I recently picked up the 35 apo summicron. It's my favorite lens as far as rendering/quality. I'm looking for a telephoto to compliment it and 50 is too close. I've been eying the 75 and 90 apo's but it seems they're a little older design. The 75 has a floating element which is a bonus. Also considering the 135 apo.
I'm aware some leica glass has character and other flaws that are attractive, I'm going for more of a clinical/sharp look.
If there's one out there that I'm not aware of, let me know. Thanks in advance.
WM
Feb 15, 2026 at 01:15 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
luminorsubm wrote:
I recently picked up the 35 apo summicron. It's my favorite lens as far as rendering/quality. I'm looking for a telephoto to compliment it and 50 is too close. I've been eying the 75 and 90 apo's but it seems they're a little older design. The 75 has a floating element which is a bonus. Also considering the 135 apo.
I'm aware some leica glass has character and other flaws that are attractive, I'm going for more of a clinical/sharp look.
If there's one out there that I'm not aware of, let me know. Thanks in advance.
WM
I think your best bet is the Voigtlander 90 f/2 APO Ultron. See Fred's review. It is very clinical/sharp and more so than the Leica 90 cron APO.
I haven't used the APO-Ultron 90 Steve suggested, but Fred's testing does make it look good.
I've owned all the Leicas you're considering, and the overall resolution of each has a lot do to with focus distance. At or near infinity, the 90 is the most consistent across the frame from wide open, with the 75 and 135 mostly catching up at f/5.6. Mid to close, the 75, thanks to the FLE, retains more resolution, regardless of aperture, with the other two giving up quite a bit to undercorrected SA. The 135 has a decently flat field, the 75 has a slight wave (similar to the original Lux 50 ASPH, which was apparently used as the starting point for this lens' design) and the 90 has a slightly stronger inward curve. I never found it problematic on the 75 or 90, though. It's just something to be aware of. None of them have big issues with astigmatism, coma, or optical vignetting.
The bad news is none of them match the APO-Cron 35's overall resolution, regardles of focus distance. The good news is all of them have less complex distortion and much less vignetting. Personally, I think the 75 would be the line of best fit as a companion to the 35, because the FLE makes it a more consistent all-arounder. Just my thought. I hope it helps.
I bought one: back-focus at short distance, front-focus at long distance.
I'm used to badly calibrated Voigtlander lenses, usually front-focus and I often can fix it myself by removing shims.
But in such a case, there is nothing I can do so I returned it.
So if you plan to use it with a rangefinder, test it. I may just have received a bad sample. My 90mm/2.8 Apo Voigt is perfect.
I forgot to mention; the 75 allows for significantly closer focus. Leica lists its max reproduction ratio as 1:7, though they did round up a bit there. They list both the 90 and 135 as 1:9, and there they rounded down significantly. They're both closer to 1:10 than they are 1:9.
freaklikeme wrote:
I forgot to mention; the 75 allows for significantly closer focus. Leica lists its max reproduction ratio as 1:7, though they did round up a bit there. They list both the 90 and 135 as 1:9, and there they rounded down significantly. They're both closer to 1:10 than they are 1:9.
hey thanks for that thoughtful write up. Forgot to mention I just want to keep it at Leica M glass. Also possible that I may go for the 75 noctilux. I've seen some stunning images with that 75 noctilux and I can always stop down
flat field is a bonus, ultra resolution is the main idea.
I've owned a bunch of voightlanders; 21 skopar, 75 & 28 ultron, 40 & 21 nokton + the 35 apo lanthar...something about them just doesn't quite click with me. They're no doubt good and excellent value.
The 35 apo lanthar was my favorite of that mix, but leica and zeiss glass speak to me the most. I loved the 35 1.4 zeiss, I feel like the 35 apo is a solid step up.
Also another reason I opted for summicrons is because I'm hoping for corner to corner performance. I do a lot of nodal point panorama shots.
"Low budget" being relative to say the least... Great lens but for $6000, you get an entire system in another brand and you will not see the difference on pictures.
rscheffler wrote:
the 75/1.25 and/or 90/1.5 for something more modern.
And I'm still waiting to see the pictures people shoot with a M and a 90mm at 1.5 that justify weight, size and price...
If you want true optical perfection (high resolution/contrast from center to edges wide open), no axial CA, no spherical aberration, and a smooth, clean rendering, I have not tested a telephoto that outperforms the Voigtlander 90mm f/2 APO-Ultron.
Yes, you can go for the Leica 90mm f/1.5 Summilux-M asph, but it's not corrected to the same degree and it's less clinical, if that's the look you're after. It is similar to choosing the Leica 50mm f/1.4 Lux ASPH over a 50mm f/2 APO from Leica or Voigtlander, where speed and higher blur take priority over absolute correction.
I have the 75/2.4 and the 135/3.4 APO, so the 90 AA isn't in my bag due to the proximity to my 75. But, if I wasn't going to have the pair (75 / 135) ... the 90 AA would be in my bag. That said, the 135 is the longest M lens in the arsenal, so if telephoto "reach" is a consideration, there's that.
I'll readily shoot pano's with either my 75 or 135. You specifically mentioned nodal points ... suggesting you are shooting closer foreground objects as part of your panos (if nodal work is critical). Is your quest for the telephoto for the reach, or the magnification / compression of closer objects (vs. infinity panos).
I've got a handheld pano-stitch (and detail crop of farm a few miles away) shot in terrible lighting (actually overcast / raining), that I posted up a few years back ... shot on 24 MP SL2-S.
Fred Miranda wrote:
If you want true optical perfection (high resolution/contrast from center to edges wide open), no axial CA, no spherical aberration, and a smooth, clean rendering, I have not tested a telephoto that outperforms the Voigtlander 90mm f/2 APO-Ultron.
Yes, you can go for the Leica 90mm f/1.5 Summilux-M asph, but it's not corrected to the same degree and it's less clinical, if that's the look you're after. It is similar to choosing the Leica 50mm f/1.4 Lux ASPH over a 50mm f/2 APO from Leica or Voigtlander, where speed and higher blur take priority over absolute correction.
any experience with the 75 noctilux? I can't find much but I'm impressed with what I've seen
Hi Fred. Would you consider the CV 90 f2 rendering similar to the SL 90 Apo? This is one of my fav lenses ever and explains the magic of the Leica SL formula: sharp but not clinical, modern but still cinematic.
fededuran wrote:
Hi Fred. Would you consider the CV 90 f2 rendering similar to the SL 90 Apo? This is one of my fav lenses ever and explains the magic of the Leica SL formula: sharp but not clinical, modern but still cinematic.
The Leica APO-Summicron-SL 90mm f/2 is also one of my favorites, and yes, the CV 90mm f/2 APO-Ultron has a very similar look. Wide open, the SL has a slight edge in resolution and contrast, but both are exceptional performers.
Rendering is close as well, smooth transitions with depth and clarity, without drifting into anything overly abstract or overly smooth. Optical vignetting is comparable too. If you look through the samples in my review, many of them will immediately remind you of the SL.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The Leica APO-Summicron-SL 90mm f/2 is also one of my favorites, and yes, the CV 90mm f/2 APO-Lanthar has a very similar look. Wide open, the SL has a slight edge in resolution and contrast, but both are exceptional performers.
Rendering is close as well, smooth transitions with depth and clarity, without drifting into anything overly abstract or overly smooth. Optical vignetting is comparable too. If you look through the samples in my review, many of them will immediately remind you of the SL.
Clinical Leica 90s and nobody has mentioned the 90 Macro Elmar? If you don’t need f/2 or f/2.8, I can’t imagine the 90AA being any sharper at any aperture than the macro elmar. I’ve never used the 90AA, but did use the 90 Voigt and it was clinically sharp. I never compared the two side by side, but I’m guessing the macro elmar would be just as sharp, in 1/3 the size
I went a little crazy and ordered the noctilux 75. I don't really need the 1.25 but it's allegedly sharp across the frame even wide open. Doesn't hurt to have the extra stop+ of light. But it will be a little more to wield. However, I did have my otus 28 mounted on my m11 so I feel that was a good warmup
also I can't seem to find a APO lanthar 90, just a ultron apo.
Interesting how divergent priorities are with the ‘M’ system. I was going to support the 90mm Macro-Elmar. I find size/weight to be important with the ‘M’. So, the 90mm and 35mm Color-Skopar are high on my list and 75mm Leica f/2.0 APO is also quite nice, but rather than mount huge, heavy lenses, I would switch to the Hasselblad XCD2.
bwcolor wrote:
Interesting how divergent priorities are with the ‘M’ system. I was going to support the 90mm Macro-Elmar. I find size/weight to be important with the ‘M’. So, the 90mm and 35mm Color-Skopar are high on my list and 75mm Leica f/2.0 APO is also quite nice, but rather than mount huge, heavy lenses, I would switch to the Hasselblad XCD2.
I bought the x2d...twice! And all the lenses, I thought I could outdo the Leica and believe me I tried. It's all relative though. We see what we see
