RustyBug wrote:
The diagonal of 36 x 24 = 43. Thus, the "normal" relationship of a 43mm lens. Not sure that it's the "new go-to", Pentax kinda brought this to the table quite some time back.
Just to pick up on the table that ftllens posted above:
As far as I can tell, the area of sharpest vision, the fovea, spans just a few words on a page at reading distance. Rapid, unconscious eye movements expand this a bit, but the effective horizontal angle of sharpest vision seems to be just a few degrees: perhaps rather like the horizontal field of a 400mm lens. The combined horizontal angle of your eyes' still relatively acute macular regions span about 25 degrees: a bit more than an 85mm lens. Beyond that, visual acuity more markedly declines, although what is termed the "central field" of human vision reportedly extends about 30 degrees on each side of your point of fixation, so 60 degrees in total: a bit less than a 35mm lens. So how does a lens of a focal length that approximates the diagonal of Barnack's repurposed version of Edison's movie film correspond to anything physiological?
I understand that some people really like their 43mm lenses (I happen to agree with Sally Mann that a 40mm lens is "about right") but the idea that 43 is the best approximation of some special feature of human vision seems to be something of a stretch. Pentax marketing may have been off by just a bit: As any reader of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy knows, the real answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything is not 43, but 42.
Liking the lens so far. As Fred's review says, build is very thoughtful. Need to get a bit more experience with the framing. Was a bit concerned with its short focus throw before ordering the lens. Once I tried, the fear was gone; I find it quick/snappy in fact (no doubting myself as it happens sometimes with longer focus throws).
Few initial, mundane test shots - nothing fancy, all at f2 on an M11-P.
Here are some images of the Voigtlander 90mm f/2 APO-Ultron mounted on the Leica M3. Hopefully, I'll be able to share some film shots from this setup soon.
@jigesh
Great samples! I agree that the minimum focus distance could be closer, which is a drawback for the lens. However, it still focuses closer than my Leica 90/2 Summicron APO, so I am already used to this limitation with telephoto lenses on the M.
Vision moves from sharp to less sharp. But for many of us portraits ideally show the large features (eyes in particular, mouth, nose, outlines of face) first, then the fine details (that are softer) in the background of vision, as a second stage of vision.
Older lenses from more people-friendly times 'push the low spatial frequencies through' because they did not have the huge attention on the high spatial frequencies, or the technology to design lenses that deliver them.
jigesh wrote:
Can sometimes be too sharp for portraits :-)
I mentioned this in the conclusion of my review. I wish there were a 90mm portrait lens that was less clinical and not so heavily corrected for spherical aberration. While I appreciate the excellent color error correction, I usually reach for less corrected lenses when shooting portraits. That said, well-corrected lenses can be useful when you want to emphasize lines and facial features.
My favorites 'portrait' lenses are the Leica 75/1.4 Summilux and MS-Optics 73/1.5 lenses, although sometimes not long enough for headshots.
Nothing in the 90mm focal length quite fits the bill, but I do enjoy shooting with the Meyer-Optik Trioplan 100mm f/2.8 or the TTArtisan clone. I also tried the Leica 90mm Thambar. It’s a fun lens, but a bit too 'characterful' for my taste.
When shooting portraits with the Leica 90mm f/2 AA, I usually skip sharpening in post, lower clarity by 10 to 15 points, and reduce contrast by at least 20 points. I'd do something similar for the new Voigtlander 90/2 APO but of course, that depends on the subject.
Your review was/is spot on based on my experience. Thank you for all the tests! This is an excellent lens in many scenarios (nature, products, group shots, portraits - probably full or half body length, ...), and not as hard to nail focus as some other tele choices.
Mar 11, 2025 at 04:36 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Fred Miranda wrote:
I mentioned this in the conclusion of my review. I wish there were a 90mm portrait lens that was less clinical and not so heavily corrected for spherical aberration. While I appreciate the excellent color error correction, I usually reach for less corrected lenses when shooting portraits. That said, well-corrected lenses can be useful when you want to emphasize lines and facial features.
My favorites 'portrait' lenses are the Leica 75/1.4 Summilux and MS-Optics 73/1.5 lenses, although sometimes not long enough for headshots.
Nothing in the 90mm focal length quite fits the bill, but I do enjoy shooting with the Meyer-Optik Trioplan 100mm f/2.8 or the TTArtisan clone. I also tried the Leica 90mm Thambar. It’s a fun lens, but a bit too 'characterful' for my taste.
When shooting portraits with the Leica 90mm f/2 AA, I usually skip sharpening in post, lower clarity by 10 to 15 points, and reduce contrast by at least 20 points. I'd do something similar for the new Voigtlander 90/2 APO but of course, that depends on the subject....Show more →
Have you tried the Leica M 90 cron pre-Asph (i.e., version III). I had the R version of the lens which I shot on a Canon 5D II ages ago and I remember liking it as a portrait lens. It did have a fair bit of axial CA, but I liked the sharpness profile (not too sharp, but not unsharp either with a moderate amount of SA) and the bokeh. I am not sure how it would perform on a higher megapixel camera, however.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Have you tried the Leica M 90 cron pre-Asph (i.e., version III). I had the R version of the lens which I shot on a Canon 5D II ages ago and I remember liking it as a portrait lens. It did have a fair bit of axial CA, but I liked the sharpness profile (not too sharp, but not unsharp either with a moderate amount of SA) and the bokeh. I am not sure how it would perform on a higher megapixel camera, however.
Hi Steve, great suggestion! I’ve actually never tried the 90mm f/2 pre-ASPH, but I’ll definitely give it a shot. I'm sure CA will bother me but it's worth a try.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Hi Steve, great suggestion! I’ve actually never tried the 90mm f/2 pre-ASPH, but I’ll definitely give it a shot. I'm sure CA will bother me but it's worth a try.
I have the R version of the 90 f/2 pre-ASPH. The CA is there, but not bad. IMO much better controlled than most lenses in the 85-105mm focal length which often suffer from CA. I love how this lens renders, but it's best used for portraits.
cbass wrote:
I have the R version of the 90 f/2 pre-ASPH. The CA is there, but not bad. IMO much better controlled than most lenses in the 85-105mm focal length which often suffer from CA. I love how this lens renders, but it's best used for portraits.
Thanks for the info! I'm not too familiar with the different versions, but I just picked up a Leica Summicron-M 90mm f/2 (E55) in black anodized with the model number 11136. It has "Leitz" on the front instead of "Leica" and there’s no E55 engraving, so I’m unsure which version this is. I had been wanting to try the much bigger and heavier Canada version because of its double Gauss optical design, but it’s just too heavy at 650 grams.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thanks for the info! I'm not too familiar with the different versions, but I just picked up a Leica Summicron-M 90mm f/2 (E55) in black anodized with the model number 11136. It has "Leitz" on the front instead of "Leica" and there’s no E55 engraving, so I’m unsure which version this is. I had been wanting to try the much bigger and heavier Canada version because of its double Gauss optical design, but it’s just too heavy at 650 grams.
The Summicron-M 90 pre-asph II is the best performing pre-asph. It has a hills and valleys focus ring. It's a heavy lens at 685 grams and not small in size. The Summicron-M 90 pre-asph III is the most similar in design to the Summicron-R 90 pre-asph. It is lighter than version 2, but not a light lens at 475 grams for the black one. None of the Summicron-M 90 pre-asph lenses are small in size.
I went with the R version because I planned to adapt it. On a rangefinder it seems that the coupling for the 90mm focal length is not great, and the M versions are larger lenses to the R. The R is also unique as it has a close focus distance of 0.7 m. There aren't many lenses of any brand that focus that close in the 85-105mm focal length. The R is also much small physically over the M. It is, however, not a light lens either at 560 grams.
From what I have seen the Summicron-M 90 pre-asph II, Summicron-M 90 pre-asph III and Summicron-R 90 pre-asph render quite similar with minor differences.
cbass wrote:
The Summicron-M 90 pre-asph II is the best performing pre-asph. It has a hills and valleys focus ring. It's a heavy lens at 685 grams and not small in size. The Summicron-M 90 pre-asph III is the most similar in design to the Summicron-R 90 pre-asph. It is lighter than version 2, but not a light lens at 475 grams for the black one. None of the Summicron-M 90 pre-asph lenses are small in size.
I went with the R version because I planned to adapt it. On a rangefinder it seems that the coupling for the 90mm focal length is not great, and the M versions are larger lenses to the R. The R is also unique as it has a close focus distance of 0.7 m. There aren't many lenses of any brand that focus that close in the 85-105mm focal length. The R is also much small physically over the M. It is, however, not a light lens either at 560 grams.
From what I have seen the Summicron-M 90 pre-asph II, Summicron-M 90 pre-asph III and Summicron-R 90 pre-asph render quite similar with minor differences. ...Show more →
Thank you so much! So, the version I purchased is the version 3, which is similar to the "R" in terms of performance and rendering. I've always been curious about the larger 6-element version, which you mentioned is actually the "v2". (I initially thought it was the v1).
I haven't seen many samples from it -- If you know some, please share the link!
Since I primarily use the Leica M and rangefinder focusing, the v3 seemed like the best "compromise". I’m excited to compare it to the APO version.
Mar 11, 2025 at 08:58 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thank you so much! So, the version I purchased is the version 3, which is similar to the "R" in terms of performance and rendering. I've always been curious about the larger 6-element version, which you mentioned is actually the "v2". (I initially thought it was the v1).
I haven't seen many samples from it -- If you know some, please share the link!
Since I primarily use the Leica M and rangefinder focusing, the v3 seemed like the best "compromise". I’m excited to compare it to the APO version.
Another important differences between the Leica R version and the Leica M versions is the Leica R version has eight aperture blades which results in octagons in stopped down bokeh balls, whereas the Leica M version has 11 curved aperture blades and IMO, nicer stopped down bokeh balls, although I don't know if these blades make ninja star type bokeh balls at some apertures.
If people are interested in this lens, then it might be worth reading what Erwin Puts has to say about it in his "Leica M lens their soul and secrets." He covers the earlier 6 element version(s) and 5 element version (often called version III) on pages 65 and 66. According to the Leica Wiki page from 1957 to 1962 version I was produced, and 1963 to 1980 version II was produced, but these two versions appear to be optically identical and only have minor differences. The five element version appeared in 1980. Puts describes the six element version as just one version that began in 1958 and continued to 1980. He also has MTF and distortion graphs for the five element version. All of these 90 summicron pre-asph lenses were designed by Mandler.
