90mm f/2 cron question

[nikon_junkie]

Is there any advantage in image quality over the non APO 90mm f/2 cron from one batch to the next. Ebay and other net trolling has given me choices of around 1980 and some older ones date back to 1960.

Aside from condition, on an apples to apples basis, is there a difference in coatings, elements etc...?

 

[jaapv]

The APO is considered to be as close to the theoretical maximum performance of a 90 mm lens as makes no difference, it is as good at f 2.0 as the 2.8 (which is arguably better than the old 2.0) at 5.6. Having said that, the old 2.0 is a pretty good performer and a desirable lens in its own right.There are only marginal differences within the series, but I would advise the 2.8 if you don't need the speed. btw the 1960 one will be an older design and a different lens altogether.

 

[Ben Z]

I think you're talking Elmarits too, and he I think was only talking about versions of the Cron. As far as anyone has ever noted there is very little difference between the early versions and late version of the 90 Cron optically, but the older versions are about 50% again heavier and longer. To me they completely negate the whole zen of the Leica M which for me is a small, compact travel outfit. My Cron is the late 55mm-filter so-called compact model and I hardly use it in comparison to my Tele-Elmarit. If ergonomics matter not to you, then get whatever Cron you can get the best condition for the least money. I imagine the coating on later models might make them a little less flare-prone but no idea how much. Be aware that the very first version of the Cron had a separate lens hood (a weird fluted thing) and should be included with purchase because they're hard to find and very expensive. All subsequent ones have their hoods built in.

 

[rover]

I hate coming in second place

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...90005969019&rd=1&sspagename=STRK:MEDW:IT&rd=1

 

[jaapv]

I think you're talking Elmarits too, and he I think was only talking about versions of the Cron. As far as anyone has ever noted there is very little difference between the early versions and late version of the 90 Cron optically, but the older versions are about 50% again heavier and longer. To me they completely negate the whole zen of the Leica M which for me is a small, compact travel outfit. My Cron is the late 55mm-filter so-called compact model and I hardly use it in comparison to my Tele-Elmarit. If ergonomics matter not to you, then get whatever Cron you can get the best condition for the least money. I imagine the coating on later models might make them a little less flare-prone but no idea how much. Be aware that the very first version of the Cron had a separate lens hood (a weird fluted thing) and should be included with purchase because they're hard to find and very expensive. All subsequent ones have their hoods built in.

So I did,Ben. However, as the Elmarit 2.8 is one of the best lenses in the Leica lineup, it deserves a mention in this context imo.

 

[Ben Z]

the Elmarit 2.8 is one of the best lenses in the Leica lineup

Except that it vignettes one full stop at f/2 😀

 

[jaapv]

Except that it vignettes one full stop at f/2 😀

It doesn't if you push your film one stop...😀

 

[Oh Two]

Go for the Tele Elmarit

Go for the Tele Elmarit

The Summicron is big and heavy.

 

[Ben Z]

It doesn't if you push your film one stop...😀

Would be a valid point only if you couldn't also push film while using a Cron🙄

 

[Ben Z]

It doesn't if you push your film one stop...😀

Can't you also push film while using a Cron? 🙄

Actually in all seriousness, I did own the current (46mm-filter) Elmarit. Then I chanced upon a mint pre-ASPH 55mm-filter Cron and when I saw they were indistinguishable (in practical use) performance-wise at all apertures they share in common, and that there really wasn't all that much difference in size and weight, I sold the Elmarit. To me the Cron is a slightly bigger Elmarit with an emergency stop at f/2 😀 For my travels I still go with the Tele-Elmarit. It's about the size of the collapsing Macro Elmar, one stop faster, and cost me half as much.

 

[awilder]

When I first started using Leicas over 20 years ago, I was fanatical about the 90mm focal length and have over the years owned several mint versions, thoroughly testing them with resolution charts and static test subject with plenty of detail. Inspite of what Erwin Puts says, there was absolutely no significant difference in optical performance between the larger E48 version from the '60s and the much more compact E49/55 versions from the '80s. If size and weight matter, of course the E49/55 versions win hands down. When I briefly tried the 90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit, it was not nearly as good as the larger Summicron from the '60s at f/2.8 or f/4. The current 90 Elmarit-M (or 90/2.8 Konica Hexanon-M) however, is the sharpest of all non-apo 90s if you can live with a max. aperture of f/2.8.