Why do I need a 90mm lens on my RF?

DGA

DGA

Well-known
Local time
12:17 PM
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
213
Recently I'm playing with the thought of adding a 90mm lens to my RF kit.
I started thinking about it after a friend had lent me his Jupiter 9 (85mm, f/2) for a few days before he sold it.
I took a couple of rolls with it (mostly portraits) and it caught me. I really liked this focal length and its perspective.

Still, as time goes by, an "evil" thought comes to my mind: why do I need a 90mm lens for my RF? what benefit will it give me, since I already have that focal length in my Canon EOS kit?
well, I can count numerous reasons, like the small size of the RF lens and the construction (I was thinking of the Elmarit 90mm f/2.8). But I was not so self-convinced.
I want a 90mm for my ZI, but I need more good reasons for that.
 
Because RFs are really good for portraiture. Small, quiet, great for low light. Keep the other eye open while talking to the subject. 90mm used to be a very common RF lens for half a century, until the internet said RFs are for "street" only and don't go together with teles :bang:. 90mm goes well together with 28/50, too. You don't really want to add an SLR to that small RF bag of yours, now, do you ? :)

BTW, the Elmarit is a great lens, but so is the 90/2.8 Hexanon.

A recent 90 shot:

371688321_dydPp-L.jpg


Cheers,

Roland.
 
Last edited:
And then, you know, you might fall completely out of the box, by considering the use of an RF tele with camera on tripod :eek:

195926909_WBbxN-L.jpg


Cheers,

Roland.
 
90mm for RF ? :eek: ...:rolleyes: I tried 3 different 90/2.8 and was never satisfied. Then after half a year I got the 90/2.0 Summicron-M (pre-ASPH) Can't say why but really like this lens. :) Since I almost always take photos in the dark, the 2.8 was to limiting and I never brought the 90/2.8 lenses with me. Now, with either the 21/3.4 or 35/2.0 it makes a good combination.
 
"I took a couple of rolls with it (mostly portraits) and it caught me. I really liked this focal length and its perspective."

Sound like compelling easons to me. . . Russian equivalent of the prewar Zeiss 80mm F:2.0 is a magnificent performer (if you get a good sample). Though I have a Leitz Midland 90mm F:2.0 Summicron available to me - I use a 100mm F:2.0 Canon and have been very satisfied with the results. An 85mm F:1.8 Canon (late black finish) . . . I'd like to just see one.

Paul
 
Roland's correct in asserting that RFs are great for portraiture; over time I have used the 90 and 135. I think the best all-round portrait lens I have used is the Leica 75 summilux. I used to think the 75 focal length was a compromise for portrait shots, but now I see it as the sweet-spot, 'go to' focal length for portraiture.
 
In general shooting a 90mm is a must have. Its like insurance; nobody wants its until its too late. Outside the 90mm APO, most are sleeper priced. Used w/ adequate skill they stand their own ground. The problem w/ most of us is that we are so addicted to high-speed lenses that we don't often give the slower 90mm/2.8 lenses a fair shake.

The 90mm Elmarit-M (late model) I purchased from Gabor proved itself recently when I photog John McCain under challenging light condition. I shot into the darkness and into the spotlights as well. All the photos came out sharp & contrasty, shooting Kodachrome@ 400 ISO and the lens 1/60.

When I bought my 75mm/2.5 Summarit recently I toyed with the idea of selling the 90mm. I finally decided the 90 is a must have for a RF shooter.
 
You do not need it. You want it. No question...the 90mm is great. I always keep a few portrait lenses of varying lengths. The prime is much sharper than the VF lenses. The VF are good for sports events but not straight portraits. If you do not have a lens within 75mm to 105mm you could be missing something. AS far as the lens that you are contemplating...as I read recently...people argue ad infinitum ref the difference in Leica lenses but in the end they are all good. As opposed to the 50mm lens the 90mm (Elmarit) IMHO makes a big difference. You may not need it in life but go for it you will not be disappointed. Good Luck.
 
Thanks you, guys.
Roland, great pictures. You are indeed a brave man, mounting your RF+90mm on a tripod :p
The advantages of the RF system outside are well known and appreciated by me.
But what about using RF+90mm in more controlled environments, like studios or interiors where the subject is acceptive and cooperative.
can you see any advantages to the RF system in such cases?
 
DGA said:
Still, as time goes by, an "evil" thought comes to my mind: why do I need a 90mm lens for my RF? what benefit will it give me, since I already have that focal length in my Canon EOS kit?
Click to expand...

To me a key issue is to add versatility. You only need to carry the the 90mm and can leave the heavy evil EOS at home. Still you can do a lot of the things you could do with your EOS.
 
well i din't know about that elmarit, but the small size...hmm hmmm. I have an older version 90/2 summicron and it is a huge beast! ANY 90mm SLR lens would be smaller than that - even 85mm f/1.4 lenses.
But i still like it:)
 
I have the V2 90mm Chrome Summicron, and I use it quite a bit, actually. I had one twenty years ago, and I really like the lens. So when I bought a second Leica body, I bought a second 90mm Leitz lens. This time, a collapsible 90mm f4 Elmar :cool:
 
Perhaps with a high magnification finder I might have taken to it better, but I found on a standard .72 M6 viewfinder that the 90mm frame lines were too small to compose really accurately. I also found the 90mm Summicron too hard to focus accurately wide open but then I don't have fabulous eyesight. Since longer lenses wide open have such shallow DOF, using an SLR give a much more faithful representation of what you're going to get on the neg. As far as I'm concerned, the ONLY advantage of the longer lenses in RF is the smaller size and since I make my living at this, that's just not enough of an advantage, for me anyway. To be blunt, I just find the 90mm on RF much harder. to use than on SLR. I sold my 90mm summicron for less than I paid (used) and it was not easy to sell, took a long time. When I have work that requires sustained use of long lenses, I tend to leave the Leicas at home and use the SLR's.
 
You do have a point there, Pablito. I use the 90/2 on M3 (combo used for the first picture above), which has very nice 90mm framelines. The next best 90 Leica is the M2, IMO, but EBL is a bit on the short side. The M6 90 framelines are not really adequate.

But since the OP asked for a 90/2.8 and uses a ZI, I figured EBL and framelines not to be a problem.

Best,

Roland.
 
Last edited:
Good photo. Was it an Elmarit, a Tele-Elmarit, or Elmar-C?


CJ

ferider said:
Because RFs are really good for portraiture. Small, quiet, great for low light. Keep the other eye open while talking to the subject. 90mm used to be a very common RF lens for half a century, until the internet said RFs are for "street" only and don't go together with teles :bang:. 90mm goes well together with 28/50, too. You don't really want to add an SLR to that small RF bag of yours, now, do you ? :)

BTW, the Elmarit is a great lens, but so is the 90/2.8 Hexanon.

A recent 90 shot:

371688321_dydPp-L.jpg


Cheers,

Roland.
Click to expand...
 
Pherdinand said:
i have the same 90/2 but in black, Nokton.
It's a nice chunk of glass, isn't it?
Click to expand...


Yes very nice chunk of glass, on M2 or M5.

Still waiting to get the 90 Collapsible Elmar. Hoped it would arrive today. I love my chrome 50mm f2.8 Elmar, so it'll be nice to have the set.

Somedays Elmars, somedays Summicrons. Life is good.
 
Versatility.
I have a Pentax K10D that I generally use for telephoto work, alongside my M8, equipped with a 28 or 35.
But sometimes, I'd rather travel as light as possible. So I'll toss a CV75 in my bag and leave the Pentax at home. (that's effectively a 90mm with the crop factor)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom