90 Elmarit v 90 Summicron ASPH

[farnz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have the opportunity at some cost to replace my 90/2.8 Elmarit (1991) with a used 90/2.0 Summicron ASPH.

 

Do any of you experienced and wise photographers feel that, apart from the obvious stop faster, the Summicron is a demonstrably superior lens?

 

Also, roughly how much would you be prepared to part with to upgrade to the Summicron?

 

Pete.

[rafael_macia]

It would be a close call.

The Elmarit is a wonderfully sharp lens.( It is also surprisingly heavy for a 90.) The Summicron is heavier, has the edge in sharpness, and speed. I have seen Elmarits sell for as little as $500 and as high as $800. Summicron ASPH's for $1300 to as high as $1900. So figure a little over twice as expensive for the ASPH.

 

If you could get a good price for the Elmarit, and buy a Summicron for a good price, that might work for you.

 

If you feel you must have an ASPH .... look for a great deal on one.

Selling the Elmarit for a good price will most likely be difficult.

It might be wise to stay with what you have. To me? ... it seems too much more $ for a slight increase in performance. Minus the weight factor.

 

It is a buyer's market for 90's at the moment, at least most shops have a lot of 90's for sale.

Good Luck!

 

Rafael

[xrogers]

I think you should decide based on the extra stop and the extra cost. The Summicron may be a tad sharper, so if you're a sharpness fanatic you might consider that as well (but the Elmarit is plenty sharp for most sensibilities). The size and weight is not much different between the two---if that is a strong consideration, a thin TE may be a better choice than either new lens.

 

Good luck deciding,

 

--clyde

[waterlenz]

I think you would regret selling your Elmarit. I would get the AA only if I could also keep the other. I have the older skinny TE as well as the AA, if 2.8 is OK, such as shooting outside stopped down, it is much handier.

[farnz]

Rafael, Clyde and Tom, thank you all for your comments.

 

On the basis of these comments and others that seem to indicate that there is not enough difference between the two - other than an extra stop which doesn't clinch the deal for me - to spend £650 for the ASPH.

 

My 'bank manager' will be happy too.

[simonpg]

For we users who are the ones paying for the privilege to use Leica glass, it is fair to say that at the "high end" we get incremental gains for significant cost.

 

Your 90mm lens question is a classic example of that incremental gain at very significant cost difference - any higher performance by the 90mm ASPH over the Elmarit-M is marginal and often difficult to see in general shooting.

 

However the 90mm ASPH achieves outstanding results for a 90mm lens with an f2 widest aperture - just one stop faster creates significant design challenges for the designers and cost for we users!

 

The most sensible decision choice is to ask: How much do I really need that stop faster performance - is one stop worth $xyz to me?

[dkCambridgeshire]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The old adage ... "If it ain't broke ... don't fix it!"

 

Dunk

[xjr]

The 90mm F2.0 ASPH Summicron SIMPLY has no competition in its class. It stands alone.

[rsh]

I have the Elmarit. I just bought a like new 90 Asph Summicron. I will keep the Elmarit, even if I stop using it, because I do not like to lose money on equipment I own.

[harmsr]

Pete,

 

Both are great lenses with slightly different character. To really answer your question, what type of shots do you make with the 90 focal length? Let us know and we can answer better.

 

I tried both of them side by side prior to buying. My choice was the Elmarit because of how it renders for my purpose with a 90, the smaller size, and the shorter throw on focusing which I found easier to "nail" the focus with.

 

Best,

 

Ray