90mm vs. 75mm APO-Summicron ASPH

[Rob-F]

I've had both. I had the 90mm APO briefly and decided to change to the 75mm, which I have had for a few years now. I thought I would like the 75mm better, since it is smaller and lighter, and some feel it's the better lens. And I have gotten some incredibly sharp shots with it.

But: I have used my 90mm Elmarit for so many years, I feel really accustomed to the 90mm focal length. Also, I like the 90mm frameline better than the 75mm one inset inside the 50mm frame. And I can use the 90 on my M2 and M5 without the external finder.

What would you do, or which do you prefer?

 

[retinax]

You still have the 90mm Elmarit? Then you're set, you have lenses that are plenty good in both FLs. I find 75 to be an awkward in-between, but that may not apply to you especially if you don't use the 50 much.

 

[Timmyjoe]

I'm a huge fan of the 90mm summicron pre-APO, especially for portraits. It's just a tad less sharp and I find more flattering to faces. Not a fan of the 75mm focal length, too close to 50mm for my liking.

Best,
-Tim

 

[icebear]

Since about 3 years I use my 2/75 asph for like 90% of my shots. I get up close, fill the frame to the max. and shoot as wide open as the light allows. I like the results. I have an older version of 2/90 as well, similar size/shape as the asph. version. Obviously both asph. version deliver incredible IQ. If the FL is right for your perspective than either can be used. The frame corners for the 75 are little to get used to. Either you do or you get rid of the lens or seldom use it just for that particular issue.

 

[Rob-F]

You still have the 90mm Elmarit? Then you're set, you have lenses that are plenty good in both FLs. I find 75 to be an awkward in-between, but that may not apply to you especially if you don't use the 50 much.

Yes, I have the original chrome Elmarit 90mm that I bought new in the early 1960's. I have always thought it was a very sharp lens, although I understand the current 90 Elmarit is supposed to be even better. I also have the thin Tele-Elmarit. It more often goes in the bag because it is so small and handy. And that makes me wonder just how often I would really use the Summicron. Possibly I should go for the current Elmarit, but I could never sell my original Elmarit after all these years. It's a conflict between sentiment, practicality, vs. wanting the best.

 

[james.liam]

70mm (followed by 28) was my favored FL using a 24-70 in SLR days and hoped the same of the 75 APO. To my chagrin, the hit-rate on any of my M bodies was disappointing and despite a once-over by DAG, nothing much helped it. Paradoxically, no such issues on a borrowed late-version 75 Summilux. If the stars align one day, will seek out a good copy or failing that, go for a CV 1,5/75.

As for the 90, have the R APO on an R9, it's spectacular no matter the subject. Waiting on an EVF & R adapter M to try it on an M10.

 

[dof]

I'd say keep your 75mm Summicron and the 90mm Elmarit. That's a winning combo. I really enjoy the 75mm perspective, but sometimes you just need a 90mm lens.

A few thoughts:

I've shot both the APO 90mm and the latest Elmarit-M 90mm. Of the two, the Elmarit gets brought along more often. Its contrast and resolution aren't as highly refined as the APO, but it's a fine lens.

The 75mm framelines in the M cameras aren't ideal, but I find them easier to use than the 90mm ones. The 90mm view is quite small on a .72 viewfinder. The easier to use framelines combined with the moderate compressed/telephoto effect and the smaller size of the lens make it the winner in this contest.

 

[james.liam]

The 90mm view is quite small on a .72 viewfinder.

Way easier on a 0.85 finder but still not a given. EVF or LV for both fast 75 and 90 are the ideal options for consistent results nowadays.

 

[Rob-F]

I'd say keep your 75mm Summicron and the 90mm Elmarit. That's a winning combo. I really enjoy the 75mm perspective, but sometimes you just need a 90mm lens.

A few thoughts:

I've shot both the APO 90mm and the latest Elmarit-M 90mm. Of the two, the Elmarit gets brought along more often. Its contrast and resolution aren't as highly refined as the APO, but it's a fine lens.

The 75mm framelines in the M cameras aren't ideal, but I find them easier to use than the 90mm ones. The 90mm view is quite small on a .72 viewfinder. The easier to use framelines combined with the moderate compressed/telephoto effect and the smaller size of the lens make it the winner in this contest.

The 75mm framelines are larger than the 90mm ones, and that scores a point for the 75. But although the 90mm frame is small, I don't find it too small ( the 135mm framelines are definitely too small), and the 90mm framelines are at least uncluttered--score one for the 90. When shooting with the 75mm lens, I find the 50mm frames distracting. Deduct one point from the 75.

The 75 is smaller and handier. There are just as many good compositions with a 75 as there are for the 90. I think dof may be right, here. Maybe I should just keep what I have.

 

[Rob-F]

Eight to nothing in favor of the 75mm! I should think twice about getting the 90 . . .

 

[Rob-F]

Another thing I'm considering (and without starting yet another 85/90 thread) is whether I'd notice any improvement over my old 1959 chrome Elmarit if I simply upgraded to the more recent, and current, 90 Elmarit. The latter is a quarter the price of the APO-Summicron, and is smaller and lighter. Most of my shots are in the f/4 to f/8 range anyway. And, when using a Leica, they are mostly hand-held. I would think color and contrast might be better with the newer lens.

 

[awilder]

Of all the 90/2.8's from Leica, the best hands down in terms of IQ is the latest Elmarit-M M lens. Razor sharp at any aperture without any drawback except that it may be too sharp for portraiture. The previous Tele-Elmarit version was not as sharp, flared more in adverse lighting but was super compact being just slightly larger than the V3 50 'cron. The early 90 Elmarit was a long non-tele design, the softest of the group and it's only advantage was having a 12 blade aperture (round @ f/22) and removable head for Visoflex use. If you don't need the speed of a Summicron, the Elmarit-M is the way to go. Despite it's great reputation, I've always felt the 75 too close to a 50 unless you prefer a 35 as your norm instead of a 50. However, many consider to 50 as THE focal length for Leica.

 

[Rob-F]

Of the 90/2.8's, the best in terms of IQ is hands down was the latest Elmarit-M M lens. Razor sharp at any aperture without any drawback except that it may be too sharp for portraiture. The previous Tele-Elmarit version was not as sharp, flared more in adverse lighting but was super compact being just slightly larger than the V3 50 'cron. The early 90 Elmarit was a long non-tele design, the softest of the group and it's only advantage was having a truly circular aperture blades and removable head for Visoflex use. If you don't need the speed of a Summicron, the Elmarit-M is the way to go. Despite it's great reputation, I've always felt the 75 too close to a 50 unless you prefer a 35 as your norm instead of a 50. However, many consider to 50 as THE focal length for Leica.

Yes, the 35 is my normal lens. I do use the 50 as well. I've always felt that my old chrome Elmarit was a very sharp lens, at least around f/8. But if the current Elmarit is that much better--at the widest apertures, I suspect--then I think that is maybe the way to go. Something about your wording sounds like the newer Elmarit may be a but physically shorter than mine. If so, that would be a plus. I do have the thin TE when compactness is needed, though.

 

[awilder]

Yes, the 35 is my normal lens. I do use the 50 as well. I've always felt that my old chrome Elmarit was a very sharp lens, at least around f/8. But if the current Elmarit is that much better--at the widest apertures, I suspect--then I think that is maybe the way to go. Something about your wording sounds like the newer Elmarit may be a but physically shorter than mine. If so, that would be a plus. I do have the thin TE when compactness is needed, though.

The latest Elmarit-M (1990) being a telephoto design is shorter but a little heavier than the original Elmarit (1959) which was a triplet variant. I suspect they probably kept the Elmarit in production until 1974 while still making the more compact Tele-Elmarit versions (starting in 1964) because it's optical head could be unscrewed for Visoflex units and according to Leitz literature, reportedly performed better at near compared to compact telephoto designs. Since you already have a TE, the only gain with the Elmarit-M is improved IQ, certainly not size or weight.

 

[Rob-F]

The 90 f/2 is a slight stretch for focusing accuracy with my Leica bodies. I have .72 finders, but no .85 or .93 (M3). That's not good enough for the most critical focusing wide open. From that point of view, I'd be better off with the Elmarit. On the other hand, merely stopping down to f/2.8 brings it well within the strictest requirements with the .72 finder. (I'm going by the table in Appendix E of Erwin Put's Leica Lens Compendium. He shows that for 90mm and F/2.8, the Effective Base Length need to be 28.9mm for a 0.03 circle of confusion; or 37.6mm EBL for a .02mm circle of confusion. And The .72 finder has an EBL of 49.86mm. A .72 finder isn't quite within specs for a 90 f/2 at the .02mm standard.

So I'm thinking that the APO Summicron at f/2.8 probably outperforms even the current Elmarit wide open. I don't actually know this, it's just what I seem to believe. Does anyone have experience with that comparison?

Of course, at the older standard of a .03mm circle of confusion, even the 0.72 finder is within limits at f/2, only calling for a 48.5mm EBL. Not sure that really takes advantage of the APO performance, though.

 

[narsuitus]

For my 35mm SLR, I have an 85mm prime lens and several zoom lenses that cover the 75mm, 85mm, and 90mm focal lengths. For my M6, I have a 90mm Summicron.

For head & shoulder portraits, I prefer the 85mm focal length. The 90mm is my second choice. The 75mm is my third choice.

 

[Rob-F]

I won't be using it for portraits. I use my 90mm for landscapes, city, pictorial shots. My 1959 90mm Elmarit has always been adequate, but the 90mm Summicron has always fascinated me, and the APO-Summicron even more so. Upgrading to the current Elmarit seems sensible enough. But if I got the APO-Summicron, even though I would be using it at least a little bit stopped down, would there be any advantage in image quality over the Elmarit at those same apertures?

There, that's a simpler way of putting it.

 

[narsuitus]

What would you do, or which do you prefer?

I normally shoot my 90mm Summicron with a 35mm f/1.4 and a 21mm f/1.4. I never considered any lens slower than f/2 for my Leica rangefinder because I shoot a lot under dim lighting conditions and really need fast lenses.

When I was shopping for a Leica telephoto lens, I considered the 75mm and the 90mm. I purchased the 90mm Summicron because I preferred the extra focal length and the 90mm was within my budget.

Since then, I periodically explore the possibility of replacing my 90mm Summicron with a faster 75mm Voigtländer or 75mm 7artisan but have never been able to justify the replacement.

I primarily use my 90mm for photojournalistic, street, and travel type subjects. I rarely use it for landscapes because I prefer medium format for scenic type shots. I rarely use it for portraits because I prefer the SLR for formal and informal portraits.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

I've owned both, just not at the same time. For me the results were indistinguishable. I could justify holding on to one or the other, but not both. I rarely used either, but the 75 probably got slightly more use compared to the 90.

There is very little difference between them in every respect - other than size.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Similar characteristics. It's just with the 90 you need a bit more shutter speed to hold things steady. In that sense, the 90 is, in my opinion, slightly less flexible. Both have marvelous image making qualities.