Review of the SL 90mm Summicron Lens

[Andrew Gough]

Folks, a quick review of this super lens, with samples.

Leica APO-Summicron-SL 90 f/2 ASPH Lens Review - AphotoVID


Andrew

 

[Robert Campbell]

Thanks for the review, Andrew.

Back in the day, I used a 90mm Summicron R on a R3 (briefly) and then on the R4; for a while it was my only lens. I don't really do portraits, but I 'see' things very selectively, in a 'narrow' view. I find it hard to imagine the wide and ultra-wide viewpoints that many other people have, even if I'm impressed by their vision. I know my 'selective' viewpoint isn't to everyone's taste, just bear with my foibles.

I have a 90mm Apo-M and a 75mm Apo-M. These work well with the SL, even though I have to focus manually; I don't really find that a problem, for I tend to work slowly and deliberately; the 'decisive moment' usually passes me by. (And I can magnify the view.) I am much more an 'outside observer' than an 'in your face' snapper.

What does this new 90mm Apo SL offer me instead? Auto focus. But it's heavier than the equivalent M. (And why is the 75mm heavier than the 90mm?) It doesn't have IS. (Why not?) I'd find that really useful these days; the eyes if agued still can focus, but the rest of me finds heavy lenses even more difficult to hold steady than decades ago.

So, why should I consider this new lens? Is autofocus really worth £4k?

 

[Andrew Gough]

Thanks for the review, Andrew.

Back in the day, I used a 90mm Summicron R on a R3 (briefly) and then on the R4; for a while it was my only lens. I don't really do portraits, but I 'see' things very selectively, in a 'narrow' view. I find it hard to imagine the wide and ultra-wide viewpoints that many other people have, even if I'm impressed by their vision. I know my 'selective' viewpoint isn't to everyone's taste, just bear with my foibles.

I have a 90mm Apo-M and a 75mm Apo-M. These work well with the SL, even though I have to focus manually; I don't really find that a problem, for I tend to work slowly and deliberately; the 'decisive moment' usually passes me by. (And I can magnify the view.) I am much more an 'outside observer' than an 'in your face' snapper.

What does this new 90mm Apo SL offer me instead? Auto focus. But it's heavier than the equivalent M. (And why is the 75mm heavier than the 90mm?) It doesn't have IS. (Why not?) I'd find that really useful these days; the eyes if agued still can focus, but the rest of me finds heavy lenses even more difficult to hold steady than decades ago.

So, why should I consider this new lens? Is autofocus really worth £4k?

Tough call Robert. The new SL is definitely better than the current M version, it has almost no CA in its bokeh. It is sharper, and has a flatter plane of focus and almost no vignetting. Lastly, AF will free you to concentrate on composition and perhaps the "decisive moment".

Don't forget to add the weight of the adapter to the M lens...

If you prefer manual focus, and lots do, then you may want to wait for the M 90mm F1.4 that is rumoured. I imagine that both will be at the same price.

The 75mm is only 20g more, which is probably due to the differently shaped optical elements - slightly wider.

Cheers.

Andrew

 

[msadat]

hi Andrew, have u worked or used any equivalent lens from a different manufacture, how does this lens comapre

 

[Robert Campbell]

Tough call Robert. The new SL is definitely better than the current M version, it has almost no CA in its bokeh. It is sharper, and has a flatter plane of focus and almost no vignetting. Lastly, AF will free you to concentrate on composition and perhaps the "decisive moment".

Don't forget to add the weight of the adapter to the M lens...

If you prefer manual focus, and lots do, then you may want to wait for the M 90mm F1.4 that is rumoured. I imagine that both will be at the same price.

The 75mm is only 20g more, which is probably due to the differently shaped optical elements - slightly wider.

Cheers.

Andrew

Hi Andrew

Got the scales out; the M->SL adapter is about 70g

The 75 M with adapter is about 530g
The 90 M with adapter is about 600g

The specifications for the new SL lenses are:

75 SL 720g
90 SL 700g

The SL 24-90 zoom is about 1200g — and I do find it really heavy.

I think I'll sit back a while longer and contemplate.

 

[Godfrey]

Thanks for the review! The new SL90 looks to be an excellent performer!

The question isn't whether the new SL 75 and 90 mm lenses are "better", or lighter, or whatever than the M or R equivalents. The question is whether the features the new lenses offer on the SL and whether the rendering qualities the new lenses have satisfy your needs and desires. If you're happy with the lenses you already have and with what they allow you to do, if they produce the results you want, why on earth would you want something different?

I'm quite happy with my ancient Summicron-R 90mm f/2 three-cam, I use it on both my Leicaflex SL and Leica SL bodies. It performs beautifully and produces superb photographs. Similarly, I am quite happy with my M-Rokkor 90mm f/4: I use it mostly on my Leica M4-2 and M-D, but I also use it on the Leica SL occasionally. If I were buying a new lens for the SL digital camera and wasn't already happy with these two 90mm lenses, I would have no hesitation choosing the Summicron-SL 90mm. It offers AF, the full metering range the SL is capable of, and the other two SL metering modes (Program and Shutter priority). It allows full use of the SL body in ways that adapted lenses cannot, and it is the latest optical design—optimized for the digital sensor. Since everyone here wants to compare everything all the time, it is undoubtedly a superior performer on resolution, micro-contrast, evenness of illumination, bokeh, etc.

But I am happy with the two 90mm lenses I have already. They work well, they produce the results I want, they work on all my current camera bodies. So why should I be motivated to buy one? Why would I have to be motivated to buy one for it to be a stunning and successful lens? Why would my motivation to purchase one be any criteria at all for whether the new SL90mm lens is a great achievement and a superb lens?

The answer is that my interest or motivation to buy one is completely irrelevant to whether the new lens is a stunning and brilliant piece of equipment. Whether it outperforms a lens that preceded it is nearly just as irrelevant as that also ... the older lenses do not take full advantage of the SL body's features so they can only be compared on a limited basis.

G

 

[Paratom]

For me it would be about having AF, and as a father of 2 small kids I benefit a lot of AF.
My personal decision is more influenced by the question if (how often) do I benefit from f2.0 of the Summicron SL vs f3.5/4.0 at the long end of the 24-90.
Right now I believe that A 35/2.0 + 75/2.0 AF combo would suit me well.

 

[jonoslack]

Nicely done Andrew
I've tested both of these lenses, and I think that they are pretty much peerless. To be honest I'm rather sad not to have one at the moment!
Robert - they handle very nicely on the SL and feel neither big nor heavy.
Andrew - Of course, I know nothing about the 90 f1.4, but I'm pretty certain that if such a lens existed it would be in the same price range as the 75 f1.2 . . ie more than twice the price of the 90 SL.

Whether you need one of these lenses or not is of course a personal decision, but from my own testing and experience I'm certain that Leica have never made a technically better 75mm lens - the distance to defocus is very short and the bokeh delicious whilst the in-focus area is very very sharp.

Remarkable lenses which handle beautifully . . .

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

I find myself agreeing with Godfrey on this. I'm delighted with the R Summilux 80 and Summicron 90 (I have a late version of the 90 and both of my R telephotos are Rom-equipped). The 80 in particular has a different look from the newest Karbe lenses. And I see a greater need for auto focus with shorter lenses, where I am closer to the subject. But I have a preorder in for the 50 Summicron SL, which I would expect to use on both the SL and CL to get two useful fields of view. In the meantime, i have just started working with the 35 TL Summilux on the CL, and that is a fantastic lens. ...and so little time...

 

[Robert Campbell]

Nicely done Andrew...

I've tested both of these lenses, and I think that they are pretty much peerless.

Robert - they handle very nicely on the SL and feel neither big nor heavy.

Remarkable lenses which handle beautifully . . .

Jono,

Did you have the chance to compare how either felt in use with the equivalent R or M lenses?

BTW: neither the 75 nor the 90 has OIS, though both zooms do. Is there any particular reason for this? Is it because of the relative weights of the lenses — the primes being much lighter than the zooms?

 

[Andrew Gough]

We are spoiled for choice, that is without a doubt. I also have owned, and continue to own, some of the mentioned lenses. Lenses are kind of like a paint brush to me, we select the ones that we enjoy using. For example, I recently acquired a 85mm Summarex. Which is about as far from the new Summilux SL as you can get in the Leica world, but I love its look! Also love the look of Mandler lenses, and I will hang on to some key ones. But for regular shooting, it will be the new AF lenses that I personally reach for...

Remember, the only bad lens is an unused one!

The 75mm review will be up tomorrow,

Cheers Andrew