Sean Reid tests 90mm RF lenses

[mfogiel]

Sean Reid has just published his 90mm RF lens test on Leica M8. The article is very well made, as always. I don't think I will reveal too much if I say the CV 90/3.5 seems to be as usual the best price/quality choice (within the limitations of the max aperture). What has puzzled me, is that his copy of Sonnar85/2 looked like a lemon while his 90/2.8 Elmarit was quite impressive. My hitherto experience with the Elmarit, is that it is a dog when confronted with other Zeiss lenses I own (notably the 85/1.4 Planar ZF). His conclusion has been, he is going to have the Sonnar checked or replaced, my conclusion is, that I will have my Elmarit calibrated... Have you had notable performance variations in your longer lenses respect to the expected (or implied by MTF's) results?

 

[BigSteveG]

what other lenses (if any), did

what other lenses (if any), did

he test with?

 

[awilder]

Which Elmarit version? Sorry, I don't have a subscription to his site. The current Elmarit-M is undoubtedly the best in it's class and on par with the 90/2 AA or 90/4 MEM based on my personal use. The 90.3.5 CV apo is optically very close and a better value on a budget. The original 1959 90/2.8 Elmarit is also quite good and outstanding stopped down to f/5.6, only bested by the current version at f/2.8 or f/4.

 

[alexz]

I'm subscriber to his tests, today went over his 90mm review. Proved my chocie of current Elmarit - the best (overall price/performance IMHO) among the entire gang....
Moreover, its used value is just outstanding comparative to those of 90 AA to which is fairs very well..

 

[mfogiel]

Mr Reid is comparing The huge 90/2 Summicron, the 90/2 Apo Summicron ASPH, the Zeiss Sonnar 85, the Elmarit 90/2.8, the 90/3.5 Apo Lanthar, and the 90/4 Macro Elmar. I have the current Elmarit version, like the one tested in this review.

 

[back alley]

no hexanon 90/2.8?

 

[BigSteveG]

I'm bummed he didn't include the Hex......

I'm bummed he didn't include the Hex......

I have one on the way.

 

[FanMan]

... his copy of Sonnar85/2 looked like a lemon ...

the new one??

 

[mfogiel]

There's no Hexanon lens in the test, and yes it is the new Sonnar ZM- actually his lens is apparently nr 2 lens made... but it didn't perform the same way against Leica as in Puts tests, so I am sceptical, and so is Mr Reid. But if he has a Zeiss lemon, I can boast a Leica lemon, so we better get them both fixed...

 

[FanMan]

There's no Hexanon lens in the test, and yes it is the new Sonnar ZM- actually his lens is apparently nr 2 lens made... but it didn't perform the same way against Leica as in Puts tests, so I am sceptical, and so is Mr Reid. But if he has a Zeiss lemon, I can boast a Leica lemon, so we better get them both fixed...

I cannot believe it - a 2,500 EURO lens should perform perfectly, whether it is nr 2 or nr 2,500. What was the "defect" of the lens?

 

[Harry Lime]

I have mixed feelings about his reviews.

Reid does a much better job at evaluating ergonomics etc than Puts. This should not come as a surprise since Reid is a photographer.

But I'm still trying to figure out how he thinks he can perform aperture, by aperture examinations and comparisons between lenses without the proper test gear or even a resolution chart. He claims that he just making general evaluations as a photographer shooting outside of the lab in the real world, but that's not how large portions of his reviews come across to me.

Anyhow, I tend to read reviews from different sources and then draw my own conclusions.

 

[mfogiel]

The Sonnar didn't focus properly, and was softer than most of these lenses, which I find difficult to believe, as Mr Puts, who is notoriously a Leicaphile has given the Sonnar very high marks (maybe he had the nr 1 sample ? 🙂). Considering there is no substantial difference in construction between the SLR and RF lenses at this FL, and that my 85/1.4 Planar ZF - a new edition of an old lens really, wipes the floor three times over with my Elmarit 90, I would think the Sonnar, being an f2.0 lens should be substantially sharper, and indeed its MTF's suggest precisely that.

 

[ferider]

The Sonnar didn't focus properly .

Maybe it's not so easy to focus an 85/2 on an M with a 1.3x crop factor ?

Just a thought.

 

[FanMan]

Maybe it's not so easy to focus an 85/2 on an M with a 1.3x crop factor ?

Just a thought.

but then he should have had the same problem with a 90mm

 

[ferider]

but then he should have had the same problem with a 90mm

It's a Sonnar (Ernostar?), you know ... check the various threads on the 50/1.5, please. Also, kindly
remember Sean's review of the 50 Sonnar, which was very "soft" wide open.

 

[FanMan]

it's a sonnar - maybe that's the reason. The Zeiss page says "This lens gives you perfectly sharp images over the entire focusing range from infinity to close-up – even wide open." Okay, okay, from the c-sonnar threads and from my own experience with my c-sonnar 1.5/50 I know that the information published by CZ on their lenses in the beginning sometimes is ... hm, let's say: not very accurate. The mtf-diagram (to be honest I am not very familiar with those) however shows - compared to the 50mm c-sonnar's - that it should not be such soft wide open.

 

[ferider]

It is probably sharp but focus is just shifted.

Also, wrt Puts' review, please have a look at

http://www.imx.nl/photo/canon/state_of_the_art_of_medium_.html

scroll down about half the page where he compares bokeh of the 85/2 to
the Summicron 90/2, obviously at different apertures !

Cheers,

Roland.

 

[sirius]

Sean Reid was testing a preproduction version of the Zeiss 85mm. He reserved final judgment on it because of this.

 

[awilder]

A few observations. The name Sonnar in the case of this particular design does not refer to the classic Sonnar design as this is not a modified high speed triplet as with other classic Sonnars. It is closer to as Gauss design like the 90/2 AA Summicon or the 85/2 AIS Nikkor. Not really important to the sharpness issue, just Zeiss using artistic license on their product. It's highly unlikey that the optical design is flawed but more likely an rf focusing error with the lens either on the rf cam agreement or testing error. Highly corrected modern lenses demand exacting focus accuracy for this focal length and speed. Lesser corrected lenses many years ago had a little more leeway in focus accuacy and still gave decent peformance as there was a slightly greater spread in the point of focus unlike lenses like this where aberration contol is far greater. Additionally, if one looks at the distance scale of this lens, you can see how compressed it is compared to the competition making focus error slightly more prone to occur.

 

[ferider]

I wasn't trying to imply that the 85/2 design is flawed in anyway - I am excited about
the lens finally being released. Neither is the 50/1.5 - I love mine.

But with a single sample of a lens, treated exactly like other more symmetrical
designs, user error can be introduced easily, in particular with a camera
that multiplies the focal length (and decreases DOF) by factor 1.3.

Some modern, longer and faster RF lenses do shift and the
ways to use them and measure resolution are (1) on the bench, or (2) via
manual correction, or (3) via focus bracketing.

Plus one might want to have camera and lens adjusted to each other
before starting to use the combo - as was customary with Noctilux and
M3 in the beginning, for instance. The 85/2 and Noctilux have practically
identical DOF.

Best,

Roland.