I purchased a 90 TE form the same guy I bought the 35mm Summilux asph from. I already owned the 90 SAA, so I was reluctant to buy this lens. But, I had read good things about it in this forum, and it was so tiny and lightweight compared to the 90 SAA. And I was curious. Again. So I bought it too. (After all, it is Leica equipment, so I can sell it easily anyway – right?) Here again, I used the same testing procedures as I did for the 35’s…

At f2, I would have to rate the SAA as having “superb” center sharpness and “very good” corner sharpness. At f2.8, the SAA gets rated “superb at both the center and edges, while the TE is “very good” at the center and “good” at the edges. At f4, the SAA remains “superb” in both the center and corners, and the TE moves up to “excellent” center sharpness and “very good” at the edges. Interestingly, at f5.6 both lenses start to fall off. By f8, the TE is gaining on the SAA at the center, but is not quite as good at the corners. At f11 & 16, both lenses rate a “very good” at the center, with the SAA only slightly sharper in the corners. With the Leica UV filter mounted, no noticeable difference in sharpness was detected with the TE, but a slight degradation in sharpness could be detected in the SAA with the filter attached. Flare control was “excellent” on the SAA, with no noticeable differences when the UV filter was mounted. The TE ranks a “good” in flare control, with flare increasing noticeably when the UV filter was attached. I would rate the SAA as having a nice, “smooth” bokeh; the TE’s was a bit rougher, but not displeasing. Both lenses were neutral in color-cast.

Which is the better lens? Clearly, the SAA is the better performer optically, but the TE is still a very good lens. Keep in mind the SAA cost me over three times what the TE cost me… and the TE is enough smaller and lighter than the SAA that there is a good chance it might actually be in the camera bag when you want it! If you use the 90 only occasionally, I’d go for the TE – it is a very good lens, capable of producing fine images with the “Leica look”. If you use a 90 a lot, or if you shoot in low light regularly, I think the SAA is probably worth the extra money. One last point: In longer lenses, the DOF difference between f2 and f2.8 is more apparent than it is in shorter lenses. Thus, when shooting with a 90, photographers preferring a shallow DOF effect in their photos will find that f2 produces a noticeably greater amount of this effect than f2.8. So, I’ll keep the SAA, and the TE is headed for eBay.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), March 08, 2001

Answers

I think you'd find the current 90 Elmarit would be much closer in quality to the new 90mm f2.0 APO than the small 4 element TE. I got an easy 90 lpmm center and 70 edge wide open on my Elmarit, and it only got better from there to f8.0. The shots in the field with my 90 Elmarit are as sharp as my later style 50mm Summicron. The Elmarit also seems to give much better performance at the closer part of its range than the TE, which apparantly is at its best at more distant shots (something difficult to test with a chart for).

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), March 08, 2001.

Andrew:

You are probably correct on the regular Elmarit v the TE, but I did not have one available to include in the test. As for the TE being at its best at the longer distances, I did perform this comparison in the hand-held portion of the tests. The results were essentially the same as the test-target results, and clearly favored the SAA until f8.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), March 08, 2001.