90 summarit..is it just not that good?

[Exodies]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Of course the EVF produces good focus. Just think about it.

[Advertisement]

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

[Dougg]

And, yes, the mechanical error in RF focusing could be either the body or the lens, but more likely the lens.

[Jeff S]

If you're not seeing a problem in your prints, don't waste your time on tests….shoot and be happy.  Otherwise….

 

Put the camera on a tripod and conduct some rigorous tests.   Until then, you're the likely problem.

 

And, as others have tried to explain, LV (EVF) is what the camera actually 'sees' and records….the issue is whether RF focusing differs with one or more lenses.  If only one lens out of many differs, then it's the problem. If multiple lenses differ, it's likely the RF, although those lenses could all possibly be off.  A thorough check would entail varying distance and aperture, being sure to eliminate focus shift as a potential compounding issue.

 

Jeff

[lct]

[...] Put the camera on a tripod and conduct some rigorous tests.   Until then, you're the likely problem. [...]

 

+1

[pgk]

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.

Wooly testing = wooly results. The only way to check lenses properly is by methodical, rigorous testing. From your posts I'd suggest that all the lenses you weren't happy with are quite capable lenses, even today. As far as I can ascertain, the common denominator indicated so far is either your shooting style or you I'm afraid.

[mca]

I have had four different 90mm Leica lenses over the years, currently having none since I find it hard to use with such a small frame line on the viewfinder. I have to try a 75mm and see if it works better for me. In any event the best 90mm lenses that I had were the Summicron 90mm pre-ASPH and the Summarit 90mm, both excellent even wide open. Fantastic even. My worst experience was the tele-Elmarit 90mm which was very soft at f/2.8 and still a bit soft at f/4, only revealing itself from f/5.6 on and the big surprise was the Elmar-C 90mm f/4 which for the price is a great lens, very sharp wide open at f/4 and such a bargain at around $200. 

 

So regarding the Summarit 90mm, it was as good as my first Summicron 90mm and I only sold it because I decided that 90mm was not for me on rangefinder cameras. If you're having troubles focusing it could be user error or a miscalibrated RF I suppose. 

[bobbywise]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I agree with what Luis (mca) says about the 90 Elmar-C and tele-Elmarit.

Personally, I have no issues with the Tele-Elmarit, but many people have reported it's a bit soft until you close the aperture.

 

Here's a few examples of the softness/falloff with the Tele-Elmarit (first one SOOC JPEG, others DNG processed by Photogene 4).

 

 

 

 

[wda]

I found that the Tele-Elmarit was excellent for most portraits where clinical sharpness is generally disliked as unflattering and too revealing. For extra sharpness in good light, stopping down was the answer. In effect, you could control the degree of sharpness at will.

[californiajay]

As I have said a couple of times already, it appears that the lens is good as I can now rely on the EVF to get good focus. I just got done experimenting with the 90 on a Fuji XT-1 with the Fuji Leica adapter and the results are stunning. Extremely sharp. I have also done some more shooting today with the lens on the Leica, being more careful using the rangefinder and here too I am seeing much better results. The rangefinder may be slightly off, but it really is easy enough to make an adjustment. All I really need to do is focus an ever so slight tiny bit closer than the rangefinder indicates and I can pretty much hit it spot on like that. So until I can get the rangefinder adjusted I think I am good.

 

As I have said, I have used a few 90s in the past and was never really satisified with the results. I attributed that to the tele-elmarit which I have read is just not among the best Leica lenses. Well, at this point I have come to the conclusion that the Leica rangefinder is just not very easy to get great results with when using a 90 or longer lens. I think that this was my problem more than anything. When I work slowly and more carefully, the results are much better. I just have to learn not to be as quick and careless as I can with a 28 or a 35.

 

I HAD been considering the purchase of the 135 but at this point I may rethink that.

[californiajay]

I found that the Tele-Elmarit was excellent for most portraits where clinical sharpness is generally disliked as unflattering and too revealing. For extra sharpness in good light, stopping down was the answer. In effect, you could control the degree of sharpness at will.

Yeah I understand. When I do portraits though I DO like clinical sharpness. Unflattering at times, yes, but it's how I like them and the tele elmarit never satisfied me.

[elgenper]

One more ´unimpressed´ Summarit 90-owner here...  Sure, it is a very good lens compared to almost everything non-Leica.  Mine is sharp enough, focusses on-the-spot, light and mechanically sound, and all that jazz.  Only, compared to my Summilux 50 Asph, my Summicron 75 Apo Asph, and even my Summicron 35 Asph, it´s just lacking that final ´Leica oomph´...  And, it has none of that glowing charm that my old Rigid Summicron 50 or 8-lens Summicron 35 V1 have.  It is perfectly adequate and... just boring.

 

Bought myself a 2nd hand Makro Elmar M 90 a while ago; this one does have that indefinable ´Leica look` - only, it back focusses, and has to make a trip to Wetzlar...

[gvaliquette]

It is worth pointing out that the rangefinder mechanism is DIRECTLY connected to the lens focusing movement ONLY for 50 mm lenses.  With 50 mm focal length lenses, the fore and aft movement of the lens optical barrel while focusing is DIRECTLY transferred to the roller and following arm of the rangefinder mechanism.  With all other focal length lenses, the optical unit movement has to be either amplified (for wide angle lenses) or reduced (for longer focal length lenses) before being transferred to the roller/following arm of the rangefinder.  This introduces an additional link in the chain from the view/rangefinder to the image on the sensor.

 

The LV-EVF image IS the image on the sensor.  It ABSOLUTELY reflects the image to be captured, unless the camera and/or subject moves.  This is even better than a SLR focusing mechanism, where the photographer focuses on a surrogate for the final image;  if the focusing screen is mis-mounted in its frame, the distance from the lens to the focusing screen will not be the same as the distance from the lens to the film/sensor plane, and the final image will be out of focus.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Guy

[californiajay]

With all other focal length lenses, the optical unit movement has to be either amplified (for wide angle lenses) or reduced (for longer focal length lenses) before being transferred to the roller/following arm of the rangefinder.  This introduces an additional link in the chain from the view/rangefinder to the image on the sensor.

That's very interesting! So actually, it's possible for this to be misadjusted in the lens itself? In other words, the rangefinder inside the camera can be adjusted perfectly but the mechanism inside the lens may be off, resulting in it missing focus?

[Carduelis]

Out of all Leica M mount lenses, I was attracted  to the 90 mm Summarit f2.5 because I require a telephoto lens and wanted one of the lightest and most compact lenses to make it easy to carry and focus.  I would say the lens is good enough in terms of edge to edge sharpness and bokeh and I am satisfied with it.   Although I much preferred the weight of the 90 Tele-Elmarit thin lens which is about 130 g lighter and equally sharp at about f5.6/f8, I found that the lens was too prone to flare (even with the hood) particularly when photographing dark structures in not all that challenging light.  I did not go for the 90 mm Macro Elmar because of the extra cost, it is f4 and has a moving part. The 90 mm APO Summicron is probably the best lens, but it appears large and heavy.

[californiajay]

Just for information sake;

I did one more series of tests late today. I was (luckily) able to get hold of the Zeiss lens and do some direct comparisons with the Summarit. Results show the the Summarit is indeed back focusing where the Zeiss is dead on. It is obvious when doing the same exact photos and looking at the results side by side. Every single shot showed the same results.

Luckily I did the swap with an honest guy and he is allowing me to take the Zeiss back in return for the Leica. Glad this is finally over with because if I had kept the Leica lens, I would always have wondered if the lens just was as it is, or if there was something wrong.

[MarkP]

The Zeiss is still an excellent lens, and a bargain for what it costs.

Enjoy it

[james.liam]

Just for information sake;

I did one more series of tests late today. I was (luckily) able to get hold of the Zeiss lens and do some direct comparisons with the Summarit. Results show the the Summarit is indeed back focusing where the Zeiss is dead on. It is obvious when doing the same exact photos and looking at the results side by side. Every single shot showed the same results.

Luckily I did the swap with an honest guy and he is allowing me to take the Zeiss back in return for the Leica. Glad this is finally over with because if I had kept the Leica lens, I would always have wondered if the lens just was as it is, or if there was something wrong.

 

In the spirit of the surprising 1,4/35, it would be quite something if Zeiss resurrected a faster 90, say a new ƒ/2.8 90 'C'. They won't do so, of course, since the market for such a lens would be marginal. A re-desgned 21 C would as well be another great bookend for the unsung 35C. Dreaming on a summer Sunday here in GMT -5...

[MarkP]

The 4.5/21 ZM C-Biogon was a fabulous little lens - except for that red edge on the digital Leicas (except the Monochrom)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[uhoh7]

As I have said, I have used a few 90s in the past and was never really satisified with the results. I attributed that to the tele-elmarit which I have read is just not among the best Leica lenses. Well, at this point I have come to the conclusion that the Leica rangefinder is just not very easy to get great results with when using a 90 or longer lens. I think that this was my problem more than anything. When I work slowly and more carefully, the results are much better. I just have to learn not to be as quick and careless as I can with a 28 or a 35.

 

I HAD been considering the purchase of the 135 but at this point I may rethink that.

90 is hard unless you are very steady or have 1000 shutter or greater. Same with 135. Chimp the focus if the shot is crucial. The 90 summarit is probably the best small 90 in the world, and as good as any 90 at f4, including Elmarit-M and cron. In fact, it's probably just as good as the cron at 2.5.

 

If you are thinking 135, I would advise a LTM Canon f/3.5 to start with: they are under 100 USD, only 400 grams, and quite good, though not quite a TE.

 

Again, with 135 you must be patient and make multiple frames, refocusing, to expect something good. I found a 135/3.4 Telyt APO:

 

L1019266 by unoh7, on Flickr

[FlashGordonPhotography]

As someone who owns both the current Cron and 2.5 Summarit, I can't agree with your claims. At 2.4 the Cron is in a different place, as it should be for the price differential. Even at f8 I can see a slight difference. I'm testing the new 90mm Sony FE and the current Cron is as good as that.

 

Gordon