Lens test...90mm APO/ASPH vs. 90mm Tele-Elmarit

[albert_smith]

I ran across this while looking through the LUG forum. It is a

(seemingly unfair) test of the newest 90mm APO / ASPH Summicron

against the older 90mm Tele-Elmarit. I was surprised by how close

some of the shots were to each other in image quality. There are

many examples from both lenses used at f/2.8 and f/5.6, with subjects

in many types of light. This might be a good example of how reading

flat test charts to decide which lens is better for shooting 3

dimensional subjects might not be totally valid. You might think the

APO / ASPH lens would smoke the Tele-Elmarit, but...<P>

 

Just a tip, if you let the image load, then you can go back and forth

very quickly since the image is stored in the cache.<P>

 

 

<a href="http://www.photoartworld.com/lenstest/"> 90mm APO/ASPH vs.

90mm Tele-Elmarit </a>

[peza]

Techpan or TMAX-100 and brick wall would do better job. I can't see the difference and at resolution eqalling 24 lp/mm I'm not surprized.

Did you use MLU ? Sorry, that was joke from an SLR world :)

[skip_williams]

I'm not going to attempt to evaluate his images for resolution, as I don't trust his technique for that. The shadow detail seems similar though. But the first think I notice is the significant differences in the bokeh of the two images. The TE is particularly rough, IMO, with discrete OOF circles. The AA's images are MUCH smoother, and all at the same aperture.

 

This is one of the reasons that I sold my TE and moved to an Elmarit-M, as the bokeh constantly bothered me wide open. I loved the size and weight of the lens though.

[paul_chefurka1]

As well as the bokeh differences, I saw consistently higher contrast in the AA images. They also seemed to look a bit "cleaner" do me, at least within the limits of monitor detail. I agree that computer monitors and web jpegs reduce the sensitivity of these comparisons to almost 0. Given that fact, though, any consistent differences that are detectable across a number of image pairs should serve as strong clues to the real-world performance of the lenses.

 

FWIW, the differences I saw in these shots are very reminiscent of the impressions I'd formed based on my ownership of these two lenses. That can be read two ways, of course - either these differences are real, or I'm a biased observer. No matter, really - I'd never give up my AA to go back to a TE.

 

One of these days I'll do something similar with the VC 90 and the AA...

[john_collier2]

My NOS clear as a bell* 90/2.8 T-E from 1983 had a huge problem with flare.

Even bright tones would set it off. That was with the 12575 hood as well! Sold

it and went to the Elmarit-M and AA with no regrets. The 90/2.8TE is one lens I

would never buy again.

 

* Many 90/2.8T-Es have an unrepairable "hazing" problem with the rear

elements.

[jay_.]

I had a "fat" T-E, 2 "thin" T-E's, a non-APO 90/2, and a current Elmarit-M and 90 C/V, and I borrowed a 90 APO for a few days of shooting. From f/4 I could detect no difference between any of them. The Elmarit-M was higher contrast and better in the corners at f/2.8 than all but the Cron APO, to which it was equal. The Cron APO was better at f/2 than any other. The 90 C/V is every bit the equal of the current Elmarit and Cron APO at comparable apertures. For $320 plus an M adaptor (which I already had) it's hands-down the best combination of performance and cost available in a Leica-mount 90.

And it doesn't flare at all, even with the rubber collapsible hood from a T-E.

[adam_lang1]

It is strange, in Picture 3 I prefer the Apo's bokeh, while in Picture 7 I preferthe TeleElmarit's. Same apertures.

[roger_michel]

i own both the current 90s and a thin t-e. the 90/2.8, as i have said many times here, is the sharpest lens i own. not as good at 2.8 as the apo certainly (and if you need 2 there is substitute obviously), but by 5.6 the slower lens wins hands down. however, the tele-elmarit is the 90 i use the most. if i want a heavy, bulky camera, i go to MF. leica, for me, is all about size and portability. the t-e is amazingly sharp 90 in a very small, light package. leica should have kept refining the t-e package. CV certainly has the right idea (with most of its lenses) in this regard.

[henk]

Albert,

 

Im not surprised, at the resolution of consumer color films who would ever notice? Well maybe some purple cast sometimes. B&W film tends to show an arguably sharper/contrastier result with an apo element. Still the differences due to a new and improved optical design/production is far greater then any apo thingy could manage to archieve. Personally im not that much of a sharpness(all these pics look sharp to me ;)P) freak, i favour the character of the oldys ;) Reminds me of why i shoot 35mm by the way......

 

Greetings,

[andy_piper2]

The 90 APO may be an exceptional lens - the 90 TEM is plenty good with regards to sharpness.</p>

</p>

In the attached image the inset is at full 2700-dpi resolution on your screen. And from a moving subject.</p>

</p>

I've tested the 90 TEM against the vaunted Nikkor 105 (in all its iterations: original F formula, AI, AI-S) and it consistently comes out slightly ahead.</p>

</p>

And the TEM is also sharper than the 90 pre-APO 'cron at 2.8-5.6 (below which the 'cron's better contrast pulls them about equal)

</p>

As to bokeh - yes, it can be somewhat 'ratty' at some subject/background distances. As to flare - it rarely affect my shots now that I know when it occurs and where. But fair points.

</p>

I just passed up an opportunity to get a 90 SAA after comparing it to a pre-APO Summicron - the SAA had SO MUCH contrast it started burning out highlight details in skin. Exceptional contrast is not always a good thing. The APO difference was, however, clearly visible at f/2 in the finest details. Give it its due.</p>

</p>

As to size/weight:</p>

"Is that a 90 SAA in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?" - apologies to Mae West.<div></div>