Anyone able to compare 90/2 with 80/1.4?

[CrisRose]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi guys,

 

I've been looking at the 80 Lux for a while, but the prices are a lot (for me).

 

With many pre-APO 90 Summicron R's (E55) available for less than half what the 80 Lux goes for, in some cases, a third of the price, and with many lovely shots coming from both, does anyone have both lenses to compare between them?

 

I am looking for a classic performing lens, that I'll no doubt end up using on future camera bodies, so this is a long term investment. If I need to save up more, to get the Lux, so be it, but if the 90 Cron will do me just as well, I'd love to find out. If I can save money, carry less weight, yet still get similar images, that would be great for me.

 

The are both Mandler designs with the classic wide open look that brings, so I see the raw numbers comparison like this (80 Lux / 90 Cron) :

 

 

Max Aperture: f1.4 / f2

Weight: 700g / 560g

Length: 69mm / 62mm

Filter: 67mm / 55mm

Minimum focus: 0.8m / 0.7m

Largest reproduction ratio: 1:8 / 1:6

Wide open DOF at 2m: 5cm / 6cm

 

Obviously, numbers can only say so much, and the proof is in the photos, but there are similarities and trade offs.

 

Weight and size, the 80 Lux is clearly larger and heavier. Being a Lux, it lets in twice the light, wide open, which can be a big deal when light is at it's minimum, but as I'm looking at using these as portrait lenses in good or studio light, that's not a deal breaker for me, nor an advantage, as an extra bump in ISO can also make up for it, especially on future camera bodies such as the M240.

 

[bTW the 90 Elmarit is too slow tho, for me as experience has shown me that f2 is as slow as I'd like to go, so it's not an option - but yes, i know it's a wonderful lens in it's own right]

 

Wide open, the DOF from both lenses are similar, plenty shallow. The 90 Cron focuses a little closer, and with it's narrower FOV, provides more magnification at closest distance, but again, they're close enough for that not to really matter - shooting portraits, I'll just move back or forward a little anyways until the framing is the same.

 

So this is why I find myself looking at the 2 of them. Based on what actually matters to me, the 80 Lux is 3x the price and 25% heavier, but a stop better in low light and only 10% longer. The DOF is similar enough.

 

In reality, the question is: Do I spend that much more, for a heavier lens, and an extra stop? Are the photos, wide open, that much more "special" from the 80 Lux than those from the 90 Cron in the same situation?

 

Is the Lux far sharper wide open? Are there clear aspects to 80 Lux shots that are missing from the 90 Cron? Anything I'm missing?

 

While I am sure there are many great insights that can be given from a photographer than owns one or the other, I am really looking to hear from those who have, or have used extensively, both.

 

I also appreciate those with suggestions for other lenses, but I really would prefer to keep this thread as a discussion on just these two.

 

As a closer, I just wanted to share an example from each of the lenses that have impressed me and lead me to believe that both are able to produce similar results.

 

80 Lux:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

90 Cron:

 

Thank you for reading!

[adan]

First, I have not had much chance to work with the 80mm R. But I have used the 75 M f/1.4, which is virtually the same lens - enough so that Erwin Puts treated them as one combined entry in his Compendium.

 

I've used the 90 Summicron R and also the similar 90 M.

 

Puts says of the R lenses: "..at f/2 and f/2.8 on-axis [center of the picture] performance of the R-80 is better (specifically the overall contrast) and the R-90 has the edge in the field [corners of the picture]. At smaller apertures this behavior does not change, but the differences are less visible..."

 

Square brackets are my own additions for clarity [ ].

 

That is essentially what I find using the M 75 and 90 - the 75 is the (slightly) sharper, clearer lens at f/1.4-f/2.8. The 90 at f/2 just looks as though nothing is quite in focus, while the 75 even at f/1.4 defines smaller details with tighter edges. See second attached picture.

 

The 75/80 show longitudinal chromatic aberration - the red light is not focused in the same plane as the green/blue light at the large apertures. This can lead to color bleeding - the whites of people's eyes (or other whites) may pick up a cyan tint, while the shadows (especially narrow dark lines like the frames of spectacles, or eyelashes) pick up a red tint. See second attached picture (75).

 

The 90 Summicrons show lateral CA - opposed green/purple rims to hard edges. Easier (generally) to correct digitally than the longitudinal CA.

 

Bokeh character is essentially identical for the two - the 75 just has "more." I'd swear some of my 75 pictures were taken with a 135 f/2 or 180 f/2.8, the background is so dissolved and soft. See first attached picture. The 90 will be similar - just not always as much separation (depends on relative camera/subject/background distances).

 

F/1.4 is f/1.4 - if you need it, one has it and the other doesn't. (I don't buy the argument that digital ISO capability makes large apertures superfluous - even if you have ISO 400,000 (Sony Alpha 7s), I can still go places with f/1.4 that would require ISO 800,000 with an f/2 lens. ).

 

However, half the value of the 75 M, for me, is that it frames tighter than the M 90s. Since the R 90 has the tight-framing advantage over the R 80, it would be a much closer call between the R lenses.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited June 13, 2014 by adan

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[roguewave]

The 80 Summilux R & the 75M version are Mandlers's finest lenses. I think it's essential to judge these lenses by using them wide open. In contrast to the very fine Summicrons, including the APO, the 80 still reigns Supreme. Color rendition is extraordinary and the sense of light is unique & authentic.

[Alon]

The 80 Summilux R & the 75M version are Mandlers's finest lenses. I think it's essential to judge these lenses by using them wide open. In contrast to the very fine Summicrons, including the APO, the 80 still reigns Supreme. Color rendition is extraordinary and the sense of light is unique & authentic.

 

Surely, you are not comparing the Lux80 to the APO90.

[farnz]

Cris,

 

Your 'by the numbers' comparison of the two lenses is accurate but doesn't tell the whole story. If all lenses had the same optical design and computation then that might be all there is to it but of course they don't. The designs for the 80/1.4 Summilux-R and 90/2 Summicron-R are vastly different and therefore the renderings in the pictures they produce are quite different. The Summilux has 7 elements in 5 groups and the Summicron has 5 elements in 4 groups according to Puts but I can't find an optical diagram online to demonstrate it (that isn't the APO asph version - plenty of those).

 

I agree with Ben (Roguewave's) view of the 80 Summilux and in my opinion it produces a magic that the 90 Summicron-R just lacks. Don't get me wrong, the Summicron is an excellent lens that has the Mandler 'look' but the Summilux has an 'X factor'. I had a 90 Summicron-R for a couple of years but I didn't bond with it in the same way as I have with the Summilux.

 

Pete.

[jip]

As you already know of course Cris I wrote a article on the 80 summilux: http://jipvankuijk.nl/summilux-r-80-leica-r8-m-typ-240/ (duh )

 

And I must say I love the lens much more than I thought I would. It's a great dreamy lens wide open but already at 2-2.8 it's equally sharp to the 90 I think... It's said that the 90 is overall more sharper over the whole field, but the 80 is sharper on center. Which makes me think of it as a real portrait lens, and the 90 more as a landscape lens. But the 80 is also really sharp when stopped down to f4-8 above this diffraction comes in a bit.

 

I have used the leica Summicron 90 m the old big version and have heard it used the same optical cell as the 90 for the R?

 

I liked the lens but it was big. But it rendered nicely. And also a bit dreamy at f2.

 

Hope this helps.

[jip]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Oh and here some shots with the 80 lux:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

All shots above are with the R8 and Different sorts of film, scanned with Nikon coolscan.

 

Here are two images of me with the camera and on both pics the 80 lux is mounted so you can maybe compare the size with the 90. Or any other lens for that matter!

Edited June 21, 2014 by jip