I've been going back and forth about getting a 90mm M lens. I've read everything here and at MUGers on the pros and cons of lenses above the 50mm focal length. I already have Nikon 105 f2.5 and a couple of zooms.

I just saw some astonishingly beautiful pictures on Peter Hughes website, link:

http://www.ravenvision.com/snakescolor.htm

http://www.ravenvision.com/snakes.htm

It seems to me that unless one is a photographer of extremely high caliber, it is impossible to "picture" these photographs in one's mind's eye. The color pictures in Mr. Hughes' site seem impossible to be made with a manual camera, the window of opportunity within which to capture the picture is just too short (please correct me if I'm mistaken).

Two issues prevent me from getting the 90mm.

(1) Often there is not enough time to prepare for that fleeting moment when the shot can be taken. (See the color pictures; the woman at the bottom is not going to wait for someone to focus and visualize.)

(2) Visualization of out-of-focus areas is not an easily acquired skill. (See the cover black and white picture of the woman with the tree branches behind her.)

Are these opportunities outside the realm of M photography? Or is it a skill that takes time to develop?

-- Vikram (VSingh493@aol.com), April 02, 2002

Answers

Sorry, while I certainly don't think of myself as the world's greatest photog or even of "extremely high caliber," I don't see anything on these 2 pages that would be "impossible to be made with a manual camera." To use 1 of your examples, the woman @ the bottom of the color page looks like she was posing w/her snake & I don't know why you would necessarily think that she wasn't "going to wait for someone to focus & visualize." It was a parade of some kind, & most people participating in parades are happy to have their pictures taken (especially in Berkeley, where every day is Halloween!). As far as using the 90mm w/your M in a reasonably quick fashion, all you need is practice, practice, & practice.

-- Chris Chen (Wash., DC) (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), April 02, 2002.

all photography is a skill that takes time to develop. on my slr's i have found that my 90 or 100 is my normal lens that gets the most usage. i love the perspective, the ability to blur the background, and the ability to tightly frame a facial portrait. my 90 on my m3 does not get as much usage, as i believe that rangefinders are best for 50mm and wider. i still always carry it with me since i like the focal length so much and i never go anywhere with a camera that does not have a prime in that length. i have not had the 90 long enough to pass judgement on compatibilty, as i am the type of person that needs a full years worth of shooting to get fully comfortable with any camera or lens.

-- greg mason (gmason1661@aol.com), April 02, 2002.

I think you're thinking too hard. :-) There's no doubt that using a RF camera is different from an SLR, but to me it's not in the kind of pictures you take, but rather which is better for your own particular style of visualization. If I were in your position, I'd try to borrow a 90 for a week or two and see if it works for you.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), April 02, 2002.

I disagree. I think all these photos could easily be taken with a RF or previsualized... it might just take practice... but i find it almost as fast to focus an M as a Canon... and with a big Canon you have the problem of people noticing it from a mile away and worrying about you taking a "picture of their brain through their nose" (this is a quote from one person i took a pic of with a 1v HS and 70- 200/2.8). Visualizing out of focus areas just takes experience... I shoot almost exclusively between f2 and f4 on a 50, so i am very used to out of focus backgrounds... i guess if you are used to f5.6 or f8 on a wide angle where everything would be in focus it might be a bit harder to visualize.

-- Matthew Geddert (geddert@yahoo.com), April 02, 2002.

No doubt the M requires more minds-eye visualization than an SLR. One reason I don't use it for fast-moving scenes.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 02, 2002.

Hi, Vikram:

Just to add one more opinion to the previous ones: IMHO both are fully complementary and I agree that the speed at which you are able to succesfully handle your M with a 90mm is mainly a matter of practice and the photos in the site you mentioned don't seem imposible at all (good site, anyway). Might I suggest you to try what I have found useful for me (to my own limits, of course): go out with one lens only: the one you are trying to learn how to handle better. Several things will happen: (1) You will asses the graphic qualities of your potencial subjects in a different way, specially suited to the lens you are practicing with. (2) You will develop the fine hand movement skills required to handle it fast and more easily. (3) You will learn to evaluate at first sight what is the proper distance from your intended subject you need to stand at in connection with your composition. All that will sharpen your photo skills better than working with a zoom lens and/or autofocus camera, by far. At least that has been my experience: I used to be adict to my Nikon FM601 with a AF70-210mm zoom which evolved into a FM2n with the same lens but still with too naïve an approach to the image design process. Today, after my experience with my M3s and prime lenses (90mm included), I can use the FM2n and 70-210 at far better an advantage. But I seldom do ... the M3 is still more adictive.

Here I brought some examples of photos that demanded fast handling of the 90mm and M3 because Fernanda was dancing, children seldom stay quiet or because mom doesn't like photos which should show that your statement "the window of opportunity within which to capture the picture is just too short" is not always true but other constraints can more severely limit your results: lens speed, low light, hand holding your camera or all of them together. . . I assume a 90mm f2.8 would help overcome this problem to a noticeably extent but it is beyond my direct experience.

Excuse the lenght, Vikram. Just trying to be of any help.

Regards

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), April 02, 2002.

I understand that there are many 90mm users out there that have mastered the focusing action of the 90mm lens on a RF camera. But I have not. On my previous post I was considering changing my 90APO to a SLR and an 85mm lens. Why? Because I am too slow, and no matter how sharp the lens is, it isn't any good if you can't use it as efficiently as you would like.

Preparation for the fleeting moment is very difficult, expecially when you don't know when it will happen, or at what distance. I especially like to shoot at wide apertures to isolate subjects and it makes it even more difficult for me, especially comming from an F5/FM3a and a AF 85mm f/1.4D lens (awsome). And the maximum speed of 1/1000 sec on my M6 doesn't help either in daylight conditions.

Secondly, the view, while not showing out of focus areas is not so bad, as sometimes when wanting to stop down, it would be nice to see everything in focus, whereas at close distances this is impossible with an SLR. You can obviously see what is happenning around the subject too which is an advantage. Plus lack of vibration and viewfinder blackout are an added bonus, especially in low light.

On the downside again, visualisation is important, especially at closer distances, when you want the background to be out of focus. You need to visualise this too, as OOF backgrounds are just as important as in focus backgrounds.

My advice: If you can afford it, try it. But don't sell your SLR gear. Keep it and see what happens. Keeping both would be ideal.

And from my experience, the AIS 105/2.5 and AF 85/1.4 are top notch lenses, just below the quality of the Leica 90APO I own.

PS. You really need the .85X viewfinder to be useful, especially at wider apertures (f/2-f/5.6). I have a .72X and have just recieved the 1.5X Magnifier. I hope this helps me, or goodbye to the 90APO.

Good luck

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 03, 2002.

Kristian, I would be interested to hear from you whether you find the 1.25x mag helps to compose and/or focus with your 90mm lens - and from anyone else, for that matter. I've had one of those little gems on order for months and still no word about when I can expect to see it. Apparently, my Jakarta dealer's Hong Kong supplier has 10 on back order.

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), April 03, 2002.

I often wondered if I had wasted my money on my 90mm Elmarit M, because I didn't use it that often. I also like my Nikon with 105mm for considered portraits because of the things that you mention, like "visualizing" the out of focus rendition of the areas not on the plane of focus. It just wasn't as easy to use my 90mm lens as it was with my 35mm and 50mm, so I just didn't use it very much. Lately, I have been making a concerted effort to use this lens. I have been putting it on my camera and going out without any other optic in my bag just to force the use of it. I am getting more and more confident and comfortable with it, and I actually like it much more than I though it would, (I always loved medium telephotos on my SLRs, but on the tiny M body, I never liked the handling). Now I can go out with the 90mm on my M6, and shoot just as easy as with my 105mm on a Nikon. I think the SLR wins is some situations, like very close-up shots, but I don't feel as many compromises as before. I think it is just a matter of using it until its use is second nature.

Regarding your concerns, below are a couple of shots which take into account those things. The first shot required that I could visualize the degree of selective focus to "extract" the couple out of a very dense scene, and it came out pretty close to what I imagined while viewing through my M6's hyper-focused finder. selective focus

The second was just a grab shot, which I previously would not have attempted with a 90mm lens. The time from seeing the expressions on the people, composing and focusing to tripping the shutter was less than two seconds. Just practicing with this lens has increased my speed in use. fast grab shot And lastly, I was surprised to see in a side by side comparison how clean the rendition of the out of focus highlights were from the Leica 90mm lens compared to the Nikon 105mm. Both of these shots were made at f/4.0, but the Nikon highlights have a more geometric shape, which might be distracting in some situations. highlight rendition Nikon / Leica

The bottom line is that I value my 90mm Leica lens more than ever, even though it was not love at first use like with the shorter Summicrons. The percentage of shots made with this lens is going up every month and I would never be without it now. BTW... I still holding on to my Nikon and 105, because it is still a great lens in its own way.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), April 03, 2002.

Thanks everyone for your input.

Al Smith,

(Great pictures)!

You wrote the following a year ago, and it kept me from buying the 90mm. In fact I bought the 105 f2.5 because of it, and I have no regrets. I'm still reluctant to get the 90mm because of the tiny size of the 90mm frame lines. Here's what you wrote. Now I'm in a quandary:

"I would love to go back in time and have the hindsight from my Leica experience in the last dozen years. If I could, I would use the money that I have spent on my 90mm lens and put it towards either a 21mm or 24mm lens. At least 90% of my Leica M photography is covered by the 35mm and 50mm Summicrons. I have tried to love the 90mm lens, and it is one of the sharpest lenses I have ever used, but I can't embrace it fully because of the handling. I won't reiterate all of the comments about balance and stability, (look through the old threads), but for me, I have arrived at the point where I believe the rangefinder camera "peaks" at the 50mm lens. All of the attributes that made the Leica famous, stealthy profile, speed of use, intimate proximity, and viewing around the finder frame start to decline with the longer lenses. With the shorter lenses, the pictures just seem to happen. With the 90mm lens, it seems the process is expanded, resulting in less spontaneity.

I have started to drag an old Nikon FM2 around with me keeping a 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor lens on it. The SLR is, I believe, at its best with the medium telephoto... it is still small, focusing is fast and composition is easier to accomplish than with the postage stamp sized frame in the M. I'm sure there are people that love the 90mm lens on the Leica, and I'll never sell mine, but since you asked, I use it very little. The money would have been better spent on something wider than the 35mm lens.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), February 24, 2001."

-- Vikram (VSingh493@aol.com), April 03, 2002.

Ray, I am very fortunate to have received my 1.25X mag as part of my trading deal. When i received the little thing I was stunned at it's small size. It comes in a neat little leather pouch that attaches to the strap, so you can leave it permantly with the camera. Taking it out and screwing it on is easier that I first anticipated. But the first thing i thought was "oh shit, this thing is tinny, and it sells for AUD$500?????"

In use, it has definately helped, even though the difference is only an improvement of 25%. In other words , if a 25% improvement is all I need to improve me shots through faster and more accurate focusing, my 90APO isn't going anywhere! It is definately the sharpest portrait lens I've ever used. And I don't feel the weight and size is an issue.

But all that really counts is the results, which I haven't got back yet, so we'll see. But is I end up still missing shots due to lack of speed, the AF SLR may be the best choice for me in the 85-90mm range. Only time will tell.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 03, 2002.

Vikram,

Wow, I didn't think anyone would make a decision based on my single observation. I hope that I didn't hurt your growth. basically, reading my words that you reposted and reading my post from today doesn't really have too much contradiction. Last year (and back to 1994 when I got the Elmarit M) I was just too lazy to really use to my 90mm lens enough to like it. If I didn't kick myself in the butt and force myself to use it, my opinion would no doubt be the same now. I just kept looking at it and kept thinking about the thousand dollars I spent on it and finally put it on my camera. I bought 8 rolls of film and went out over several days with only the 90mm lens and shoot all of the film. There was a different feeling on the 8th roll than on the first couple. It wasn't as effortless as a 50mm Summicron, but the combination was not as much as a pain after getting to know it.

I hope you did not suffer too much from my post from last year. It was my honest opinion at that time, but I have evolved a bit since then.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), April 03, 2002.

Often it is best not to ask other people's opinions and do what you originally wanted to do. You only have yourself to blame then. Thank goodness I wasn't reading Peter Hughes' postings and rushed out and bought out whole heap of R stuff on his say-so!

It sounds to me that you actually want a 90mm M lens, but need convincing. Buy an older and cheaper one and find out is my suggestion.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), April 04, 2002.

"Wow, I didn't think anyone would make a decision based on my single observation. I hope that I didn't hurt your growth... I hope you did not suffer too much from my post from last year. It was my honest opinion at that time, but I have evolved a bit since then. -- Al Smith"

Al,

I have no regrets in purchasing the 105 f2.5, it is a great lens. Sometimes I just want to take out the SLR and go shooting. Sometimes the RF. Sometimes the digital. Why are people so wedded to the M as the be all and end all, and on an antiSLR and antiDigital jihad? (not you!)

Your opinion was ONE of the factors that went into my decision. One other factor is that the 105 is only $330 brand new, which is chump change in Leica $$$. For $330 you can't beat its output. I like the ability to see what's in and out of focus. One can then decide upon the appropriate focus, something that CANNOT be done with an RF with ease. Try getting two or three types of in and out of focus frames in the same shot. SLR beats RF hands down everytime. R over M anyday.

BTW this lens was used by McCurry for his famous "green eyes" shot, not that it had any bearing on my purchase. On Jack Flesher's recommendation I bought McCurry's nook "South SouthEast" which has superb photographs (to me anyway). I believe they're all Nikon shots.

"Often it is best not to ask other people's opinions and do what you originally wanted to do. You only have yourself to blame then."

Reading people's opinions is like doing research in a library. Nothing wrong with that. Nobody held a gun to my head and told me to buy X. I don't blame anyone.

"Thank goodness I wasn't reading Peter Hughes' postings and rushed out and bought out whole heap of R stuff on his say-so!"

Why this bias against Mr. Hughes? R works for him, what's wrong with that? I like his pictures.

"It sounds to me that you actually want a 90mm M lens, but need convincing. Buy an older and cheaper one and find out is my suggestion. -- Robin Smith"

Thanks for the advice. The hunt begins. I think I might take advantage of the Leica Day pricing next week.

Best wishes,

-- Vikram (VSingh493@aol.com), April 04, 2002.

"Thank goodness I wasn't reading Peter Hughes' postings and rushed out and bought out whole heap of R stuff on his say-so!"

Why this bias against Mr. Hughes? R works for him, what's wrong with that? I like his pictures.

I believe the point here was that the esteemed Peter Hughes raved about his R system for a week, sold it for a Nikon system that he raved about for a week, then chucked it all for an EOS system that he is raving about this week.

Stay tuned for next week I guess.

I'm just trying to figure out how he gets his black and white portraits to look as horrid as they do. Clearly it's deliberate as those dour facial expressions, weird duotones and eggshell eyeballs can't all happen by accident.

-- Keith Davis (leica4ever@yahoo.com), April 04, 2002.

RE: Peter Hughes as sales advisor - I "rushed out" and bought a 90 Summicron-M (at least as soon as a used one came into my ken) after seeing some of his 'Goth girls' portraits. Glad I did - despite Peter's 'defections". I tend to use the 90 TE more, for its size and sharpness - but when I want the "look", out comes the Summicron.

RE: Vikram's original questions. (1) I dunno - I find it relatively easy to get fleeting moments with the 90 on an RF. The RF focusing is faster - for me - than racking an SLR lens back and forth trying to nail the sharpest point. And more predictably exact than any AF I've tried.

(2) Absolutely 'visualization' of a telephoto picture with a rangefinder is an acquired skill. No doubt about it - an SLR (esp. an AF SLR) is easier. In fact an SLR is easier for a lot of things - it's why they mostly replaced rangefinders so quickly in the 1960s. Try framing a 21 with (or without) an accesory finder on an RF!

But back in the 60s Gene Smith titled his New School photo course "Photography Made Difficult". Doing something the "hard way" is not more artistic or virtuous in its own right - except maybe in mountain climbing, where you do get some brownie points for taking the tough route.

But doing something the hard way because it pays off in benefits - THAT'S why I shoot rangefinders - and why I'm willing to put in the labor to 'acquire' the extra skills needed. The benefits? - having a camera that people pay less attention to - being able to move fast with a light load (even just a spare lens in my pocket) - having a shutter the opens 'right now' when THE expression or gesture or moment happens - being able to shoot in lower light with the same aperture - and having that aperture be sharp enough for professional reproduction.

Except outside the lens range 15-90mm I won't ever pack an SLR around again - for me that's REALLY doing things 'the hard way." 8^)

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), April 04, 2002.

RE: rangefinders, 90s, and fleeting moments.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), April 04, 2002.

RE: rangefinders, 90s, and fleeting moments. Same basic idea, only w/the original Nikkor 105/2.5 from 1953 (in Contax RF mount, but attached to my M3):

-- Chris Chen (Wash., DC) (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), April 04, 2002.

"Excuse the length, Vikram. Just trying to be of any help. -- Iván Barrientos M"

Ivan,

Muchas gracias por los exemplos y por el instrucciones. (I hope my Spanish is as good as your English!) Mucho gusto! Es muy claro.

Gracias senor,

-- Vikram (VSingh493@aol.com), April 05, 2002.

Andy, Chris, Keith, et al,

Thanks very much for the advice and examples of the 90mm lens (and 105). If you were to buy just one lens (new and latest) would it be the 2.0APO or the 2.8? I flip flop over this since they both have their pros and cons. The net price difference is $630 which is small over the life of the lens (no intention of selling), so should not figure in the choice. I have until next Wednesday to make up my mind.

Thanks,

-- Vikram (VSingh493@aol.com), April 05, 2002.

"If you were to buy just one lens (new and latest) would it be the 2.0APO or the 2.8? I flip flop over this since they both have their pros and cons. The net price difference is $630 which is small over the life of the lens (no intention of selling), so should not figure in the choice."

FWIW, since I do a lot of shooting in low-light conditions (nightclubs, etc.) & like the super-narrow DoF look even in daylight, I would go w/the 90 Summicron. But if your style is different & you don't see yourself using f/2 a lot, I think you would be better off saving the $630 or spending it on something else (other equipment, film, plane ticket to your favorite destination, etc.)

-- Chris Chen (Wash., DC) (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), April 05, 2002.

As of yet, I have not been able to squeeze all of the optical performance from my Elmarit-M, so I don't think I would benefit from the Summicron as far as on-film performance. I also have arrived at a conclusion that for a head and shoulder portrait, I like to use at least f/2.8 just to cover the nose to the ears. Some people have made a statement with the "sharp eyes only" look, but I have never been able to make it work for me. As far as the benefit of the low light advantage of one more stop, it wouldn't be a big deal to me. In low light, I would normally go to a shorter, faster lens and therefore I'd have the advantages of aperture, focal length vs. camera shake (the old one-over rule), and more apparent DOF.

630 Dollars buys quite a bit of film, so for me it would be the Elmarit M and the film.

PS... this is my opinion based on my use of the Elmarit M and the older 90mm Summicron. I have not used the new APO 'cron, but I know how sharp the Elmarit M is, and I haven't exploited it to its fullest yet. My choice may be completely wrong, but it is my choice.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), April 05, 2002.

Thanks for the responses. I also have to consider that most of the people I photograph are over the age of 40, so a bit of softness is more flattering. Sometimes sharp is too sharp. However, it is a once in a lifetime purchase, so...hmm...

-- Vikram (VSingh493@aol.com), April 05, 2002.

I myself would ADD the 90 APO 'cron since they'll have to pry the Tele- Elmarit from my cold dead fingers, and there's no point in having two f/2.8 lenses.

In the hypothetical case of having ONLY one 90 and that one of the new ones, I'd probably still choose the APO 'cron. The few times I've shot with it there's just something I prefer about its images over the Elmarit-M - I can't quite put my finger on what: a combination of color, contrast, etc.

Either way I'd probably invest in a used .85x body as well - at f/2 we ARE pushing the limits of the rangefinder a little harder!

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), April 06, 2002.

If it is once in a lifetime purchase, then jump for the 90 SAA. Soon I might jump as well!

PS: Here in Indonesia the price difference between the elmarit & the cron is USD 450 (grey market)

-- Andy (andywijono@hotmail.com), April 06, 2002.

I just bought a new 90E and love it. The main thing I noticed between it and the 90AAs I handled was that the AAs were slooow to focus. The focus rings on the AAs (I played with 3) were very stiff compared to my 90E. Also, I have a hard enough time focusing at f2.8, I think any success for me at f2 would require a tripod and absolutely rigid subjects.

-- Ken Geter (kgeter@yahoo.com), April 06, 2002.

Lurker that I am, I rarely feel the desire to comment on the pics posted on this site. Great shot, Andy!

-- Steve Wiley (wiley@accesshub.net), April 06, 2002.

. . . and Chris!

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), April 07, 2002.