Preferred lens for portraits between R 80 Summilux and the new R 90 APO/ASPH Summicron?

[kim_lau]

Now that the R 90mm APO/ASPH lens has been out for a short while,

what do people think of this lens compared to the 80mm Summilux for

portraiture when used wide open? I would appreciate seeing some

scans of portraits taken with either of these lens.

[jay_.]

I used the 80 Summilux for a short while and found that I had to stop it down to f/8 before the corners started sharpening up so it wasn't for me, and I would consider such an expensive lens ridiculous as a portrait-only lens unless I shot nothing but portraits for a living. I've used the 90 APO-ASPH in M mount and it's tack-sharp into the corners wide open, so if you were looking for a portrait lens with enough aberrations to smooth out the OOF background, that isn't it.

 

OTOH, the 90/2 non-APO is soft and low-contrast at f/2 but by f/2.8 is already sharpens up almost to the level of the Elmarit, making it IMO an ideal wide-open portrait lens which is also completely usable as a general-purpose lens at the rest of the apertures. Even better, mint samples of that lens can be found for under $500. Just a thought.

[matthew_pulzer]

I have never used the 90AA, but my experience of the 80 is that it is a wonderful portrait lens. It has the most beautiful bokeh of any Leica lens that I have, and I have plenty.

 

So it's not sharp in the corners at 1.4 - so what? With its miniscule depth of field what kind of portrait would need to be? To say that you need to stop it down to f8 is either an exageration or simply an indication of a faulty lens.

 

My 80 is a recent ROM version and represents exactly why we buy into Leica: it produces beautiful, dreamy images which I have NEVER seen Canon or Nikon comes close to.

 

I am sure the 90AA is excellent in many ways, but I am sticking with my Summilux.

[albert knapp md]

The 90 is great but I still prefer my 100mm f/2.8 MACRO.

However, in all fairness, you cannot go wrong with either lens.

[david_walters]

I agree with the good doctor, the 100mm 2.8 Macro is a superb lense for portraits and many other applications. The 100mm has a minimum focusing distance almost 50% greater than the both 90mm & the 80mm, a big plus in terms of versatility.

 

David

[david_walters]

"The 100mm has a minimum focusing distance almost 50% greater than the both 90mm & the 80mm, a big plus in terms of versatility. "...or is that lesser??? Man, photography can be confusing!

 

David

[cameron_sawyer]

I know it's heresy on this board, but I prefer the Nikkor 85/1.4 for this kind of work.

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

I love Leicas, but I also had a 105 f2.5 Nikkor for my Nikon F when I was a bit

younger. Personally, I like the 105 length (the 100mm was mentioned) better.

It has always felt like a "short" 180 to me, as the 85 always feels like a "long"

50. That said, between an 80 and a 90 I'd go for the 90.

[Robin Smith]

Kim

 

The Summilux 80mm is beautiful and a perfect portrait or pretty well anything else lens. It's only issue is that it is rather large and heavy. It lacks the real bite of an APO lens but this is a good thing for most shots of people. It has lovely bokeh. I think Jay's assertion of the performance of this lens is completely wrong - it produces wonderful images and I would not hesitate to use it for any subject. I tend to use the 90m Elmarit for landscapes though as it is a much smaller lens and takes a 55mm filter so harmonises with my other R lenses better.

 

I have not used the APO and I am sure it is good - but it is a horrible price (not that the 'lux is cheap).<div></div>

[Robin Smith]

Kim

 

The 'lux you can buy secondhand for $900-1200, whereas the 90mm APO is $1500+. The earlier 90mm Summicron-R is also a good lens at c$500 (s/h), but is not as good optically as the 'lux at apertures wider than f2.8. I had an earlier 'cron for 15 years.

[stephen_jones4]

Jay seems very down on Leica R equipment. I own the 90saa for M and have borrowed the 80 for the R. The 90's performance is exemplary: so is the 80's. The out of focus rendition is superior on the 80. The 80 is not absolutely tack-sharp at 1.4: the saa will not open to 1.4. Much is made of the 90's optical excellence - it's a fine lens indeed but you need to be tripod based and with a quick shutter speed to get the full quality out of it. FWIW, at Focus I tried the 90saa on an R9. I didn't find it noticably easier to focus than the 80 (I thought I might as it has a better contrast at maximum (i.e. viewing) aperture and I noticed the modern "aspheric" style bokeh even in the viewfinder. Whether you care about this of course is up to you.

I thoroughly agree with the above poster who wonders why it would matter that the corners of a portrait at 1.4 were less than pin-sharp. It seems to me that flattery is more important in portrait photography than sharpness. I have images of my daughter taken with the 80 at f1.4-f2 which are probably the most beautiful I have - the way it deals with light is quite something.

Finally, with a mint ROM version of the 80 being c.£900UK and the 90saa coming in at £1580, I know which I'd go for.

[Robin Smith]

Stephen

 

I seriously doubt Jay has ever really used the 80mm myself - he is down on everything Leica - but for some reason he keeps buying them.

[gary_yeowell]

The 80 is a stunning lens, period. I agree 100% with Mathew Pulzer's comments. I had and sold the 90AA M lens because it was too contrasty, harsh, and actually flared under bright cloudy conditions, that's film base flare not spots. I replaced the APO M with a 90 Elmarit and have not looked back. For an SLR i would consider the 90 Summicron as well as the 80, both great lenses.