I have bothe of these offered to me mint at avout USD 550 each.

Which should I take?

please comment.

-- Travis koh (teckyy@hotmail.com), February 24, 2002

Answers

This is presumably the current model Elmarit? I bought the non-APO cron (used) for the extra stop of speed, and because it weighs about the same as the new model 2.8 lens. You must decide whether speed or weight is more important to you.

Personally if I were going to choose an f/2.8 90mm it'd be the little Tele-Elmarit.

-- Tim Franklin (tim_franklin@mac.com), February 24, 2002.

Well Travis, this one is difficult I know. Depends. The Elamrit is of better quality from f/2.8 to f/5.6. The elmarit is smaller, but not by a lot, but still enough to consider the difference. But the Elmarit is useless at f/2, whereas the Summicron is 100% better and more usefull. Even though the Elmarit is slightly a better performer at maximum apertures, I believe the issue is SPEED vs SIZE. If this doens't help then ask yourself which one is more versatile for your style of photography. If it was me, and I did make this decision recently, I would/did choose/chose the Summicron. But I bought the Apo Asph.....opticall the best 90 ever, surpassing the 75 Lux according to most documented info I've read. Good luck

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), February 24, 2002.

Kristian, good buy there..;) The apo 90 cost a bomb here in Singapore abt close to USD 2k.

I handled the 90 non apo and the weight is acceptable. I might consider screwing the voigtlander 75 on my M and forget about both 90s.

But at 550 USD, I think its about there. Price to performance ratio.

-- Travis koh (teckyy@hotmail.com), February 24, 2002.

Hi, In my opinion, it is not question of «better» or «not better». The two lenses have a different personality! The 90/2 is smoother and more apt for the portrait. Sweet and gentle with a particulary bokeh effect that is nont com,prable with other lenses! The 90/2,8 is harsher, with more definition and a particular crisp rendition; tipical for the normal tle use: landascape, architecture, and so on. It depends on the use you want to. I personaly have the two 90/2 asph and not, and their use is for different porpouse. By, Joe

-- joseph pelizza (breglumasi@hotmail.com), February 24, 2002.

What is your application? And how much do you foresee yourself using this focal length? I also have a 90 in the stables but because my workhorse outfit is the 35/75 I can economize on what I need out of the 90. Its a Teie-Elmarit (thin) and serves my needs handily. IMVHO, unless you want an extremely shallow DOF you are better served with the 2.8. Nightshots?

As Donnie Brasco would say... fuget abaad it!!! The extra stop at f2 will allow you to do available dark with 3200 at 1/15 sec (with a moderately strong light source). Couple that with the increasing difficulty of focusing a longer FL accurately in low light the 75 is the longest that I'll venture for that enterprise.

But of course everybody's different.

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), February 24, 2002.

Travis: Good price for either lens. The 2.8 is generally a little sharper, the f/2 is faster and not really much worse. I have the pre- APO 90 f/2 and the 90 TE f/2.8 - so I can choose SMALL or FAST as needed.

The most important thing with ANY 90 is to try it on your camera(s) - there is enough variation among lenses and cameras that - esp. with a 90 at f/2.8 or f/2, you can get wildly varying results in focusing accuracy.

On my cameras the pre-APO 90 f/2 has much more reliable focusing than any f/2.8 I've tried (except the TE). But I've had other f/2s that were - well, different. So wait 'til you find one that matches.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), February 24, 2002.