Even wide open it’s more than sharp enough and contrast is good without being overdone.

No experience with the V1 or V3.
Click to expand...
Thank you X-ray, that is very helpful, the 70's lens you own is the type I am interested in. Slowly but surely a case is made for the old 11123.
 
When I first started with Leica in 1980, I tried a 90 2.0 that divides for Visoflex use. Number unknown. Terrible lens but who knows what happened to used lenses. Ended up buying the pre ASPH and it sat with almost no use until now 2022 November. I started buying APO. 90 was the last. I thought it to be no better until I used it on a tripod with
M10R.
Moral is the more MP the camera, the better the lens must be. Plan for the future.
 
Ronald M said:
When I first started with Leica in 1980, I tried a 90 2.0 that divides for Visoflex use. Number unknown. Terrible lens but who knows what happened to used lenses. Ended up buying the pre ASPH and it sat with almost no use until now 2022 November. I started buying APO. 90 was the last. I thought it to be no better until I used it on a tripod with
M10R.
Moral is the more MP the camera, the better the lens must be. Plan for the future.
Click to expand...
That's definitely a consideration but I see it the other way round. I am quite fond of my old lenses so that is further reason to stick with film.
 
x-ray said:
It’s not really that heavy and I’m saying that as an old man.
Click to expand...
Dang! I thought I had the perfect excuse to skip gym 😁 Kidding aside, thanks, that comment helps too. I always thought the 11123 would be cumbersome and unwieldy. Well, maybe, not as much.
 
I've had a number of Leica 90's. /2.0 & /2.8 and could never tell any difference between any of this. Of course this was on film so if your using digital it might be different. The difference to me was in size in handling, not any optical quality.
 
Well, I agree that handling is important. I have an Elmar-C 90/4 and I have no complaints either in handling or in terms of performance. Only niggle, it's basically a daylight lens.

Overall, the field of 90mm Leica lenses is a minefield. There is no other focal length in a camera system that has made me go mentally round and round and round. Faster lenses are a little too large/unwieldy for a camera system that has made it's name for and by stealth. Smaller lenses are slower, so there goes the capacity for low light photography. Even the latest Apo is not exactly perfect, as it is reported to be a tad soft up close (<3m).

And on and on and on it goes.
 
Just to round off this thread. I have a Summicron 90mm 11123 on order, it should be arriving soon. S/N suggests production in the mid-70s. Hopefully it will play nice with my Ms.
 
Thanks, Raid. Since it has a built-in shade and it's voluminous in size, yours must be type II, Leica code SEOOF-M or SEOOM 11123. It was produced between 1959-79, with many small variations in barrel and ergos, possibly coatings and glass types too. It's the one I also went after. Read above, it's supposed to be a good one, although @ f/2 it might be a bit behind current offerings.
 
Last edited:
It is an excellent lens that was very well crafted.

U3565I1149813783.SEQ.0.jpg


Photo: 90mm Summicron Pensacola Beach | By: raid | | rangefinderforum.com

Gallery of photos captured with Rangefinder lenses and cameras
www.rangefinderforum.com www.rangefinderforum.com
 
I received earlier today the 90/2 11123. Just to say that X-Ray was right, it's not *that* huge or heavy. It's just that the M system is compact and this lens looks a bit scary-big in photos.

Thanks again to all in this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Retro-Grouch
Filter thread question
Replies
9
Views
571
Retro-Grouch
Retro-Grouch
A
Fast mid-long zooms - why not?
Replies
18
Views
601
Ko.Fe.
Ko.Fe.
TenEleven
Lomography x Zenit Mercury-2 Lens 35mm f2
Replies
3
Views
130
TenEleven
TenEleven
C
21mm For Film Leica M
4 5 6
Replies
106
Views
8K
chuckroast
C
farlymac
Guide Number Nikkor
Replies
2
Views
206
farlymac
farlymac
Back
Top Bottom