Am I crazy to hate my 90mm? ;-) (Summ A-A)

[john_newell2]

With apologies to the post below - I actually love the 90-100mm range - I

wanted to see what others' views are on the 90mm A-A Summicron. I bought one

a while ago but for various reasons haven't used it much. I got a bunch of

pictures back last week and the thing that's really noticeable is that the

subject is scarey-sharp but quite a few of the pictures look as if the subject

was trimmed from another print and pasted onto the background. I'm used to

the 3D 'pop' that the 100mm Apo-Elmarit R gives, but the 90mm A-A seems to be

almost a case of too much of a good thing. Not all the photos had the cut and

paste look, but quite a few did. Does anyone else have these reactions? Film

was NPH, fwiw.

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

My "issue" with the 90 is that it's not an ideal focal length for the M. Much better on an slr.

50mm and below is fine (for me) on the M. I have the 90mm tele-elmarit which is a wonderful

little lens and I carry it with me if on extended travel and no slr, but otherwise it doesn't get

much use. John--I've heard of 90AA owners returning the lens because, basically, it's "too"

sharp. good luck out there!

[len_smith]

It appears that you are complaining about the "exquisite 3D bokeh" that is often said to be one of the main reasons to buy this lens!

 

It is certainly a very sharp performer. If it is too sharp for you, consider trading it for an older (pre-ASPH) Summicron. That is still a sharp lens, but perhaps not "over-sharp" in the way that the APO ASPH might be described.

 

Personally, I prefer the 90mm f/2.8 Elmarit current version, which is plenty sharp and has enough of a 3D effect, but doesn't give results that look anything other than natural. I also have older versions of the Summicron and Elmarit, and these have soft bokeh but still with more than adequate sharpness.

[SCL]

Got some examples to show? I love the results from mine...but perhaps we're looking to use it for different purposes. Most of my work with it is nature work where I want to differentiate the subject from a background. I haven't had time to experiment with portraits yet, although I've used other 90mm elmarit & summicrons over the years with very pleasing results.

[steve george]

I love the 90mm Summicron pre-asph - I've got an old version with tripod mount on the bottom etc. It's sharp at f2 but not too sharp if that makes any sense at all - black and white portraits with it are great.

[Robin Smith]

Interesting. I am continuing my quest for the perfect 90mm myself. I had the current Elmarit and exchanged it for a pre ASPH 'cron (I thought the Elmarit lacked "character"), but I am still not all that happy with the weight, but on the other hand the pictures it takes are great. Sometimes I think I am just "off" the 90mm length on a 0.72X. If I had the money I would be awfully tempted by the 75mm APO. The curious thing is that 20 years ago when I had an M3 I used the 90mm Tele-Elmarit all the time and loved it. How times change. The even odder thing is that I do like my 135mm, although I guess I have always used it less than the 90mm so my expectations are much lower.

[frederick_muller]

This lens is so sharp you can cut yourself on it. Just took it on a trip to central Europe where it was one of my main lenses on an RD-1s. The field of view in that case was that of a 135mm f2, and the results were stellar provided I only used the f2 for longer range shots and confined myself to f2.8 for close-ups. This is not a limitation of the lens, it's a limitation of the RD-1s base-length. This lens is awesome at all ranges wide open on my film M's with .72 finders.

[sid_chatterjee]

John -- I don't own the 90 A-A but have the pre-Asph version. I suggest that you try slide film, such as Astia, and re-evaluate the results. With negative films printed with the mini-lab style of machines, the output to paper can be (are) from scanned negatives. Machine software takes over the image corrections. With slides, you have better control of the variables. My two cents.

[kris]

Got one to replace the latest pre-asph. Love it - my favourite lens. Have not yet seen this "clinical sharpness" myth that people seems to spread around the net and I use Agfa Scala at ISO100 developed in Ilford DDX or ISO100 chromes.

<p>

<a href=http://www.pbase.com/s9810588/image/68382129>One pic with OOF in front and behind</a>,<br><a href=http://www.pbase.com/s9810588/image/57419518>Close up wide open</a>,<br><a href=http://www.pbase.com/s9810588/image/57700029>Wide open but not much OOF - near infinity focus.</a>

[ronald_moravec1]

Don`t buy any new Leica lenses. They are all like that.

 

Try CV lenses or Mandler era optics or older.

[skip_williams]

I had one and a 90/2.8 thin Tele-Elmar. The 90/2 AA was too heavy and the TE too thin and flary. I sold them both, bought a 90/2.8 M-Elmarit, and never looked back. I don't miss the extra stop or the extra weight of the 90/2. And the M-Elmarit has the same 3D, cut out characteristic...and I like it. MYYV

 

Skip

[paul_neuthaler]

The 40mm Summicron C is now my only lens, filed top bring up the 35mm frameline on my M4-P. I find I don't miss any of the dozens of Leica lenses I used to use -- & carry!

[g-man1]

Use the 90mm on an M3 -- great combo. You can always add a filter or photoshop the print, or smear vaseline on the projector. :-)

[nee_sung]

I think the problem might be with the lab. If you are using retail labs, their machines nowadays use a very high level of sharpening. You can tell that easily by looking at the highlights (bright areas) and the shadows (dark areas). If they both lack detail then the print has definitely been over-sharpened.

 

Where I am, the labs have "sharpened" their images in the last few months. I know this because my new photos of same subjects with same film all of a sudden turned up sharper.

 

May I suggest that you try scanning the negatives yourself, and see if you like the results better? If you don't fancy scanning yourself you might want to try a professional lab.

[ruben_osuna_guerrero]

Anyone has the Summilux 75 and the Summicron 75?

Opinions?

Differences in fingerprint?

[x-ray]

I have the 90 AA and have a v1 90 elmarit that I've had for many years. No question the 90 AA is killer sharp beyond 8-10 ft but inside the 8ft distance it's not very good in my opinion. I hate to quote Puts but even he says that when compared to the canon 85 1.2 and the new Zeiss 85 sonnar f2 the 90 AA is softest at close distance. Even my v1 Elmarit outperforms the 90AA at close range. My lens is so soft at close range that I sent it into DAG to be chacked. He stated it was in spec and OK. When the 85 sonnar comes out I'm seriously thinking of selling the 90AA and getting the sonnar. Much of my work is close range.

[jtdnyc]

Don, I own a 90AA and have used it under 8 feet for headshots. I've never observed the softness that others reporting seeing. My frame of references is other shots I've taken with a Tele-Elmarit, a 135 Elmarit, a 90 Sonnar on the Contax G and a 135 Tele-Elmar.

 

When you say that it's soft under 8 feet, are you referring to wide open or at headshot apertures (say, f/8-11)? I'm wondering whether there is sample-to-sample variation in this lens and I got lucky...or my vision has deteriorated to the point where all halfway decent shots look alike.

 

Even if rigorous testing were to show the 90AA to be softer at headshot distance, the combination of top-notch performance near infinity plus adequate sharpness in the portrait range seems like a good design compromise.

[x-ray]

My lens never really gets particularly sharp at any aperture that I've shot. I like shooting head shots near wide open and my 90 AA doesn't cut it. I've shot all the way down to 5.6 and still not happy. My canon 85 1.2 is sharper at 1.2 for head shots than my 90 AA is at 4.5 and the same head size. The way I like to shoot is crisp eyes / eye lashes and ears quite soft.

[Rob F.]

I can't say I've ever been offended by a lens being too sharp! I don't know if I love the 90AA, but I certainly don't hate mine. I use it for what it is supposed to be: A very sharp, fast 90.

 

I also have the 75mm Summilux. Now, that is a do-everything lens! It's fast, yes. But stop it down into the f/4 to 5.6 range, and it is also very sharp. And the focal length, I am finding, is very useful. Tighter than the 50, but no so tight as to be only useful once in a while. I'm finding I seldom go out shooting without it.

[john_newell2]

>>I think the problem might be with the lab. If you are using retail labs, their machines nowadays use a very high level of sharpening. You can tell that easily by looking at the highlights (bright areas) and the shadows (dark areas). If they both lack detail then the print has definitely been over-sharpened. <<

 

Wow, interesting point - that had completely escaped me. That could definitely be the problem. I don't own a scanner (still!) but I will shoot a role of Velvia and see what develops.

[alan_wilder1]

As a recent owner of the 90/2 A-A and a long time user of the previous 90/2's I find the A-A to have a touch better color saturation/separation but mainly improved sharpness wide open, not tremendously so as E. Puts would have you believe. Enclosed are sample shots and crops with the A-A wide open or at f/2.8.<div></div>

[alan_wilder1]

Crop<div></div>

[alan_wilder1]

Another<div></div>

[alan_wilder1]

Crop two<div></div>