Just wondering which is better I can get a leica 80mm summilux 1.4 R for 900pounds however it has quite a lot of scuffs on the outside and hood and some cleaning marks on the front and rear element. Or for 660 uk pounds I can get a mint 90mm summicron f2 R pre apo.
its mainly for portraiture, factors most important are rendering , hence leica. Bokeh is a bit of a factor. However I will use the lens for different applications aswell. basically is it worth the upgrade of a couple hundred pounds and going from a mint summicron to a well used summilux with cleaning marks
I think most people would say yes, it's worth it. Personally, I prefer the 90 for both portraiture and as an all around lens. The 80 renders beautifully wide open, but even at f/2, center sharpness is a bit behind the cron. The 80 has more of a watercolor bokeh wide open and at f/2. At f/2.8, the 80 overtakes the 90 in sharpness across the frame, but it's the difference is only obvious in pixel-peeping. MFD for both is fairly long for a portrait lens on either. Colors are spectacular on either. The 80 has more of an issue with CA.
Very different lenses... I would consider Summilux as an upgrade only if bokeh is your most important factor - this lens has an absolutely creamy bokeh and somewhat dreamy rendering (which will get even dreamier with those scratches). Summicron is harsher, more dramatic. I'd say Summilux is for taking portraits of ladies and Summicron is for taking portraits of dudes
