The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Let's talk 75 and 90mm
- Thread starter tom in mpls
- Start date
Hi Tom,
Thanks for your message. Not sure why I wrote "Tele"...as I'm familiar with most all versions of these lenses..but thanks for pointing out my nomenclature error. I certainly don't want to confuse anyone as to which lenses I was referring to and comparing in my tests. I was able to correct part of it in my original txt (above). I took out the erroneous "Tele" but was "timed out" from putting back in the "M"....but most will know what lens I meant since I inserted..."e-46" . I've previously read KR's take on all these lenses and do not completely agree with his all his assessments although much of what he says about the 90's are fairly accurate. He misses though quite a bit of their performance nuisances and this is what seperates them in actual use. Thanks again.
Dave (D&A)
Thanks for your message. Not sure why I wrote "Tele"...as I'm familiar with most all versions of these lenses..but thanks for pointing out my nomenclature error. I certainly don't want to confuse anyone as to which lenses I was referring to and comparing in my tests. I was able to correct part of it in my original txt (above). I took out the erroneous "Tele" but was "timed out" from putting back in the "M"....but most will know what lens I meant since I inserted..."e-46" . I've previously read KR's take on all these lenses and do not completely agree with his all his assessments although much of what he says about the 90's are fairly accurate. He misses though quite a bit of their performance nuisances and this is what seperates them in actual use. Thanks again.
Dave (D&A)
Last edited:
tom in mpls
Active member
I like Ken's site for his database, including serial numbers for each year. Two weeks ago I knew nothing about 90's or 75's; but since starting this thread I've had a crash education.
Dave (D&A) wrote:
"2) The last 90mm f2.0 Pre Asph..a good choice with a slightly to slightly moderate lower contrast when compared to the other two lenses. Great for portraits, higher contrast lighting situations, speed and some reportage type situations and good all rounder with a stop advantage over the 90mm f2.8.
3) The last 90mm f2.8 when one of the best all around general use 90mm's is desired..good contrast (bit higher than the 90mm pre ASPH) smaller lighter weight package, excellent sharpness (a match for the 90mm pre Asph with a slight bump in contrast giving it a slight look of increased sharpness over the 90mm pre ASPH)..with a sacrifice of an f-stop compared to the other two in some low light situations.
Please keep mind that many of the individual differences between these three lenses decrease or are almost eliminated when the lenses are stopped down to f4.5, f5.6 and beyond.
Dave (D&A) "
I have both of these 90s in hand right now and IMO, you have hit the nail right on the head. The only thing I will add is that I see the 90 2.8 having a bit more "bokeh" than the 90 2.0. In fact I think given the right distance and subject, if the 35mm cron IV is the bokeh king, the 90 2.8 just might be the bokeh queen. Not that the 90 2.0 is a slouch in this category of course.
A few weeks ago I received the 90 2.8 back from a "full wash CLA" and a brand new lens mount installed by Sherry K and I think because it is now properly calibrated, the bokeh has IMPROVED! (This lens was on my m8 when it hit the ground, luckily my 1.25 magnifier took the brunt of the fall. The lens would not focus "razor sharp" at infinity after the fall so I sent it to Sherry K, who has tweaked this lens back to perfection and installed a new lens mount.)
Anyway, I am going to keep only one of the 90s since I have a 75 Summarit which I dearly love. And because I do some on stage photography for my wife and need every bit of light I can get for those "honey do" assignments :ROTFL:, I am going to probably sell the 90 2.8. and keep the 90 2.0.
But I agree with you that the 90 2.0 pre-Asph and the 90 2.8 Elmarit have lot of similarities. I would give the bokeh edge to the Elmarit however. The bottom line is, as you stated very well, these are two great lenses.
"2) The last 90mm f2.0 Pre Asph..a good choice with a slightly to slightly moderate lower contrast when compared to the other two lenses. Great for portraits, higher contrast lighting situations, speed and some reportage type situations and good all rounder with a stop advantage over the 90mm f2.8.
3) The last 90mm f2.8 when one of the best all around general use 90mm's is desired..good contrast (bit higher than the 90mm pre ASPH) smaller lighter weight package, excellent sharpness (a match for the 90mm pre Asph with a slight bump in contrast giving it a slight look of increased sharpness over the 90mm pre ASPH)..with a sacrifice of an f-stop compared to the other two in some low light situations.
Please keep mind that many of the individual differences between these three lenses decrease or are almost eliminated when the lenses are stopped down to f4.5, f5.6 and beyond.
Dave (D&A) "
I have both of these 90s in hand right now and IMO, you have hit the nail right on the head. The only thing I will add is that I see the 90 2.8 having a bit more "bokeh" than the 90 2.0. In fact I think given the right distance and subject, if the 35mm cron IV is the bokeh king, the 90 2.8 just might be the bokeh queen. Not that the 90 2.0 is a slouch in this category of course.
A few weeks ago I received the 90 2.8 back from a "full wash CLA" and a brand new lens mount installed by Sherry K and I think because it is now properly calibrated, the bokeh has IMPROVED! (This lens was on my m8 when it hit the ground, luckily my 1.25 magnifier took the brunt of the fall. The lens would not focus "razor sharp" at infinity after the fall so I sent it to Sherry K, who has tweaked this lens back to perfection and installed a new lens mount.)
Anyway, I am going to keep only one of the 90s since I have a 75 Summarit which I dearly love. And because I do some on stage photography for my wife and need every bit of light I can get for those "honey do" assignments :ROTFL:, I am going to probably sell the 90 2.8. and keep the 90 2.0.
But I agree with you that the 90 2.0 pre-Asph and the 90 2.8 Elmarit have lot of similarities. I would give the bokeh edge to the Elmarit however. The bottom line is, as you stated very well, these are two great lenses.
Hi Victoriapio & O.C.,
You both "too" hit the nail on the head..or maybe I should say brought in the "winning run". The bokeh of the Elmarit (e-46) 90mm f2.8 is the bokeh queen and if anything the 90mm f2.0 Pre Asph (last version) is it's #1 assistant!
Both have great bokeh, with the edge as you both pointed out, going to the 90 f2.8. In response to this challange, the 90mm f2.0 pre ASPH, fires back with a slightly lower contrast thats idea for portraits and a one stop f-stop advantage for lower light which really comes in handy. For those that are aware of all the attributes of these two lenses, I suspect 50% will pick one and the rest the other. The upshot is we all win! I enjoyed reading and seeing both your postings...it really adds to the complete the picture of these lenses....for all of us! Many thanks!
Dave (D&A)
You both "too" hit the nail on the head..or maybe I should say brought in the "winning run". The bokeh of the Elmarit (e-46) 90mm f2.8 is the bokeh queen and if anything the 90mm f2.0 Pre Asph (last version) is it's #1 assistant!
Both have great bokeh, with the edge as you both pointed out, going to the 90 f2.8. In response to this challange, the 90mm f2.0 pre ASPH, fires back with a slightly lower contrast thats idea for portraits and a one stop f-stop advantage for lower light which really comes in handy. For those that are aware of all the attributes of these two lenses, I suspect 50% will pick one and the rest the other. The upshot is we all win! I enjoyed reading and seeing both your postings...it really adds to the complete the picture of these lenses....for all of us! Many thanks!Dave (D&A)
Last edited:
Steve Fines
Member
I ended up with a 75 cron as an experiment and have turned out to really like it.
That being said I don't have a 50, instead preferring 35mm as my 'base' FL.
With a 50 I expect that I would prefer the spacing of a 90.
That being said I don't have a 50, instead preferring 35mm as my 'base' FL.
With a 50 I expect that I would prefer the spacing of a 90.
Over the years I've used (and owned) most 90's and most other Leica lenses. I got the 90AA when it came out, was astounded by the image quality at longer distances wide open, but otherwise never really enjoyed the lens like I did the various variations of the non aspheric Summicrons. If I get another one it would be the last iteration before the 90AA.
On the other hand, one of the most despised (relative term) lenses in Leica's history, the skinny Tele-Elmarit, happens to be one that I've taken a large number of pictures with that I really enjoy, even though technically it isn't nearly as good as the later Elmarit or certainly the 90AA. So I still have a decent example of the T-E. I also have the last Elmarit, which comes along when I want something that provides a somewhat crisper image wide open.
My main longer lenses are the 75/2 and 75/1.4, both of which I really like. I don't have either focussing nor framing problems with them on my M8's nor other M cameras, and which one comes along depends on need for speed, weight considerations and especially rendering capabilities. Sometimes I do carry a 135 along for extra reach, but that function, when it's likely to be needed more often, is generally filled by an SLR.
When travelling I usually take the 75/2 because it's the size of the 90 T-E with a bit more weight, but more speed and optical performance that can't be beat, both near and far. It, as well as the Summilux, also focusses to .7m instead of 1m like the 90's giving the smallest field of view outside of the 90/4 macro (too slow for me, but great performance).
As far as reviews go, while I find Sean's site interesting reading his predilections are generally not mine (for example, the viewfinder intrusion issue is not something that I pay much attention to) but his site is interesting and at least it's from an RF user's perspective. KR is just laughable, and not just wrt rangefinders.
In the end it depends of course on your own predilections and which set of lenses you prefer. If I take 3 for general use on the M8, it's the 21/1.4, 35/1.4 and 75 either f/2 or f/1.4. On film it's likely to be the WATE, 28/2, 50/1.4 and 90/2.8 or if it's going to be only outside and it's bright, the WATE, MATE, and 90 T-E.
Henning
On the other hand, one of the most despised (relative term) lenses in Leica's history, the skinny Tele-Elmarit, happens to be one that I've taken a large number of pictures with that I really enjoy, even though technically it isn't nearly as good as the later Elmarit or certainly the 90AA. So I still have a decent example of the T-E. I also have the last Elmarit, which comes along when I want something that provides a somewhat crisper image wide open.
My main longer lenses are the 75/2 and 75/1.4, both of which I really like. I don't have either focussing nor framing problems with them on my M8's nor other M cameras, and which one comes along depends on need for speed, weight considerations and especially rendering capabilities. Sometimes I do carry a 135 along for extra reach, but that function, when it's likely to be needed more often, is generally filled by an SLR.
When travelling I usually take the 75/2 because it's the size of the 90 T-E with a bit more weight, but more speed and optical performance that can't be beat, both near and far. It, as well as the Summilux, also focusses to .7m instead of 1m like the 90's giving the smallest field of view outside of the 90/4 macro (too slow for me, but great performance).
As far as reviews go, while I find Sean's site interesting reading his predilections are generally not mine (for example, the viewfinder intrusion issue is not something that I pay much attention to) but his site is interesting and at least it's from an RF user's perspective. KR is just laughable, and not just wrt rangefinders.
In the end it depends of course on your own predilections and which set of lenses you prefer. If I take 3 for general use on the M8, it's the 21/1.4, 35/1.4 and 75 either f/2 or f/1.4. On film it's likely to be the WATE, 28/2, 50/1.4 and 90/2.8 or if it's going to be only outside and it's bright, the WATE, MATE, and 90 T-E.
Henning
A very nice summation Henning and truly apprciated. Some of what you expressed mirrors my thoughts which were expressed in a post a few above yours. I agree with your summation regarding both the 90AA and the last itineration of the 90 f2.0 just before the 90AA..the latter which I also prefer for most subjects over the 90AA. Its also interesting that you go much wider on film and use your WATE...as opposed to your other camera.
I should add one additonal comment to my original posting and tests. On the M9, being full frame..at f2.8 and f4...the 90mm f2.8 Elmarit-M (last 90f2.8 released by Leica)...that lens is somewhat sharper in the corners than the 90mm f2.0 pre ASPH at closer distances...but the 90 f2.0 pre Asph has all the other attributes I described. When both are used on the M8...corner differences are negligable but each retains their particular strengths and weaknesses in all other regards.
Lastly, we have the WATE, the MATE...I've often thought one day we need a 75-90-135 lens from leica called the TATE (telephoto-Angle-Tri-Elmar). I'm sure I'm not the first one to mention this...but it would be nice fro someone to say they use the WATE, MATE & TATE! I hope no one is taking my suggestion of a TATE seriously
Dave (D&A)
I should add one additonal comment to my original posting and tests. On the M9, being full frame..at f2.8 and f4...the 90mm f2.8 Elmarit-M (last 90f2.8 released by Leica)...that lens is somewhat sharper in the corners than the 90mm f2.0 pre ASPH at closer distances...but the 90 f2.0 pre Asph has all the other attributes I described. When both are used on the M8...corner differences are negligable but each retains their particular strengths and weaknesses in all other regards.
Lastly, we have the WATE, the MATE...I've often thought one day we need a 75-90-135 lens from leica called the TATE (telephoto-Angle-Tri-Elmar). I'm sure I'm not the first one to mention this...but it would be nice fro someone to say they use the WATE, MATE & TATE! I hope no one is taking my suggestion of a TATE seriously
Dave (D&A)
innerimager
Member
Thought I'd throw a picture in here. Last version 90 elmarit + M9.....Peter
John Black
Active member
Maybe I missed it, but no mention of indoor vs outdoor use? If shooting indoors in low-ish light conditions, a 75 Lux is probably the better choice. With a M8 the shutter speeds were marginal (ISO 1250), but with a M9 and its ~1 stop ISO improvement, the 75 Lux should net good shutter speeds across a wide range of lighting (or lack of!)
I tried a 90mm APO for awhile and found it difficult to use on portraits (10 foot focus distance or thereabouts). At more moderate distances the lens was stunning. Eventually it was sold and I tried a per-ASPH 90mm Cron (E55 thread). Overall I think that is a very nice lens for the price. The only complaint I had with that lens was color fringing in bokeh. Sometimes it could be more noticeable than I liked.
I'd still like to give the 90 AA another go-around, but it seems its not the best lens for close(er) distances at wide apertures.
All these are the 90 pre-ASPH on the M8 -
Probably F4-
Some 3D effect, normally I don't get much 3D feel for this lens. Probably F2.8, maybe F4-
Busy background (the pebbles). F2 & F2.8 had nervous bokeh. This was F4 or F5.6 and the bokeh smoothed out (thank heavens for LCD screens!) -
F4 again-
F2, probably right at the min focus distance -
One of my favorites from the lenses, i liked how it held the highlights and the various little OOF rings here & there. F2.8-
Since people were talking about bokeh... I don't have much from the 75 Lux; I never really "bonded" with that lens.
I tried a 90mm APO for awhile and found it difficult to use on portraits (10 foot focus distance or thereabouts). At more moderate distances the lens was stunning. Eventually it was sold and I tried a per-ASPH 90mm Cron (E55 thread). Overall I think that is a very nice lens for the price. The only complaint I had with that lens was color fringing in bokeh. Sometimes it could be more noticeable than I liked.
I'd still like to give the 90 AA another go-around, but it seems its not the best lens for close(er) distances at wide apertures.
All these are the 90 pre-ASPH on the M8 -
Probably F4-
Some 3D effect, normally I don't get much 3D feel for this lens. Probably F2.8, maybe F4-
Busy background (the pebbles). F2 & F2.8 had nervous bokeh. This was F4 or F5.6 and the bokeh smoothed out (thank heavens for LCD screens!) -
F4 again-
F2, probably right at the min focus distance -
One of my favorites from the lenses, i liked how it held the highlights and the various little OOF rings here & there. F2.8-
Since people were talking about bokeh...
I don't have much from the 75 Lux; I never really "bonded" with that lens.innerimager
Member
John- I agree about the 75 lux indoors, and in general for portrait work on the M9. It lives on a M7 0.85, but I had problems wide open on my M8. With the M9, I am using it a lot and finding focus is very reliable. And while it doesn't focus as close as the 75 cron, you can definitely get close enough for intimate portraits, and that's another reason I prefer it on the M9 to the M8. Here's one from last night, iso 1600, f1.4 best....Peter
John Black
Active member
I have a 75 APO at the moment and have not used it much. The lens seems to have a nice draw to it and I do appreciate the min focus distance. Nailing focus is tricky with it. I have a mix of front & back focused images, so the lens itself is probably okay. My M9 seems to have a pinch of back focus. I'll let New Jersey deal with that in a couple months when the lens kit settles down (too much "buying & trying" at the moment).
When shooting indoors the 75 APO's F2 aperture is too slow. Shutter speeds are pretty low and the auto ISO hits 1600-2500 pretty quickly. I'm okay with the M9's noise level up to ISO 1250, but 1600 and onwards can be a bit much depending on the color content of the scene. If was planning to shoot alot of indoor portraits, I'd go with a 75 Lux simply for better shutter speeds.
For indoor work the 50 Lux ASPH is my go-to lens. It has always been a very reliable lens, and now with the M9's added pixels there is so much more room for cropping. For outdoor work I like the APO's. Since I have the 50 Lux ASPH, I prefer 90mm just because of the wider spacing relative to 50mm. That said, the 75 APO is fairly compact and balances better on the M9. Here are several from the 50 Lux ASPH wide-open - very close to its min focus distance (taken on the M8) -
And something to show a bit more background character -
I know some people feel the 50 Lux ASPH is too "clinical". I'm the opposite and not a big fan of the "Leica glow". My preferences gravitate towards the ASPH's and APO's. If someone is looking for the glow trait, then the 75mm Lux is a good candidate. If I had unlimited funds, I'd have a 75 Lux as well.
When shooting indoors the 75 APO's F2 aperture is too slow. Shutter speeds are pretty low and the auto ISO hits 1600-2500 pretty quickly. I'm okay with the M9's noise level up to ISO 1250, but 1600 and onwards can be a bit much depending on the color content of the scene. If was planning to shoot alot of indoor portraits, I'd go with a 75 Lux simply for better shutter speeds.
For indoor work the 50 Lux ASPH is my go-to lens. It has always been a very reliable lens, and now with the M9's added pixels there is so much more room for cropping. For outdoor work I like the APO's. Since I have the 50 Lux ASPH, I prefer 90mm just because of the wider spacing relative to 50mm. That said, the 75 APO is fairly compact and balances better on the M9. Here are several from the 50 Lux ASPH wide-open - very close to its min focus distance (taken on the M8) -
And something to show a bit more background character -
I know some people feel the 50 Lux ASPH is too "clinical". I'm the opposite and not a big fan of the "Leica glow". My preferences gravitate towards the ASPH's and APO's. If someone is looking for the glow trait, then the 75mm Lux is a good candidate. If I had unlimited funds, I'd have a 75 Lux as well.
thrice
Active member
I was surprised, as a 90AA-R owner, at the image quality of the 90/2.8 Elmarit-M. If you don't need f/2.0, I prefer the Elmarit.
Here's a comparison, first the 90AA @ f/2.8 on the 5D-II and then the 90 Elmarit-M at f/2.8 on the M9. If we ignore the subject the rendering of the Elmarit appeals to me more. Both shot available light with a little fill.
Here's a comparison, first the 90AA @ f/2.8 on the 5D-II and then the 90 Elmarit-M at f/2.8 on the M9. If we ignore the subject
the rendering of the Elmarit appeals to me more. Both shot available light with a little fill.