A Comparison of Four 90mm Lenses

[vrgard]

i thik it's interesting that we are all looking at the same pics but coming to very different conclusions.

i like how the background looks and the contrast and shadow detail of the rokkor the best.
i am assuming the 90/4 elmar c would be much the same.

joe

Yep, that's exactly why I wanted to hear comments along with conclusions. Thanks, Joe, for stepping up and sharing your further thoughts.

-Randy

 

[RayPA]

Ray:

I can't tell all that much from these sheets. Maybe because my monitor is getting old, like me!

I was interested because I was thinking about getting a 90 and leaning to the Voigtlander.

Can you please characterize your results and provide some further detail? If you post the pictures on a gallery, let us know so we can have a closer look. I presume those would be high resolution scans...

BTW, your daughter has potential as a model. Keep working with her! ;-)

JJW

This comparison obviously is not meant to be anything definitive. I had no agenda going into the comparison (e.g., eliminating/selling a lens). The reason for the comparison is just to get a feel for the 4 lenses.

I found the lighter tones of both the Leica and the CV to be peculiar—and chalk it up to a characteristic of the lenses (contrast?), and the juxtaposition with the Hex and the Rokkor (I imagine on some monitors the lightness is probably appearing drastically different).

I rule out exposure or scanning, and offer the two shots below, one from the CV and the other from the Rokkor (from a different roll, and different processing and scanning session), which were shot one-after-the-other, and exhibit the same characteristic of the comparison here (see below).

As far as coming to some conclusion, I went into this knowing the CV lens was very nice—a sharp lens capable of some creamy tones (see the guitar below)—but I was surprised to see how well it held up, and how much it looks like the Leica. It's the one lens that I've owned the longest, but I had never really put it to portraiture.

I own several Hexanon lenses, and they all seem to exhibit the same 'heavy' characteristics, so the look of the 90 Hex didn't really surprise me.

I think the f4 sheet probably exemplifies the look of each lens the best.

I like speed, which was why I got the Leica and the Hex. The Hex is a very nice compromise in size. If I get a chance I'll shoot a digital of all four tonight.

For portraiture, all around 90mm usage, and value I think the CV is the lens to get. I'm always getting blown away by the results I get with this lens. The martini glasses below was one of the first shots I took with this lens. It is very sharp and has a nice smoothness to it.

However, the Rokkor and the Hex have a definite look that I like as well. The Rokkor guitar shot below just works for me. Comparing the two guitar shots, one looks bluesy and rough, and the other folkesy and sweet.

🙂

 

[telenous]

Thank you Ray, excellent comparative test. I will side with those who prefer the Summicron and the CV over the Rokkor and the Hexanon (in that order). I find the lower contrast of the first two lenses working to their advantage in this specific situation. Higher contrast works better IMO when you wish to give the photos a harsher, documentary-style look.

 

[Honus]

Ray,

Interesting test. I love lens comparisons.

I was a bit baffled as to why the Leitz and CV lenses looked overexposed compared to the Hexanon and Rokkor. It's because they are.

Comparing just the Leica and Rokkor:
In the first set:
Leica f2.0 @ 500
Rokkor f4.0 @ 250
The Leica is one stop faster

In the second set:
Leica f4.0 @ 125
Rokkor f4.0 @ 250 / f5.6 @ 125
The Leica is one stop faster again

In the third set:
Leica f8.0 @ 30
Rokkor f8.0 @ 60
Again, one stop difference.

Those two lenses have the most interest to me, but I would like to see them at the same exposures.

Very cute daughter, btw.

Robert

 

[RayPA]

Hi Robert,

The process I used was to shoot with one lens after another, not to swap lenses for each f-stop. I also metered before each lens, and shot, using an incident meter. I shot in the following order Hex, Leica, CV, Rokkor. It was a partly cloudy day, and I did experience some change in light. I also didn't account for 1/2 stops, preferring to stick to the actual f-stops and deal with the variations (the camera was an MP). For instance, the CV was shot at 1/250 @ f3.5, followed by 1/125 @ f4. There are obviously variations in exposure, but I think the characteristics come across. Scientific? No way. Just a down and dirty comparison.

🙂

 

[Honus]

Ray,

Fair enough. I didn't mean for my comments to sound like criticism. You put a lot of thought and work into it. I was just initially confused by what appeared to be lower contrast in the 'cron and cv lenses. I prefer the fingerprints of the 'cron and rokkor.

I really like how you arrranged the shots as a group. It was very easy to do direct comparisons, even on a 12" laptop. I hope others will follow your lead in the future.

As I have stated before ad nauseam, I love lens tests.

Robert

 

[amateriat]

But there are always exceptions (to quote Mr. Winwood):

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/90hex.html

Of course, what one gets out of a particular lens rides somewhat on what your're putting in (film/exposure/development/...light!). A bit of alchemy here – what's your favorite film? Developer? Paper? Scanning regimen?

And how much has your choice in lens influenced any or all of the above?

Having a trio of lenses from the same family (M-Hexanon in this case) means consistency, which is a bit more important to me in my work than pining for a particular "signature" from a particular focal length. I never was all that fond of mix n' match (not knocking it, it just doesn't figure for my way of working). And, since I'm working with modern emulsions, it seems fitting to me that the lenses I'm using are somewhat contemporary too (although all three of these lenses borrow rather heavily from what we now regard as classic optical formulas, with a few interesting tweaks made along the way).

Just one of a zillion ways to go after the light...


- Barrett

 

[raid]

This is an interesting comparison of four 90mm lenses. Thanks for the information and your efforts to get the job done and to inform us here.

I would try to shoot at max aperture but also add a comparison at the same aperture and shutter speed. A 90mm/2.0 lens should be also tested at 4.0 when being compared to a 90mm/4 lens, for example.

I don't think that any of the four lenses tested resulted in bad looking images. As usual, the bokeh test may be a factor for some. I can see Frank S. somehwhere saying " As a scientist, I would prefer a comparison based on photos taken with a tripod supported camera ..." 🙂
There, we may see some differences for close-ups.


I like the results of the Summicron lens. Maybe that's because I have one like it and I like what it can do, after having used this lens for many years. This is personal bias, and we see it here when different people comment very differently on the same lens. That's good. There is no dog among these four lenses.

 

[raid]

You have:

Leica 90/2
M-Hexanon 90/2.8
CV 90/3.5
Minolta Rokkor 90/4

I have:

Leitz 90/2.0 Summicron (first version)
Leitz 90/2.8 (Elmarit)
Leitz 90/4 (Elmar)
Canon 85mm/1.9
Steinheil 85mm/2.8

Only one lens is in common. From my personal experience with my 90mm lenses, I find the 90/2 a first-class heavy lens that gives very pleasing results overall. The Elmarit is a good balance in performance between the Summicron and the Elmar, but some may prefer it over the Summicron. The 90/4 is an excellent lens with a nice signature for portraits.

As for the Canon 85/1.9 lens, it is not bad at all and neither is the Steinheil 85mm/2.8. Neither lens is very sharp wide open, but both give nice results overall.

 

[sjc]

Thanks Ray for the generous use of your time to do this. I'm about ready to try a lens in this focal length and wondered if it would be worth tracking down a M-Hex. Kind of hard to come by these days and I'm sure quite expensive. The CV is probably more doable. One question for anybody who cares to say: do you use an external finder or can you you really compose and shoot with those tiny 90 framelines?? (I would use a Hexar RF or Canon P with the tele).

Steven

 

[amateriat]

Steven: I haven't had much of a problem with the 90mm M-Hex on my Hexars, but I also think this is a matter of temperament: if you're mostly used to shooting, say, 85-135mm teles on SLRs, shooting similar focal lengths with an RF – any RF – might seem something of a sea-change at first, but, up to 90mm at least, you should be able to adjust. Note that some RFs really won't be too pleasant to work with at 90mm and above (any Leica with a .58 magnification finder isn't a great idea for this, while a .85 is essentially purpose-made for tele work; ditto for M3s and CV's R3a).


- Barrett

 

[Dougg]

Ray, thanks for your efforts in putting together this interesting test, and thanks to your daughter as well! I agree with some others that the Hexanon is least-favorite, but they're all good.

I don't have any of those lenses, just the Tele-Elmarit and G-system Sonnar. Steven, I avoid using the Tele-Elmarit on my CLE due to the small framelines, but on the M2 it's fine. I've also used it on a Bessa-T with Voigtlander 90mm finder, which gives a big bright view, very nice indeed! But it's not hard to forget to set the finder's parallax distance setting, and to get crossed up on the parallax!

 

[wlewisiii]

. Steven, I avoid using the Tele-Elmarit on my CLE due to the small framelines,

Whereas I use my 90 Elmar on my CL quite regularly with very good results. OTOH, using an external finder for my Canon 135/3.5 has been quite the ... experiance... :bang: Gotta remember paralax!

It boils down to preferences really. I don't find the small size of the finder a hinderance and actually like all the space around it to help me choose what to keep in and what to leave out.

William

 

[Steve B]

Differences

Differences

I like the Leica and the CV in that order. Maybe its because they seem lower in contrast and that works with an available light portrait. Maybe with a different type of scene the higher contrast that I see in the Rokkor and the Hexanon would work better than they do in the portrait. I'm a little surprised at my favorites as I have a Hexanon 35mm that I absolutely love. But I also shoot mainly landscapes and one of the things I like about the lens is its high contrast, especially with color slide film.
Thanks for sharing your experiment with us. I may buy a 90 one day and now I have a little more info to base a purchase on. I can't seem to get carried away too much with lens tests but this type of comparison is more relevant to me.

 

[RayPA]

Just to follow-up beyond the initial comparison, I took a shot at PS'ing (levels and USM) the 90/2 @ f4, and the M-Hex 90/2.8 @ f4 to try to bring them closer together.

🙂

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[Igor.Burshteyn]

Would be interesting to see 100% crop of eye in each test. Just for the sake of comparison :>

 

[RObert Budding]

I'd really like to see a comparison shot with identical exposures. It's difficult to compare when the exposures differ.

 

[Bertram2]

Hi All,

Here's a comparison of four 90mm lenses.

• Leica 90/2
• M-Hexanon 90/2.8
• CV 90/3.5
• Minolta Rokkor 90/4

I ganged the images onto single "sheets," because I don't do well with comparisons when the images are in separate files.
🙂

Ray,
thanks for this knowledgeable way of presentation with the sheets, one of the very few "tests" I've seen here which are really interesting, because it allows a direct comparison side by side. Interesting to see that both Hexanon and Rokkor represent a certain kind of philosophy as Leica and CV represent another one.

I like the Leica / CV side more, and it is amazing to see how close the CV is to the Leica lens. As somebody who always tends more to the slower lens because of size and weight the CV would be my choice. The price gap is enormously anyway in this case. Got the 75 already tho, which fits better for me than 90mm.

Amazing also to see again how very different the "look" of a lens can be, it's so much more decisive for someone who has to choose than any stupid MTF charts about resolution performance and other technical specs.

First the sheet makes that visible, well done ! 🙂

Thanks,
bertram

 

[KoNickon]

Someone asked for people to explain their preferences in the lens tests. I guess I value more detail than others -- that is, the Summicron and the CV seemed to be both washed out, i.e. lower contrast, and actually not as sharp as the Hexanon and Rokkor, pretty much at all apertures. (The different exposures within the same groups of pictures do somewhat emphasize these differences, though.) Now I realize a certain lack of sharpness can be preferable in portraits, but I've never seen that as critical. And, with pictures of a child, as here, it's not as though there are wrinkles or blemishes to hide!

Ray's use of PhotoShop for the Summicron and Hexanon at f4 is interesting -- but I still find that the Hexanon brings out more detail and is preferable. And, it's more contrasty -- I don't know why Magus thinks the Summicron is more contrasty there.

I've used the Hexanon for several years, and recently acquired the Rokkor and the CV and am looking forward to trying them out. I also got a (hazy) collapsible Elmar that I'm eager to try out too -- that could make for an interesting contrast (no pun intended).