Summicron 28 Asph Vs Elmarit 28 Asph
Leica releases new versions of 28 Summicron, 35 Summicron and 28 Elmarit! Seems like Leica has updated some lenses and they will start shipping in Feb. A new 28 Summicron ASPH f/2, and an updated 28 Elmarit and 35 Summicron. They all have all new metal hood designs which is AWESOME as the 28 and 35. The fact is when referring to a lens in his book, Bower ALWAYS mentions whether it is the ASPH on non-ASPH version; and he did NOT compare the Elmarit to the 90 Summicron ASPH lens, but to the Summicron. Regardless, as the source you so often quote, it is indisputable that Bower prefers the 90 Summicron to the Elmarit. Leica Summicron M 28mm f/2.0 ASPH Lens Review Introduction. Among Leica camera has various wide angle lenses including the popular 28mm focal length lenses which include Leica Summicron M 28mm f/2.0 ASPH lens, Leica Summilux M 28mm f/1.4 ASPH lens, Leica Elmarit-M 28mm f/2.8 ASPH lens, Leica Summaron-M 28mm f/5.6 lens.
I looked at the current Elmarit (used) in a shop the other day - beautifully smooth to use and balanced very well on my M6. It is however a very heavy lens and seeing as one of the main reasons I have an M is to have a compact and (fairly) light high quality camera I didn't buy it. In the end I bought a CV 90 3.5 which was also going S/H for 1/3rd of the price - OK you loose 1/2 stop and it's definatley not got the 'feel' of a Leica but it's small, light, takes 39mm filters and it's shockingly sharp at 3.5 from the corners to the centre with no trace of flare - looking at the trannys with a 15x loupe I can't see any point in a lens being any sharper than this. Hello Chris,I had the same dilemma a few years ago and I had the occasion to compare both lenses. The summicron is told to be sharper but I couldn't see any difference in quality between both on projected slides (provia F).
Both lenses are perfect from wide open on. I bought the elmarit-m because it is less expensive and is available in chrome. The size difference between both is limited. I don't have that extra stop but at 2.8 the DOF is already very limited. If you need the f2, go for the AA summicron, otherwise the elmarit will satisfy your needs.Good luck,Frederik. Unless you make a lot of photos in very low light don't buy the Summicron.
If a 90 is a lens you're going to carry around all day don't buy the Summicron. The old style (usually chrome) long Elmarit is a nice LIGHT sharp lens, and the Elmar C even more so. Also late production Elmars give great results. Until stolen mine was my favorite 90.
If you buy a Tele Elmarit shoot with it first, I've heard that some aren't the sharpest. What I'm saying is: a big heavy impressive piece of glass with unbelieveable sharpness is no good at all if it's sitting at home because it hurts your shoulder. Echoing the above. I compared the handling of the 90SAA to the current 90E.
I found the ergonomics of the 90E to be better. The 90SAA is very stiff to focus, and 'fat' relative to most M lenses. F2.8 provides very shallow DOF, esp. At close range. I don't think I'd have a lot of success focusing at F2.I use my 90 for 10-20% of my shooting, and have used F2.8 about 5% of that time, so I'm glad I didn't fork out the extra $800 for the 90SAA.
As I suspect is the case in the other current focal lengths with multiple versions (28, 35, 50): the most expensive version isn't necessarily the most practical. My two cents: I looked very closely at both, but in the end I opted for the 90AA as I intended to use the lens occasionally for stage/perforance shooting. At that time I compared the lens sizes, weigths and bulk. Interestingly, the 90AA is only slightly longer and wider than the Elmarit and weighs only a little more. The 'bulk' however does make it seem a more significant difference than it is. Because of this, I opted for the 90TE as a 'lightweight' alternative to the 90AA. I soon learned that if you factored in the immense hood on the 90TE (which is a necessity due to that lens' propensity to flare), it is essentially the same size as an Elmarit, albeit lighter.
I also found I missed having f2 on a few occasions, and that perhaps the slight extra weight of the 90AA in the bag was no big thing. Now I happily carry the 90AA, but think if I ever again feel I need a lightweight alternative I would look at the diminuitive C/V 90.Here is a shot with the 90AA, but it is a cheapo flatbed scan of a print, so you probably can't tell much from it:Cheers. I've looked at the C/V and my observation is that if you rarely use a 90, it should hold up fine. Erwin Puts, who praises its optical performance, notes that pressure against the mount (which he found to have some slop initially)caused a difference in the collimator reading.
My experience with the 15 Heliar and at one time a 75/2.5 is that C/V lenses are somewhat on the delicate side, build-wise. But whereas a 15 or 21 doesn't get focused a lot, a 90 does, plus it's longer so there's more leverage on it, so build quality does play a significant role. Of course you could buy 3 of them for the price of one Elmarit, or two for the price of one Tele-Elmarit, but if they get discontinued at some point.and, if with use the thing gets progressively sloppier, its performance would degrade progressively as well (i.e. It isn't just a matter of it delivering great performance and then suddenly falling to pieces). Would be nice to near from someone who's used the 90 C/V hard for a year.
Chris:I think between these two lenses it really boils down to size vs. The extra f/stop. (with $$$//¥¥¥ thrown in).The APO 'cron is SUPPOSED to be a little better at f/2.8-f/5.6 (not to mention f/2!) but in 99.9% of pictures the difference is going to be far smaller than the effects of hand-holding, film grain and other factors.
In other words, you're not going to be missing out on image quality by picking one or the other, so don't sweat that aspect.I have noticed that the 90 APO SEEMS to give slightly 'sweeter' color on slide film (Velvia) - either a bare notch less macro-contrast or a tad less pink. It's just an impression - I haven't shot them side by side. But that difference (even if real) is microscopic compared to the weight and speed differences.If you need f/2, you need f/2 (either for low light or softer backgrounds). If you don't need f/2, why carry the extra cubic inches and grams (about 70) around? That's a call YOU'LL have to make.In handling several 90 APOs I've noticed the focusing stiffness varies quite a bit - some are extremely stiff and others are very smooth.Personally I use the 90 'thin' TE - mine delivers more image quality than can be reproduced in a 9'x13' print, even though it lags the newer lenses in absolute terms.
Its weight is 55% of even the current Elmarit. But since it isn't on your shopping list.Finally - with ANY lens over 50 mm on a rangefinder - I would strongly recommend testing the actual physical lens you intend to purchase to see how it focuses on YOUR camera body. Some lenses just seem to focus - better - on camera A than on camera B (and vice versa), depending on how the tolerance variations in each reinforce or cancel each other. Discussions concerning Leica 90mm Leica M lenses evoke poster preferences, but the only way that you can decide what is best for you is to try the various lenses. I use the 90 SAA and the first version 90 Elmarit. The Elmarit is optically superior to the Tele-Elmarit, available at bargain pricing, and lighter than the current Elmarit. I also like the SAA: more contrast, a state-of-the-art lens.
I laugh when some complain that the SAA is too sharp; I mean, c'mon, is a lens ever too sharp? Put a Zeiss Softar on it when you take a photo of Grandma if you must. Doug From Tumwater likes to point out that Brian Bower in 'The Leica Lens Book' writes that the 90 Elmarit is slightly superior to the 90 Summicron in the near focusing range. Notice that Bower compares the 90 Elmarit to the Summicron, not the 90 SAA lens. If Doug will read page 134 of Bower's book, he will notice that Bower recommends the 90 Summicron ( not the 90 SAA lens ) vs the 90 Elmarit for his preferred kit by saying:Surprisingly, there is little difference in weight between theF2 Summicron and the F2.8 Elmarit.
My choice (cash permitting)would be the Summicron.Bower's Book was published in 1998; the 90 SAA was released in 1999. It could be that Bower had an early sample of the 90 SAA lens for test, but his photographs in the book were with the 90 Summicron lens, not the 90 SAA lens ( Bower specifically attributes the various ASPH and non-ASPH lenses he uses for photos in his book ).
More than likely, Bower's book was released prior to him having used the 90 SAA lens.The 90 Elmarit is a wonderful lens and a great option. I post this response because one need not be misled by a poster's reference ( and bias ), and instead should experience the various lens choices for oneself before making a decision. Well, I pulled the Brian Bower book back out to give it a second look and I will stand by the earlier post I made regarding the 90 Elmarit-M having better performance (at close distances) than the 90 AA because of these citations in 'The Leica Lens Book':- On page 27 the 90 AA is listed as the current production lens. Bower calls it the 'APO-Summicron-M ASPH.' - The older 90 'Summicron-M' is mentioned as an earlier Leica Rangefinder lens on page 79 and shows production ceased in 1998. BTW, 'The Leica Lens Book' was first published in the UK in 1998.- On page 39 the '90 F2 APO-Summicron-M ASPH' is reviewed for optical performance.
Bower states 'the lens performs superbly at all apertures and throughout the focusing range.' - On page 40 the 90 Elmarit-M is then reviewed and Mr. Bower makes his statement about the near range Elmarit-M superiority to the 'Summicron' (he does not write either 'Summicron-M' or 'APO-Summicron-M ASPH').Because of the preceding four citations, I believe that the context of the Elmarit-M statement about near distance superiority is a comparison to the 90 AA.BTW, my earlier reference about the 75 Summilux being the closest focusing Leica M lens was not expressed correctly. To the point, the 75 Summilux covers the smallest object area of any Leica M lens and that is what I meant to say. Doug, we can discuss all day about which 90 lens Brian Bower was referring when he made the statement that you so love to quote.
The fact is when referring to a lens in his book, Bower ALWAYS mentions whether it is the ASPH on non-ASPH version; and he did NOT compare the Elmarit to the 90 Summicron ASPH lens, but to the Summicron. Regardless, as the source you so often quote, it is indisputable that Bower prefers the 90 Summicron to the Elmarit.I have used all of the Leica 90 lenses (M & R), owning most of them. I have compared the 90 Elmarit (Latest) with the 90 SAA lens in the near focusing range (transparencies and negs on a light table with loupe, and enlargements), and see no difference between the two. If the Elmarit is superior in any way in the near focusing region to the SAA lens, it is not noticeable. David wrote:'we can discuss all day about which 90 lens Brian Bower was referring when he made the statement that you so love to quote. The fact is when referring to a lens in his book, Bower ALWAYS mentions whether it is the ASPH on non-ASPH version; and he did NOT compare the Elmarit to the 90 Summicron ASPH lens, but to the Summicron.'
Please reread the fourth citation in my post preceding yours. Bower refers properly to the 90 pre-AA it is called the 'Summicron-M' not just 'Summicron' (which is an older version yet in the 90 f/2.0 M line). Because of the 'Summicron' shorthand reference in Mr. Bowers comparison with the Elmarit-M, I again submit that in the context of his statement he was directly referring to the 90 AA as coming up short. Think about it.
This shorthand reference Mr. Bower makes to the 'Summicron' works well for his written composition because writing out 'APO Summicron-M ASPH' is long, unwieldy and redundant give that the reader just read the 90 AA critique on the preceding page of his book. Since 1998 most of us have come up with even better shorthand references for the new 90 such as my '90 AA' or your '90 SAA.' That your tests show no difference in the close range performance between the 90 Elmarit-M and the 90 AA does not surprise me. It is quite likely that Mr.
Bower's testing procedures and analysis for these two lenses were different from yours. Frankly, given your unsubstantiated and ploying statements I would submit that readers of this thread should have doubts about your testing results also.Finally, you are correct in calling out Mr.
Bowers preference of the 90 'Summicron' (if money is no object) to the 90 Elmarit-M but that does not mean that the original poster(Chris) has to slavishly follow that conclusion. Chris has his own needs and budget, that is why he started this thread. If low light and indoor events are a crucial role of the telephoto lens that Chris selects, then the 90 AA again comes up short. In the low light telephoto M world, the 75 Lux offers up a crucial extra F-stop, far superior bokeh and more generous depth of field at any given aperture compared to the 90 AA.So to sum it up: For close focusing performance and economy go with the 90 Elmarit-M; for low light capability go with the 75 Lux; and for a lens which offers moderate speed and overall excellent performance (except for the bokeh) the 90 AA is the ticket. Chris the choice is yours and a fun choice it is!
Summicron 28 Asph Vs Elmarit 28 Asph Inch
We don't have the 90 Summicron, but we do have both a late model f2.8 thin TE and the latest 2.8 Elmar. We're going to keep both, viz., the Elmar for detailed shooting (regardless of f stop), and the TE for outdoor hand-held work, where the f stop is usually from 5.6 to f 11.0, and I can jack up the shutter speed to 1/500. Except for the much-discussed flare issue, I can't see any appreciable differences in 'chromes taken with the new Elmar or our older TE at 5.6 to 11.0.
However, for close-focus subjects, and exposures from 2.8 to 5.6, the new Elmar -to my eyes and loupe -is clearly the winner. (Velvia and Provia 100).
Summicron 28 Asph Vs Elmarit 28 Asph 1
I just wish the new Elmar was the grandson of our TE, both in weight and volume. Maybe my results are from my inability to hand hold at 1/125 or under; however, I've shot sufficient pictures to cancel out that abberation.