M series Portrait Lens 3 options - Advice please

[HRJ]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If sharpness is what you're after, 90/2 apo is the way to go. 90/2 v2 & v3 (no experience with v1) are softer at f/2, 90/2 v3 having more CA than both 90/2 v2 and 90/2 apo. 

 

 

lct, thanks for that. Yes, it's sharpness and just that little bit of Leica feel when wide open. Regards.

[uhoh7]

Here is Puts on the 75 Lux vs pre-asph 90 Cron in portrait mode.

 

"The Summilux-M 75 stopped down to f/2 has a higher contrast image with a clean and crisp rendition of extremely fine details over the larger part of the image field (excepting the outermost zones and the corners) than the com- panion 90mm f/2 Summicron-M at its full aperture (f/2). But the Summilux at aperture f/1.4 is not as good overall as the Summicron-M at f/2. This behavior illustrates the general rule when comparing the f/1.4 and f/2 pair of lenses or the f/2 and f/2.8 pair of lenses (of same focal length of course). The f/2 (f/2.8) provides higher image quality at maximum aperture than the f/1.4 (f/2) version, but stopped down one stop the higher aperture lens improves to a level generally above the quality of the smaller aperture version.

 

There are finer differences to be noted when comparing the full aperture performance of the Summilux at f/1.4 and the Summicron at f/2. The Summilux stays on the same quality level from center to corner, with only a very gradual reduction. The Summicron on the other hand drops quite a bit in the zonal area starting about 7mm from the center, but improves in the corners. When taking a portrait or a human-inter- est scene (camera horizontal) and placing the face/person in the middle, the weaker zone of the Summicron coincides with the out-of-focus zone. The behavior of the out-of -focus image is then both influenced by the inherent im- age quality in this zone and the out-of- focus-blur because of the sharpness plane located at the face/person. Shooting the same scene with the 75mm f/ 1.4 Summilux will produce a different out-of-focus impression, again because of the different definition and the larger out-of-focus blur size. The wider aperture and the shorter focal length will compensate here a bit, but still the fuzzy background will be quite different in character."

 

I think this really gets to how the 90/2 pre-AA is very distinct from both the 75 Lux and 90AA, both of which are technically superior at f/2, but not as good for portraits in the opinion of a significant number of photographers who know all three. Certainly the question is open to debate. The logical thing to do is search flickr and look at the portraits from these lenses. They are not hard to find. Then each of can start to make up our own mind.

 

The 90 AA is not as sharp in close-up as from mid-distance to infinity. In short these are quite different lenses for portraits. Additionally, the 75 lux does a huge mood swing even one click off F/1.4. At f2 it performs and renders like another lens. I'm not sure the 90s change like that so dramatically, and this issue is addressed by Puts above also.

 

I bring all this up simply because the pre-asph lens is much cheaper and much better handling than the other two, so if you like the way it does portraits, you are way ahead with it. What some say is that mid-zone weakness makes gorgeous backgrounds to frame a face.

 

When you start to study the results with M9 or 240, it's also apparent the older (II) version, is superb as well for portraits. I doubt you could ever see the improved sharpness in any eye, if it's in focus at portrait range from the (II) version on.

 

In that part of the frame the older lens is very strong. It's in the outer regions that the newer versions excel. But please anyone check me here if I have this wrong.

Edited February 12, 2017 by uhoh7

[Advertisement]

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

[HRJ]

Here is Puts on the 75 Lux vs pre-asph 90 Cron in portrait mode.

 

"The Summilux-M 75 stopped down to f/2 has a higher contrast image with a clean and crisp rendition of extremely fine details over the larger part of the image field (excepting the outermost zones and the corners) than the com- panion 90mm f/2 Summicron-M at its full aperture (f/2). But the Summilux at aperture f/1.4 is not as good overall as the Summicron-M at f/2. This behavior illustrates the general rule when comparing the f/1.4 and f/2 pair of lenses or the f/2 and f/2.8 pair of lenses (of same focal length of course). The f/2 (f/2.8) provides higher image quality at maximum aperture than the f/1.4 (f/2) version, but stopped down one stop the higher aperture lens improves to a level generally above the quality of the smaller aperture version.

 

There are finer differences to be noted when comparing the full aperture performance of the Summilux at f/1.4 and the Summicron at f/2. The Summilux stays on the same quality level from center to corner, with only a very gradual reduction. The Summicron on the other hand drops quite a bit in the zonal area starting about 7mm from the center, but improves in the corners. When taking a portrait or a human-inter- est scene (camera horizontal) and placing the face/person in the middle, the weaker zone of the Summicron coincides with the out-of-focus zone. The behavior of the out-of -focus image is then both influenced by the inherent im- age quality in this zone and the out-of- focus-blur because of the sharpness plane located at the face/person. Shooting the same scene with the 75mm f/ 1.4 Summilux will produce a different out-of-focus impression, again because of the different definition and the larger out-of-focus blur size. The wider aperture and the shorter focal length will compensate here a bit, but still the fuzzy background will be quite different in character."

 

I think this really gets to how the 90/2 pre-AA is very distinct from both the 75 Lux and 90AA, both of which are technically superior at f/2, but not as good for portraits in the opinion of a significant number of photographers who know all three. Certainly the question is open to debate. The logical thing to do is search flickr and look at the portraits from these lenses. They are not hard to find. Then each of can start to make up our own mind.

 

The 90 AA is not as sharp in close-up as from mid-distance to infinity. In short these are quite different lenses for portraits. Additionally, the 75 lux does a huge mood swing even one click off F/1.4. At f2 it performs and renders like another lens. I'm not sure the 90s change like that so dramatically, and this issue is addressed by Puts above also.

 

I bring all this up simply because the pre-asph lens is much cheaper and much better handling than the other two, so if you like the way it does portraits, you are way ahead with it. What some say is that mid-zone weakness makes gorgeous backgrounds to frame a face.

 

When you start to study the results with M9 or 240, it's also apparent the older (II) version, is superb as well for portraits. I doubt you could ever see the improved sharpness in any eye, if it's in focus at portrait range from the (II) version on.

 

In that part of the frame the older lens is very strong. It's in the outer regions that the newer versions excel. But please anyone check me here if I have this wrong.

 

 

Thanks so much for that.

 

So unless I have misunderstood, it would appear that if I am mainly wanting to shoot mid close-up portraits, given the mid-zone weakness of the 90 f2 Mk II non APO, and the price, I would be making a good move in going for that lens, rather than the more clinical sharpness of the APO latest version.

Edited February 12, 2017 by HRJ

[adan]

.......The 90 AA is not as sharp in close-up as from mid-distance to infinity.....

 

That has always been my experience with the 90AA - although I've never mentioned it because it gets such good reviews otherwise, and I though maybe I just had tried weak examples. There is a reason the 75 AA has a floating element to improve the close range...

 

Since I use a 90 (or 75) mostly under 2.5m/8 feet, that gets to be an important consideration.

 

Excellent post BTW - especially the bits that agree with my posts and samples on the previous page . No, seriously, some new insights and clarifications to what I already thought I knew.

[HRJ]

That has always been my experience with the 90AA - although I've never mentioned it because it gets such good reviews otherwise, and I though maybe I just had tried weak examples. There is a reason the 75 AA has a floating element to improve the close range...

 

Since I use a 90 (or 75) mostly under 2.5m/8 feet, that gets to be an important consideration.

 

Excellent post BTW - especially the bits that agree with my posts and samples on the previous page . No, seriously, some new insights and clarifications to what I already thought I knew.

 

 

Adan. Have you shot any portraits using your Non APO 90mm MkII on your new M10 under the 8 foot area? If so, any chance you could post an image.

 

Much appreciate your help so far... I think I'm almost through the shop door ready to buy.....

[uhoh7]

That has always been my experience with the 90AA - although I've never mentioned it because it gets such good reviews otherwise, and I though maybe I just had tried weak examples. There is a reason the 75 AA has a floating element to improve the close range...

 

Since I use a 90 (or 75) mostly under 2.5m/8 feet, that gets to be an important consideration.

 

Excellent post BTW - especially the bits that agree with my posts and samples on the previous page . No, seriously, some new insights and clarifications to what I already thought I knew.

LOL I always love your posts, and I nearly inserted a few "as Adan said", but this time I just stuck to the points. Your experience speaks for itself.

 

I have nearly bought a 90 AA many times. I always try to read everything again, before I pull the trigger, and also see what new I come up with. Your confirmation of my research is so valuable. We would like to have all these wonderful lenses, but.....then it would be interesting to see which we reached for to make a portrait

 

Often it takes me years to appreciate a lens, like the 50 cron v4, or the lowly Mandler 90/2.8 TE thin:

L1056812 by unoh7, 90/2.8 Thin on M9 Wide Open @ F/2.8

 

Once I got a M9 I took some landscapes and the TE 90, which I owned and had liked alot on other cameras, just did not send me. I went on a long quest: I needed something I could hike with, so forget these we are talking about. CV 90/3.5 (strange oof) Hex-M 90/2.8 (bad calibration) Elmarit-M 90 (heavy, long, harsh) Summarit 90 (keeper, but edgy at times). I reshot my little canon LTM 100/3.5 (incredible really, but I had to compensate in calibration), I looked hard at the Macro-Elmar (too expensive then).

 

Now what am I skiing with every day? TE 90. My new hero.

 

It is actually very sweet WO with beautiful OOF, if less contrast and rez than these crons. Still, when you it the focus it does seem pretty crisp, even though Puts said: Oh you may wish to stop down to 5.6 if you want very sharp portrait. Probably good advice with any 90, since focus is so ridiculous at f/2 But as I was reading away for the 10th time, He said: "at f/8 it is equal to Elmarit-M"

 

I stopped being such a snob. I also realized the TE is very sensitive to flare. I happened to have a fancy hood, metal, made for it and the TE135, and some other lenses, and I started using it.

 

Cuties by unoh7, on Flickr

 

Now its like I found a whole new favorite. Which had been gathering dust for several years. It is that certain size, like the v4 cron, you just never hesitate to grab it. Best part: it was free. I had meant to sell it years ago.

 

So we never stop learning, and I am grateful to anyone who says: uhoh, you idiot, don't you realise "X"? Very often they are right, and I get to learn a little more

Edited February 13, 2017 by uhoh7

[Dirk Mandeville]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have an 85mm f/1.5 Summarex making its way to me in a couple of days. Looking forward to mastering it for portraiture. Unfortunately, my M9 is headed back to the motherland for sensor replacement and I'm still waiting for my number to be called on an M10. So it may be awhile before I get to use it. I considered the 75 Lux, but I love the older vintage lenses and I preferred the look of the Rex to the Lux on the photos I have seen. Not to mention I got a good deal on the Rex. I've already got the 75 apo chron and an older 90 "fat" tele-Elmarit, so it will be interesting to compare the very different looks of each of these lenses. Perhaps someday I'll find a good deal on a 75 Lux, though they seem to be rare.

[adan]

@ HRJ - I won't have my own M10 for another month. No 90 pix yet.

 

@ uhoh7 - thanks for mentioning the 90 Tele-Elmarit-M. A reasonable portrait option as well. My favorite 90 for a long time (2001-2010). But, well, things change, and I fell into using a 75 and 135 instead (faster or longer) for most of my M9 years. Had to do with the M9 ISO limitations and/or the (in)accuracy of the M9 90 frames at long distances. With the M10, things changed again and I'm back to a 90/135 awaiting a body - but this time I felt "the need for speed." Thus the Summicron. At least for now - I might pick up another TE if the right one comes along. Usually cheap enough.

[bocaburger]

I own or have owned at least one sample of most of the discussed lenses.  Hands-down my keeper as a portrait lens is the e55 90 Cron.  The 75 Lux blocked too much of the finder frame for my liking.

[adan]

I actually got the e49 version (very early production) of the 1980 90mm Summicron - the one where the retracted lens hood covers the aperture ring, and the engraved front ring surrounds the filter thread, as in some R lenses (rather than vice versa).

 

Same glass as the e55 revision, but 30 grams lighter, and feels just a bit smaller in the hand. It uses a pushrod to connect the focus helix to the camera, rather than the later continuous circular cam (actually, it has the cam as well, but deep inside, to move the pushrod.)

 

Even has a 1977 serial number - but I guarantee it is not the large previous version. It just took Leitz Canada 3 years to get it into production, after assigning the serial number "block." Rarish, but not collectible.

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/88/1097888.jpg

[lct]

About the Summicron-M 90/2 # 11136 (E49).

Excerpt of Viewfinder Vol. 12, no. 4, Oct-Dec, 1979:

 

LeicaM_9020_v1_lhsa.pdf

[adan]

That be the beast - although I weighed mine (no caps) and it is 449g.

[HRJ]

So, I conclude that I will not go too far wrong with a 90mm f2 Summicron E55 version ii or version iii will probably suit me well for my colour portrait shots.

 

Couldn't have done that without you all.

 

Many Thanks 

 

HRJ

[jmahto]

LOL I always love your posts, and I nearly inserted a few "as Adan said", but this time I just stuck to the points. Your experience speaks for itself.

 

I have nearly bought a 90 AA many times. I always try to read everything again, before I pull the trigger, and also see what new I come up with. Your confirmation of my research is so valuable. We would like to have all these wonderful lenses, but.....then it would be interesting to see which we reached for to make a portrait

 

Often it takes me years to appreciate a lens, like the 50 cron v4, or the lowly Mandler 90/2.8 TE thin:

L1056812 by unoh7, 90/2.8 Thin on M9 Wide Open @ F/2.8

 

Once I got a M9 I took some landscapes and the TE 90, which I owned and had liked alot on other cameras, just did not send me. I went on a long quest: I needed something I could hike with, so forget these we are talking about. CV 90/3.5 (strange oof) Hex-M 90/2.8 (bad calibration) Elmarit-M 90 (heavy, long, harsh) Summarit 90 (keeper, but edgy at times). I reshot my little canon LTM 100/3.5 (incredible really, but I had to compensate in calibration), I looked hard at the Macro-Elmar (too expensive then).

 

Now what am I skiing with every day? TE 90. My new hero.

 

It is actually very sweet WO with beautiful OOF, if less contrast and rez than these crons. Still, when you it the focus it does seem pretty crisp, even though Puts said: Oh you may wish to stop down to 5.6 if you want very sharp portrait. Probably good advice with any 90, since focus is so ridiculous at f/2 But as I was reading away for the 10th time, He said: "at f/8 it is equal to Elmarit-M"

 

I stopped being such a snob. I also realized the TE is very sensitive to flare. I happened to have a fancy hood, metal, made for it and the TE135, and some other lenses, and I started using it.

 

Cuties by unoh7, on Flickr

 

Now its like I found a whole new favorite. Which had been gathering dust for several years. It is that certain size, like the v4 cron, you just never hesitate to grab it. Best part: it was free. I had meant to sell it years ago.

 

So we never stop learning, and I am grateful to anyone who says: uhoh, you idiot, don't you realise "X"? Very often they are right, and I get to learn a little more

+1 for 90 TE. I love that lens on M240. My only problem is that I carry 90 macro-elmar most of the times since I shoot landscape with it. My 90 TE remains at home. Now a days I rarely shoot portraits and It has become my specialty lens.