90 Sumnmicron VS 90 APO-ASPH Summicron

[mark_unlisted]

Does anyone have experience with both lenses? I have been using the

latest pre-APO 90mm summicron and am not exactly pleased with the

image quality wide open or even at f=2.8. It always could be a

focussing problem but I generally use a 1.25x magnifier with a 0.85

finder when shooting this lens wide open.

 

What I am wondering is whether or not the change in image quality

going to the new lens is significant and can be seen in general

shooting or if it is only a slight improvement in MTF which is not

always visible in common situations?

[dan d. chang]

I have both and most time I use Pre-APO, pre-Asph just looks better to me at f2.0. personal tastes

[Rob F.]

I have an early Summicron, the one with the folding "drinking cup" hood, for my R5. Then I have an APO-Summicron-M, as well as the early Elmarit and the Tele-Elmarit. I haven't had the APO very long, but I have made a few comparisons.

 

I am seeing cleaner outlines and sharper pictures with the APO, compared to the older Summicron, at f/2, f/2.8, and f/4. Even compared to the early Elmarit, the Summicron is cleaner at f/2.8. Same goes for the Tele-Elmarit.

 

I am pretty impressed by the sharp edges this lens can deliver. I don't feel I have any focusing problems with it, with my unaided .72 finders. You might want to do some focus tests.

[jack_myovski]

<b> I have been using the latest pre-APO 90mm summicron and am not exactly pleased with the image quality wide open or even at f=2.8. It always could be a focussing problem</b></p> If you can't discern lens aberrations from poor focus, I can't fathom what use would be spending money on a new lens, however in the interest of saving Leica from receivership, I encourage you and all like you to speed off to your Leica stockist with cheque in hand.

[mark_unlisted]

Jack, thank you for your generous comment. Unfortunately, I was looking for comments from individuals who had possibly compared the latest pre-APO 90mm Summicron-M to the Asph-APO model. As I design imaging systems which organizations commit multiple millions of dollars to have built, I probably know at least as much about the aberrations of imaging systems as the average PN reader, but in the interest of learning new things, I'll bite. Regardless of the lens in question, how do YOU discern aberrations from defocus.

[jerry_lehrer]

Mark-- Yes, I have used both lenses extensively. (The AA was on long

term loan). I actually saw little if any difference in 8x12 prints. I returned the AA and then discovered a Tele-Elmarit at half the weight

and price. Sold the pre-Asph, and am happy with the Tele Elmarit.

[henry_a]

Assuming you are using a fast enough shutter speed to eliminate camera movement you will see a noticeable difference in favor of the APO at f2 and 2.8 with higher resolution and contrast. I found the APO to be better at f2 than the old lens at 2.8. At 2.8 the APO is just stunningly razor sharp.<br>

<br>

I rank the 90s I've used this way: <br>

<br>

1. 90 APO<br>

2. 90 Elmarit M<br>

3. 90 Summicron last before APO<br>

<br>

All three are good lenses but you can see a difference in performance at f2 & 2.8. I think the Elmarit M may be the prettiest for portraits but the APO is sharper and faster. If the old 90 Summicron is not sharp enough for you then the APO is what you want.

[alan_wilder1]

Mark, the biggest cause of your dissatisfaction with the pre-asph. Summicron is probably due to focusing error that may be within the lens and not neccesarily on your ability to focus. Do yourself a big favor and first test your lens using a fine target like newsprint shot at about 15 ft. Carefully bracket the focus in tiny steps of about 0.5 mm each on the focus scale through 4 or 5 increments on either side of rangefinder focus at f/2.8. Assuming your tripod is sturdy, you should be able to determine how sharp your lens really is. I have used both the current 90/2.8 Elmarit and 90/4 Macro Elmar and found little or discernable difference on resolution testing over the 90/2 pre-asph. even those lenses are reputed to be extremely sharp and closely tied with the Apo Asph. Summicron according to Erwin Puts. Centrally on film my 90 Summicron resolves 80 lp/mm which would (and does) look tack sharp even to a critical viewer. I'm sure the Apo Asph. is the sharpest but if there is a hint of focus error from any source, you'll be just as unhappy with softness but much lighter in the wallet.

[alastair_anderson]

This is simply an opinion; I don't know enough about this to speak with authority. I would imagine that the advantage of the apo-asph is as much about colour correction as it is do do with sharpness. I don't have a 90 apo-asph. I've got two versions of the F2 as well as an elmarit and I've got the new 75 F2. With some relatively unscientific tests (shots of a globe of the world at f2 and at f5.6 with several lenses) I was surprised at how good the pre apo-asph. 90 was. The 75 certainly produced the clearest pictures but I couldn't compare it directly because of the different focal length. I had always been under the impression that my big chrome F2 (non-detachable, telescopic hood) was my best 90 but it was certainly out performed by the black version.

[jack_myovski]

<b>As I design imaging systems which organizations commit multiple millions of dollars to have built, I probably know at least as much about the aberrations of imaging systems as the average PN reader, but in the interest of learning new things, I'll bite. Regardless of the lens in question, how do YOU discern aberrations from defocus.</b></p> I'm not the chap who started the thread, is deliberating exchanging lenses, and said <b> It always could be a focussing problem </b> in the conditional, implying that you were not sure. My point was simply that until and unless you could definitively pinpoint your unhappiness to characteristics of lens design/performance, you would be nothing if not premature in spending additional money for the APO lens.

[Robin Smith]

Jack, I suspect that Mark wants to see whether it is accepted that the f2 Summicron 90 is lousy before he spends a lot of time exhaustively testing it as you suggest he should. Seems perfectly reasonable to me and strikes me as exactly what a forum like this is for. To tap into the collective wisdom of Leica shooters is surely the whole idea?

[alan_wilder1]

Robin to my knowledge, the 90 Summicron has ALWAYS been considered an outstandingly good optic regardless of vintage. The advantage of the apo version is modestly improved performance at f/2 and f/2.8 although the non-apo is no slouch at these apertures either. Beyond that differences are minimal. That said, the downside of this improvement is imaging too sharp for flattering portraiture which is why some people are reluctant to part with the earlier versions. If one is certain that unsatisfactory sharpness is from a faulty lens and you can test the apo version with a return option, go for it if that's the only way to be satisfied. Just be certain all other factors leading to softness have been eliminated first.