Summicron 90 V2 vs V3 Pre-Asph

[!Nomad64]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello Folks,

 

I started developing a thing with vintage lenses, in particular Mandler designs.

My latest obsession are the older Summicron 90.

How do compare the V2 (i.e. the heavy brass cannon with telescopic hood and both focusing and aperture scalloped rings) with the V3 Pre-Asph (i.e. the one shaped like the AASPH)?

I'm asking because I did a preliminary search myself but got contradictory results.

On one end I learned that V2 is optically almost as good as V3, on the other side I had to notice that V3 has weaker performance because of its compactness and that at full aperture is bested by V2 albeit not by much.

My (brutal) guess is that V3 having less lenses (5 in 4 groups) "might" be a tad more contrasted, thus giving the impression of greater sharpness whereas the V2 (6 lenses in 5 groups) "might" render more plasticity and complexity. Bur again, this is just my own speculation.

Anyone with direct experience? Pls advise.

 

Also, how do they compare with Elmarit M 90 (i.e. the last Elmarit incarnation)?

 

Thanks in advance

Bruno

[Advertisement]

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

[adan]

Taking your questions back to front - any of Leica's f/2.8 90mm lenses will be sharper than any of the non-APO f/2 90s, in the range f/2.8-f/4.5. The "last version" f/2.8 you mention adds an extra contrast boost, but even the "Tele-Elmarit" 90s are a bit sharper than the f/2 non-APOs at those apertures (IMHE).

 

From f/5.6, the sharpness differences become minimal.

 

As to the two 90 f/2s themselves - as you surmise, the V. 3, 5-element 'tele' version (last before the APO) has more contrast than the "brass cannon." Partly fewer elements, partly just newer coating technologies.

 

The resolution/sharpness is not much different, but the extra contrast adds a bit of "clarity" to the v.3 over the V.2. esp. at f/2.

 

The main "defect" in the V.3, which Leica allowed to creep in as a tradeoff to get the smaller size, is more chromatic aberration, Definite purple/green edges in both focused and blurred objects at larger apertures. I suspect its "tele" design also produces more pincushion distortion than the v.2 - but not enough that I ever actually noticed it in pictures.

 

I tend to agree with Erwin Puts in his analysis of the short M teles - if you want the best non-APO (i.e "Mandler") performance at large apertures (f/2-2.8) get a 75 Summilux. It is better than any non-APO 90 in that range (and of course at f/1.4 ). If you don't need f/2 - get an Elmarit.

 

That being said - a Summilux 75 is 3-4x the price of a v.3 90 f/2, and the v.3 shares some of the creaminess and "character" of the 'lux. If the performance one wants is "beauty" and not "resolution" - the v.3 90 is sort of a "Noctilux/Summilux, Junior" - an interesting mix of contrast and macro-clarity with soft "bokeh."

 

I sampled the v.3 90 f/2 in my Mandler post here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/45854-praise-mandler-lenses.html

 

Leaving aside the contrast and the unique character it adds, the main tradeoff (IMHO) between the v.2 and v.3 90 f/2 lenses is price versus size/weight. But at the moment, with the drought of M lenses, even that is less of a factor. The old brass cannons used to sell for $395-$495 US - a nice bargain - but suddenly they have jumped to twice that, as new M users try to find ANY lenses beyond Summarits and the basic f/2 50s and 35s.

______________

 

EDIT: I might add that the 90 f/2.5 Summarit is essentially a replica of the v.3 90 Summicron, in an even smaller and lighter package (minus 1/2 stop). I have a feeling a 90 Summarit may be in my future, for when I don't need the extra f/stop and weight of my 75 Summilux.

[!Nomad64]

Thank you Andy,

 

your feedback is much appreciated. And thank you for reminding me of your older thread. I pleasantly remember it amongst my favorite ones.

I know that the Elmarit M is a hell of a lens as I own one and I know its performance is very close to the AASPH itself, albeit this latter sometimes gives even too much "perfection" and its results seem a little (very little) "flatter" than those achieved with the Elmarit, but maybe it's just me. The AASPH is very an unforgiving lens...

The 'lux 75 has been long time in my wishlist but as I recently switched back to film and got myself an M3 I'd lack the appropriate frames and I should do a lot of guesswork, whilst focusing it on the M8 at full aperture in poor lit with moving subjects might prove quite challenging. Based on Leica specs, the thing at f1.4 has less depth of field than the Noctilux at f0.95...

Right now I'm leaning more towards beauty over sharpness - in my heart the 'lux 50 PreAsph has replaced the Planar ZM, so the v3 might sound as a tempting option, but I'll see.

 

Thanks again,

Bruno