90 summarit..is it just not that good?

[californiajay]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

About 40 years ago, I purchased my first Leica, an M3 along with a 50 summicron and a 90 tele elmarit. I was never satisfied with the 90 as I never really found it to be anywhere near as sharp as the 50, so I sold it. I also later sold the M3 and 50 and did without Leica until the mid 80s when I purchased an M6 with a 35 summicron and again the 90 tele elmarit thinking I would give it another go.

 

Well, things weren't any better and in later years I began to find out that the 90 tele elmarit just wasn't that good a lens.

 

Fast forward to today and I now own an M240 with a 21 3.4 super elmar (fantastic lens), a 28 f2.8 asph, 35 f1.4 asph lux, 50 f1.4 asph lux. I think every single one of them are superb lenses.

 

Well, I just picked up a used 90mm f2.5 summarit and lo and behold I am not at all impressed with it. I am thinking that either something is wrong with it or it is just not in the same league as any of the other lenses that I own.

 

Can anyone comment on this lens in regards to comparing it to any or all of the others that I have mentioned? Am I expecting too much from it? I have seen some glowing reviews of it and I know the 90 summicron is a superior lens, but this one borders almost on unacceptable to me. Focusing seems accurate enough, but there is something lacking, perhaps in its micro contrast rendering.

 

Comments?

[lct]

You mean 90/2.5 i guess. I have no experience with it but i own only three 90s having a similar contrast as that of your other lenses, the Summicron 90/2 apo, the Macro-Elmar 90/4 and the last Elmarit 90/2.8 although the latter is a bit softer at f/2.8. The Zeiss Tele-Tessar 85/4 has a very good reputation as well but i have no experience with it. 

[californiajay]

Yes, 2.5. I edited the mistake in my original post.

 

Well I just traded the 85 f4 Zeiss for this lens after reading the reviews which seem to indicate the summarit is a better lens.

Just not seeing it.

[MarkP]

I had a 4.0/85 ZM Tele-Tessar which was indeed an excellent lens so perhaps you're not seeing the difference because the Summarit is not much of a step up from the Tele-Tessar contrary to what you read.  The Zeiss is an unfairly under-rated lens so perhaps it's not that the Summarit is just not that good but that the Zeiss really is that good, and the other lenses you have are outstanding.

 

Having said that, the Zeiss wasn't up to my 4.0/90 Macro-Elmar in performance and much less compact. I couldn't justify keeping two 90s as it's not my most used FL so the Zeiss went.  The Macro-Elmar is fabulous lens (Puts waxes lyrical about its performance) but it is not of the same high contrast as the more modern Leica lenses.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

The 90mm Summarit is a fabulous lens. However you're comparing it to 3 very modern ASPH designs (with the modern super sharpness look), while the 90mm 2.5 is far more classic in it's rendering. I have the Summarit and Summicron. The 'cron is very much in line with the 50 'lux, however sometimes the gentle look the Summarit give is preferable, especially when pointing it in anger at the fairer sex.

 

Also the Summarit adds a bunch of extra micro contrast a couple of stops down while being a great portrait lens wide open. If you want a bit more "bite" then add some clarity in Lightroom.

 

Gordon

[rramesh]

Californiajay, I am not sure what you mean when you say you're 'Unimpressed'. Could you go to a store and try a new lens for comparison. Maybe the one you purchased used needs to be adjusted?

[californiajay]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I did some experimenting tonight with flash shooting. Didn't use a tripod though but I was careful to at least brace myself to minimize any differences betweeen the time I focused and the time I snapped the shots. I know this isn't like using a tripod, but this is how I normally shoot so I wanted to do it this way.

I'd say almost half of the shots are back focused. Most all were shot at around 8 to 10 feet away. Strangely I can focus using the rangefinder or I can focus using the EVF (the add on one that goes onto the hot shoe) and they agree 100%. But still almost half the shots were back focused noticeably. Not sure why so I wonder whether back focusing can be the result of something gone wrong inside the lens or what? I never had so many back focused shots using the Zeiss. I am beginning to think that it may have been a mistake to give up the Zeiss for this Leica lens. Can it have a problem causing it to back focus even though the rangefinder and EVF both say it's in focus?

[250swb]

Strangely I can focus using the rangefinder or I can focus using the EVF (the add on one that goes onto the hot shoe) and they agree 100%. But still almost half the shots were back focused noticeably. Not sure why so I wonder whether back focusing can be the result of something gone wrong inside the lens or what?

 

It shouldn't be strange that the EVF and focus patch agree 100%, this would be the case if everything is working properly. You can't for instance have a lens that is out when using the optical focusing and correct when using the EVF, or visa versa.

 

Without knowing how you are shooting, camera and lens settings etc., I will just make a wild guess and assume you are shooting wide open, and focusing and then composing the shot. With very narrow DOF at f/2.5 on a 90mm lens (much less than a 35 or 50mm for instance) in focusing and then composing you are moving the camera away from the point of focus to make the composition, in other words the distance has changed by a few inches, and with a 90mm lens at 8 to 10 feet this can make a significant difference to the shot being in or out of focus at the point you first focused on. You say it never happened with your Zeiss, but that lens is limited to f/4 so the DOF is wider.

 

As an example a 90mm f/2.5 focused at 8 feet has a DOF range of 7.83 feet to 8.18 feet, so only 4 inches of DOF. But at f/4 it would have just over 6 inches, possibly enough to accommodate moving to recompose after focusing.

 

So just a thought, it may be something else.

 

Steve

[lct]

I would not refrain from using a tripod if you want to be sure. Also do not recompose as Steve explained above since you would add some variables this way. Just shoot at wide aperture w/o moving the camera and you will see if (more probably to which extent) your lens is back focusing.

[Peter Kilmister]

I have a Summarit 90 f/2.5 and I love it. Here's an example: https://www.flickr.com/photos/133538622@N08/18894638489/in/dateposted/

Another: https://www.flickr.com/photos/133538622@N08/19079425719/in/dateposted/

And one more: https://www.flickr.com/photos/133538622@N08/19084034431/in/dateposted/

 

Those were picked at random. All are clearly defined and I am very happy with them.

[TomB_tx]

The 90 TE was also my first Leica lens in 1968. Then I added 50 & 35 Summicrons. While the TE images were pleasing at first, over a few years I found I wasn't using it because I sorted out its shots as being soft. I once tried test shots of news print at 45 degrees and found no sharp plane of focus, so it sat in a drawer for decades. After I got an M9 I sent the lens to Gus Lazzari to check out, and he found an element out of position. After his repair it was much improved, but I find 90 is at the limit for me on a rangefinder, where I start to miss focus.

I picked up a 90 Elmar-C (originally for the Leica CL) and was amazed how much better it does for me on the M9. Part of that may be the f4 max aperture, but it's also different contrast.

For 90 and longer I've usually turned to an SLR, where I've been very pleased with the 90 Summicron-R. I've been using an A7 as my digital SLR solution for orphan lenses, and have also found some RF lenses where my results on the A7 are consistently better than I can do on a rangefinder. That indicates some of my issues are either RF match to the lens or my RF technique.

I haven't tried the 90 Summarit, but I love the 35 & 50, which have largely replaced my Summicons on the M9. I would think the 90 version would also be fine, but I'm happy with the Elmar-C (which was a bargain).

[californiajay]

No, I have not been shooting wide open, I have been shooting at F8 or F11 and seeing these results. I also have not been recomposing. As soon as I have achieved focus, I have shot without budging the camera. Als,o what I found strange is not that the rangefinder and EVF agreed, but that they agreed and the results were STILL off. At any rate, I did some MORE shooting last night this time being more careful when focusing with the EVF. At this point I am confident that the EVF is giving me accurate focus, the rangefinder is not. So apparently the problem is that the rangefinder is off just enough to back focus, but the EVF is good. Guess the body needs some adjustment and I have just not seen it in the other lenses and never noticed it with my Zeiss, probably because I just do  not use the Zeiss as much.

[Exodies]

As the EVF is the photo, it shouldn't be surprising that they are both focused on the same point.

[wda]

californiajay, you have tried three 90mm lenses and have been dissatisfied with them all. Is it just possible that there is operating error? For example, camera shake is nearly twice as likely to occur with a 90 cf a 50mm lens; and over four times more likely than when cf a 21mm lens. I have the 75mm f/2.5 Summarit and, like many other members, get wonderful results with it. I have the 90mm Elmarit (last version) which is equally good but - I do need to use a faster shutter speed with hand-held photography. Camera shake can degrade performance, albeit imperceptibly.

 

Like you I started with an M3 with 50 Summicron and a fat 90 Tele-Elmarit, all dating from mid-1960s. Whilest good compared with current lenses, they do not have the critical performance of their younger counterparts.

 

My belief is that the current Summarit lenses are exceptionally good performers, a fact echoed by many on the forum. If your fear persists after further use, have it checked in case it needs recalibration.

[californiajay]

Well, I have been testing lenses and cameras for decades actually. One of the reasons why I like using flash is to mitigate chances of camera shake due to slow shutter speeds. If I don't use flash for something like a 90, I would prefer to do the testing at at least 1/250 if not 1/500 or higher.

It seems that with the 90 summarit if I use the rangefinder to focus, I more often than not get some degree of back focusing. I can make an adjustment while focusing and I find that doing so helps me get the focus more accurate. At first, I thought that by using the EVF, the focus was off as well but further experimenting has proven me wrong. Focusing using it is usually right on.

So I am concluding that the rangefinder is just out a tiny bit. I can get it calibrated at some point but for now, I think I can probably live with just focusing in a tad bit closer when I do the focusing with the rangefinder. It seems to suffice.

I did borrow that Zeiss 85 that I traded for the summarit and found that wide open, the summarit is a bit sharper, so I am not giving up on it just yet.

[250swb]

Ah, that's good then, within seventeen hours you resolved this yourself by conducting tests and loaning the Zeiss back. It could be a record!

 

Steve

[keithlaban.co.uk]

The 90mm f2.5 is fast becoming my most used lens. I'd never use a lens that was not that good.

 

I use it more often than not in combination with the EVF and with magnification and peaking.

[edwardkaraa]

The ZM 85/4 is a nice small lens with beautiful rendering but it never impressed me as a high resolving lens. The difference with the ZM 85/2 is quite dramatic.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

It's certainly possible the RF is off. A tripod test at minimum, 15 meters and infinity will tell you quickly. Just test all your lenses to make sure it's not the 90. My Summarit, purchased new, had to be adjusted by Leica.

 

Another thing you can try is focus direction. Some lenses exhibit "gear lash" ( I don't think that's the correct technical term). That's where the tolerances in the mechanics mean that the focus is slightly different depending on which direction you focus from. With my 90's I always focus from the infinity side and they're dead on. If I focus from the 1m side I get about 50% in focus and all the others show back focus. Now this could be gear lash or the way I focus ("user error") but I have found it reliable for me. I read of someone who had to focus their 135 from close to far for the same reason. So I'd test whether focus direction makes a difference with your 90mm.

 

Gordon

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[californiajay]

Thank you all for the comments and help.

Question -- I am assuming it's the rangefinder that needs adjustment. Do any of you guys find that a lens itself can be in need of adjustment (again, keep in mind that it does seem to focus accurately using the EVF, just not always with the rangefinder). The only reason I ask is that it seems that all my other lenses produce absolutely breathtaking sharpness. I'd think that if the rangefinder is indeed off a bit, I might have seen something, at least in the 50 to indicate as such.

 

I suppose that since the 90 is a bit more unforgiving that it COULD be me just not seeing or using the rangefinder accurately, but the thing is, if I am just off a bit, why always back focus and never front focus?