rscheffler Online Upload & Sell: Off
|
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Leica M 90 advice pls - Tele-Elmarit (11800) or Summarit 90/2.5? | |
joe88 wrote:
I will take the Summarit 90 2.5 over Tele-E.
I had a Summarit 90 2.5, but sold because I also have a 90APO Cron (90 APO is probably one of Leica's best lens in my opinion). Kept my Tele-E because of its compact size, this is the main reason to keep the lens - size.
90 Tele-E is old, flares a lot and lose contrast very easily without a hood. It is susceptible to fogging and fungus which is irreversible, some say its due to oil or glue used (I can't recall). However, optically it is decent and stopped down to f/4, its great for a older design with only 4 elements, caveat is you have to watch out for flare. I still keep mine due to its compact size. Had it coded by DAG.
90 Summarit - I didn't like the screw in large hood but it is a very nice lens, not as clinical as a modern ASPH Leica but nothing to complain. I think my copy of this lens is still circulated around this forum by fellow FM'ers D
...Show more →
Gary Clennan wrote:
X2. I own the 90 Summarit and think it is a very solid performer. Modern design/coatings and very well built. I would choose it anyday over the tele-E (which I have also owned).
In fact, it is Gary who know owns your 90 Summarit. I also enjoyed the lens and didn't mind the hood design. Once my M240 was dialed in correctly, the Summarit was a real pleasure to use with the RF.
As with Joe I moved on to the 90AA and sold the Summarit, but in some respects, miss it. The 90AA seems to flare a bit less predictably at times and is trickier to focus correctly (with RF) and may be more fiddly and require more fine tuning at Leica to get right. At least my copy. I wonder if this is simply the way things work with a number of higher price, higher performance Leica M lenses? The Summarit on the other hand, just worked. I was not disappointed in it, rather, couldn't resist the inevitable desire to try the 'best' Leica 90 currently available for the M system.
I also had a brief chance to try the 75 Summarit and will echo Michael's comments. Relative to the 90 Summarit, I think the 75 is slightly sharper and punchier, Also probably less CA, which the 90 has to a minor, but discernible degree. 90AA here is better too and slightly more transparent in overall look, but it's splitting hairs.
I'm also curious about the 90/4 options but have difficulty believing the old 90 Elmar can compete against modern optics. But such a lens I'd probably shoot mostly at f/8 for landscape type images. I'd go for the 90 Macro, but have serious difficulty accepting its price. For about the same was able to get the AA, which felt like a better value (other than the weight).
I'm not a fan of what Leica did with the f/2.4 Summarit 'refresh' since it seems purely an excuse to considerably increase the price point. But maybe the line was under appreciated because it was too 'cheap' relative to mainstream M lenses? In any case, the 90/2.5 can be found at very attractive prices on the used market. I think it's dropped several hundred in the ~4 years since I bought it, despite the gradual increase in retail price. In fact, it would seem now is a much better time than 4 years ago to buy used modern Leica M lenses, seeing has how many have dropped a fair amount in resale value.
|