Leica 90/2 or 90/2.8 ? What are their characteristics ?

[ijonas]

Hi folks,

What are the lense characteristics of the Leica 90/2 and the 90/2.8 ? Is one sharper than the other ? Is the extra stop worth it ? etc, etc.

Looking for your opinions on my first piece of Leica glass... for the purposes of travel photography and informal portraits.


As ever much appreciated.
Ijonas.

P.S. I don't mind using film such as Neopan 1600 for portraiture so the extra stop might not be necessary for me.

 

[Steve Hoffman]

I have the 2.8, got it new from Tony Rose for around 1k. It's nice and compact, lighter than the 90 f2 and costs half as much. Takes perfect portraits! You can find them used all the time; many people find they just don't use a 90 as much as they thought they would.

Oh, the 1.25 mag add on really helps with focusing.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I do not have the 90mm F2 Summicron, I do have the 90mm F2.8 Tele-Elmarit, "Thin" version. It is very sharp, small, and light. Not much bigger than the F4 Elmar. I have used it mostly outdoors with the M3 for very good results. Have not used it for portraits yet. I also have an 85mm F2 Nikkor and like it for portrait shots. I would not hesitate to pick up an older Summicron 90mm. The older Summicron is not much more cost than the Tele-Elmarit. Bottom line: I think size and weight are the drivers here.

 

[ijonas]

Steve,

What's the "1.25 mag" you're referring too ?

Ij.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Steve is "offline". Leica makes a viewfinder magnifier for use with longer lenses. The 1.25x changes the 0.72 finder to a 0.9x finder, like on the M3. It adds cost and weight. The 0.72 finder should be good enough to focus a 90mm F2.0; I have no problem with the 85mm f2 on the 0.8x Canon 7.

85mm F2, wide-open on the Canon 7.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/1281/size/big/sort/1/cat/539

10.5cm F2.5 at ~F4 on the M3.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/3484/size/big/sort/1/cat/539

 

[Todd.Hanz]

I had a 90/2 summicron once, here are a couple images. The girl was shot wide open at f2, the baby was at f8. Both were scanned on a flatbed and look alot better in reality.
The lens is very sharp, almost too sharp, but still has nice bokeh when you need it. It is also large and heavy but feels very nice and stable on the camera, I'd go for the 90/2 if you don't need the light weight.

 

[Stu :)]

10.5cm F2.5 at ~F4 on the M3.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/3484/size/big/sort/1/cat/539

That's the lens I quietly lust for. Every photo I've seen shot with a 10.5cm/2.5 Nikkor, I look at the bokeh/sharpness compromise and mutter "gosh!".

Stu 🙂

 

[Steve Hoffman]

Steve,

What's the "1.25 mag" you're referring too ?

Ij.

It is this:

http://www.cameraquest.com/LM1.25x.htm

It weighs about what a small feather would weigh. 😎

It turns my .72 90mm frame line into the size of the 50mm line making it VERY easy to do critical focusing with ease in dim light. Crucial for getting the eyes in focus. I recommend it highly!

 

[peter_n]

Like Brian, I have the Leica Tele-Elmarit "thin" 90/2.8. A great little lens that is a bit susceptible to flare, is sharp but not too sharp for portraits. I've attached two pics taken with the lens below. The one of the violinist is taken wide open at f2.8, the shot of the cellos was taken at f4.

 

[richard_l]

The first Leitz lens I bought was the thin 90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit. It's a great little lens.

Here's a shot with the lens at about f/8.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/8292/sort/1/cat/500/page/1

This rose was taken wide open at closest focus to minimize DoF.
http://pw2.netcom.com/~rlsaylor/m6/rose.htm

 

[MCTuomey]

OT, but Todd your color portrait and Peter your violinist are just wunnerful. I am so impressed with what you both can do with your 90s. Wow.

 

[Nikon Bob]

Another vote for the 90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit. I have not used mine a lot but it has impressed me with it's small size and image quality. Mine is the fat version made in Canada. Unless you really need F2 and more bulk and weight the 2.8 is worth seriously considering. Here is a nothing tourist type shot .

Bob

 

[Todd.Hanz]

MCToumey,
thanks ,
if travel or lightweight is an issue the 2.8 is the way to go, both lenses are great but the 90/2 is heavier, larger ,

Todd

 

[peter_n]

Thanks Mike! Film was Kodak T400CN. The "thin" Tele-Elmarit is the perfect travel 90. 🙂

 

[skimmel]

Sorry to be a bit dense, but I have 2 questions:

1) What is the "thin" version of the 2.8?

2) In terms of size and weight: on the B&H website, they have the 90/2.8 at 0.9lbs (14.4 oz) and the 90/2.0 at 1.1 lbs (17.6 oz). Not sure these are the same lenses being discussed here. Are they? If so, doesn't seem to be a huge weight difference, although I can certainly appreciate that every ounce counts.

Thanks.

 

[Designer]

Hi! Skimmel,

The thin type Tele Elmarit is this one,

And the Fat type is here,

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Thin vs "Fat" Elmarit:

http://www.kbcamera.com/elmarit90mm.htm

And my Tele-Elmarit appears to be only 225 Grams! It looks like it gained weight a little later on!

The Summicron looks like it lost weight. I have only handles the first type at 685 grams.

http://www.kbcamera.com/summicron90mm.htm

 

[skimmel]

Thanks everyone for clarifying.

 

[peter_n]

Keven, I don't think that's a thin Tele-Elmarit. I'm at work so I can't post a pic of mine but to begin with the lens tapers in diameter toward the front and the front ring is labeled "Tele-Elmarit" not "Elmarit". Also I don't think the lens has a knurled focusing ring, I think its simply ridged. I'm pretty sure about that, but I'll confirm when I get home tonite. Or back down... 😉

 

[richard_l]

The 90/2.8 Elmarit is still in production. Both the fat and the skinny Tele-Elmarit 90/2.8 are discontinued. My skinny Tele-Elmarit weighs just a tad over 8 oz, and it's only slightly longer than the 50/2 Summicron.

The original Tele-Elmarit was the fat one. The skinny was designed to cut production costs, but like the M2, they produced a winner in the process.