Would you go for an used 90mm summicron pre-ASPH ( very good condition ) or get a new 90mm Elmarit?

Is the current Elmarit sharper than the summicron pre-ASPH?

-- James (boggia@netvigator.com), March 11, 2002

Answers

I think the Elmarit is a little sharper from 2.8 up but the summicron is sharper at 2.0 of course. I had the cron and sold it to get the elmarit. It fits in my bag and my hand better but I don't think the difference in the pictures is very significant. I liked the summicron just fine but I like the elmarit a tad better. JMHO. Good luck.

-- Don (wgpinc@yahoo.com), March 11, 2002.

I spent the weekend debating whether to go with a current Elmarit-M or a pre-ASPH Summicron.

I decided on the Elmarit. Comments here and other places seemed to suggest that the image quality was second-to-none (though comparable to the APO 90); you lose a stop and lose some weight too. Now, when I tend to shoot in low light it tends to be *low* light; I thought back and decided that the 1-stop difference wasn't enough to overcome the lack of light I've seen in the past (think wedding receptions). The one stop difference wasn't enough to convince me to go to the bigger lens.

Ask me next week and I'll let you know how I feel after using the 90 Elmarit. ;)

-- Derek Zeanah (derek@zeanah.com), March 11, 2002.

BTW, the chrome version is heavier than the black.

Why would one want the chrome version, are they mainly for those collectors?

-- James (boggia@netivgator.com), March 12, 2002.

Practically everything is sharper than the 90 pre-APO - even my 90 Tele-Elmarit...but the differences range from somewhat noticeable to almost negligible. I'm assuming you mean M-lenses, since there IS no 90APO for the R - yet.

The current lenses (both f/2 and f/2.8) tend to have more contrast at large apertures (which makes them look even sharper than the actual resolution differences) and the sharpness extends further into the corners.

Given the specific choice you indicate - for sharpness get the Elmarit, for bokeh or speed, get the 'Cron. Outside that choice - for speed AND max. sharpness get the 90 f/2 APO - and for max. compactness get a 90 TE (thin).

Even a very good condition recent 90 pre-APO used should be under $900 - so going that route you save $200-$300.

I went for the older, lighter, slightly less contrasty lenses - 90TE and 90 pre-APO - the newer lenses are just a tad too "Zeiss-y" and pink for my taste.

Finally - TEST any telephoto on YOUR body - given the limited depth of field, I've found clear differences in how well any given 90 focuses on any given body - especially with generational differences.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), March 12, 2002.

Get the new elmarit. It's beautiful - wonderful tonality. I've got the 90saa - great, but once you've seen one portrait with just the iris in focus you've seen enough - my elmarit (latest version) had better tones (more old fashioned, I suppose).

-- Steve Jones (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), March 12, 2002.

All of these shots were made under rapidly changing conditions with a 90mm Elmarit M. In this light with 100 ISO film, the limit for my aperture was f/4.0 because of the top shutterspeed of 1/1000th. An aperture of f/2.0 would have done nothing here, but if you live in the dark it might help.

90mm Elmarit M shots

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), March 12, 2002.

The 90/2 Pre-ASPH should be purchased only if you want the low- contrast, soft-corners look at f/2 and don't mind the bulk. From 2.8 on down the differences between the various recent 90's is slight. If you want f/2 but like the sharp, contrasty look, you'll have to spring for the 90AA.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), March 12, 2002.

Jay already beat me to it: the 90/f2 pre-asph is soft only at f2, and then only relative to how incredibly sharp it is when stopped down. Even wide open, it's still very sharp: in the 8 x 10 of the image below (90 at f2), a close look reveals every tiny wrinkle and detail around this 17-year-old's eyes.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 12, 2002.

With pictures like that, I can see why Mike always gets the last word.

Great going! And good advice. Thanks.

Ilkka

-- Ilkka Kuusisto (ikuu65@hotmail.com), March 17, 2002.

I see absolutely no wrinkles up there. Take a look at my eyes :)

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), March 18, 2002.