There has been a few threads recently inquiring on older Leica 90mm's. And for those interested in this subject, I'd like to draw your attention to E. Putts latest newsletter (41) testing Voigtlanders 28mm F.1.9 and the 90mm f. 3.5.
Yes -Leitz "wins" performance wise, (but when don't they?) however some remarks stands out which is worth considering before buying secondhand Leica lenses:

On Bessa T:
"I had the Bessa T as a body. Checking the register, it came out as excellent, within Leica specs. Compare this with the Hexar RF!."
Nothing to do with lens performance, but nice to know if we choose to put Voigtlander lenses on our Leica.

On 90mm f. 3.5:
"...The current Elmarit-M 90 at 2.8 is as good as the 3.5/90 at 3,5 and the Elmarit at 4 is ahead of the 3.5/90 in brilliance and clarity of rendition. This said the Voigtlander is much better than all but one previous Elmarit and Tele-Elmarit designs..."
"...Given the price of the Apo-Lanthar 90, this lens is a better choice than most second hand 90;s from Leica on the market and is very close to the performance of the current 2.8/90, which is some act...."

On the Ultron 28mm f. 1.9:
"Ultron is a tempting alternative, if you can live with its lack lustre wide open performance. To get some perspective: an older 28mm lens from Leica is blown to pieces by the Ultron.
...While the Summicron is still the one to beat, the Ultron delivers quality, that was unbelievable some years ago. Leica designers are challenged!!..."

IMO Cosina has made it more exciting to be Leica user.

-- Niels H. S. Nielsen (nhsn@ruc.dk), November 12, 2001

Answers

Niels,

Is Erwin's newsletter available in English? If so, how do I subscribe? If not, could you provide a little more of his analysis of the 90 APO-Anthar?

TIA, Bob

-- Bob (robljones@home.com), November 13, 2001.

"lack lustre wide open performance"

They probably should have designed the VC 28mm to be a 2.8.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), November 13, 2001.

RE: subscription

Use the guidelines below but replace unsubscribe w. subscribe
cheers
----

You received this message because you are subscribed to the APEMC mailing list. If you do not wish to be unsubscribed, send a message to
majordomo@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
saying only
unsubscribe APEMC
Or contact Erwin Puts for assistance.

-- Niels H. S. Nielsen (nhsn@ruc.dk), November 13, 2001.

Should read:

...If you do not wish to be subscribed...
sorry.

-- Niels H. S. Nielsen (nhsn@ruc.dk), November 13, 2001.

So, Erwin says the Voigtlander lenses are not as good as the latest Leica lenses, which in turn are much better than the earlier Leica lenses? What a surprise ;>)

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), November 13, 2001.

Well, it seems to me he's saying that the Voightlanders are about as good (stopped down) as the current Leicas (and not bad wide open) and are clearly better than the older Leicas--and I think that both of those claims WOULD come as a surprise to many Leicaphiles.

-- Terry (tcdvorak@aol.com), November 13, 2001.

Interesting, but E.P. 's quotes are vague.

1. What does "lack luster" mean in real terms? (re: 28/1.9) Tom Abrahamsson's informal review (Cameraquest) says open contrast of Ultron slightly lower than Leica, particularly in corners.

2. It beats out older Leica 28s. How much older? I mean first generation, second generation, third generation? The earliest? Second? Third?

I've not used the new Leica 28/2 yet. I've fond Ultron at 1.9 very good--but that is subjective of course.

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@suma.kobe-wu.ac.jp), November 19, 2001.

I went to E.Putts's site and read his reviews, and now I feel I was a little unfair to him. His bench results reportage is excellent. Very clearly the $2000 Leitz whips the cheaper Voigtlander in wide open performance and in durability (which you'll likely feel 20 years down the line)--though in my view the construction of the Voightlanders is very, very good.

I am still unclear about which older Leica 28's are "blown to pieces" by the Ultron. All of them???

One thing that E.P. said in his review of the new Hexar 35/2 is interesting to note here. The slight mount variation between Hexar and Leica make the Hexar 35/2 a somewhat worse performer on a Leica than a Hexar RF. EP said not to use the Hexar with your Leica and went on to say that lens work best with the same company camera (Leica with Leica, Hexar with Hexar, Voigtlander with Voigtlander). It seems, however, that in this case (above) he has no problems about using Voigtlanders with Leicas.

I like E.P.'s uncompromising reports. He doesn't talk about in the field realities but bench realities. The two may be (and usually are) different, but the information he presents is very important for getting an idea of the optical limits of any lens you have or want to have.

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), November 23, 2001.