90mm Summicrons

[finarphin]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I want to talk about 90mm Summicrons, but before I get there I want to give some preamble.

 

I have two older, 1950s double-gaussian lenses: a 28mm Canon Serenar, and a 50mm Leica Summicron.  There is some quality to the images resulting from these lenses that I like.  I couldn't verbalize it, however.  And although I do not have a 35mm Summaron, I have seen other's photos made from it, and I see about the same image quality there (and I believe this is also a double-gaussian design).  Whatever this look is doesn't seem to be strictly peculiar to Leica or German glass, but it might have to do with other factors common to that era, and I wonder if the double-gaussian aspect is the really important one.

 

I have a 1951 Leica 90mm Elmar, and a 1970 Industar 50 50mm collapsible, which, I believe, is a copy of a Leica 50mm Elmar.  These, as far as I understand, are triplets.  The "look" photos resulting from these lenses are Ok, but I would have to say the three above mentioned double-gaussian lenses are "better."  If I had to sort all other images made from any other lens -- such as Nikon, Minolta, or whatever -- into one of these two groups, I would have to put them alongside the Elmars, and at any rate definitely not with my 50mm Summicron.  Of course I haven't seen everything, and even what I have seen I probably haven't looked at too closely.

 

So, I have been interested in the fabled 90mm Leica Summicron for some time, and I naively imagined that they all had the same lens design.  90mm, f2, Leica, Summicron: all the same, I thought.  But I am beginning to get the impression they aren't all the same -- as far as the lens design is concerned (what they look like from the outside or what the mount is is inconsequential).  As I understand, the older ones, such as a 1960 Summicron-m, are double-gaussian.  But apparently the later pre-aspherical ones, such as a 1980 Summicron-r, have a different design, and not something that could be classified as minor tweaking.  I caught a glimpse of a cross-section of one of these and to me it looked more similar to a triplet than a double-gaussian (I have to admit I don't really understand these terms precisely).  And then there are the really dollar-sign modern ones, which seem to be closer to a modification of the 1980 model, with the addition of an aspherical element, than they are to the older ones from around 1960.  For all I know there might be other variants besides these three. 

 

I'm wondering how much of a difference these design variations have on the "look" of the resulting image.

 

I have a 1980 Summicron-r, in very good condition, and though I haven't used it very much yet, what I see in the images looks peculiar: like nothing I've ever seen before, and not at all what I was expecting.  It's certainly sharp, and has no obviously visible distortion or vignetting, but it also seems, for lack of a better term, somewhat harsh.  I have to say that, despite the presence of the term "Summicron," that the imagery doesn't have quite the same look as the 50s double-gaussian designs mentioned above.

 

Maybe I should use it more, and with film.

[lct]

[...] I'm wondering how much of a difference these design variations have on the "look" of the resulting image. [...]

 

At each evolution, new Leica lenses tend to be sharper at full aperture and more contrasty in general. It is specially true for the current apo 90/2 compared to previous models. But v2 and v3 pre-apo's are very close with a preference for v2 as far as CA. It is a bulkier lens though. 

[finarphin]

At each evolution, new Leica lenses tend to be sharper at full aperture and more contrasty in general. It is specially true for the current apo 90/2 compared to previous models. But v2 and v3 pre-apo's are very close with a preference for v2 as far as CA. It is a bulkier lens though. 

Thanks for your reply -- you were the only one, obviously -- at least so far.

 

Let me ask you, though: there seem to be several different optical designs represented in 90mm Summicrons, are you saying that the main difference between them, over time, is an increase in contrast?

 

I'm wondering whether a double-gaussian one (such as an older version, ca. 1960) would produce an image looking different than a later version which was not double-gaussian, such as a 1980 Summicron-r.  At least the 1980 model doesn't look obviously double-gaussian in cross-section, although I surely do not know how these terms are precisely defined.

[lct]

My optical skills are not good enough i'm afraid. I would ask our good colleague adan if i were you.

[Torsten_M]

Dear Finarphin,

 

first, I have no idea which 50 Summicron you have, there are two, the collapsible and the rigid. I have the rigid with lots of character and quite dreamy at 2.0 and 2.4. You have the 90 Summicron R. I only know my Summicron 90 from 1988 which should be very similar the crosssection looked almost identical. My lens is soft and dreamy at 2.0 but at 2.8 the lens is sharp and crisp at 4.0 even more so. I would say that Dr. Mandler who designed the 50 and 90 Summicron at that era (the King of double gauss) never made harsh lenses but the modern ones are more crisp than others. But wide open you should get the look you want. Maybe the 1979 90 Summicron II (from 1963-1979) is more to your taste. True Double Gauss and a bit softer and more dreamy at 2.0 and 2.8.

 

Try your lens at 2.0 and try to be happy :-)

 

And yes there are a lot of things different on changing the lens design not only the contrast. The colour, the rendering etc.

[finarphin]

Dear Finarphin,

 

first, I have no idea which 50 Summicron you have, there are two, the collapsible and the rigid. I have the rigid with lots of character and quite dreamy at 2.0 and 2.4. You have the 90 Summicron R. I only know my Summicron 90 from 1988 which should be very similar the crosssection looked almost identical. My lens is soft and dreamy at 2.0 but at 2.8 the lens is sharp and crisp at 4.0 even more so. I would say that Dr. Mandler who designed the 50 and 90 Summicron at that era (the King of double gauss) never made harsh lenses but the modern ones are more crisp than others. But wide open you should get the look you want. Maybe the 1979 90 Summicron II (from 1963-1979) is more to your taste. True Double Gauss and a bit softer and more dreamy at 2.0 and 2.8.

 

Try your lens at 2.0 and try to be happy :-)

 

And yes there are a lot of things different on changing the lens design not only the contrast. The colour, the rendering etc.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.   I'm trying to be happy; sometimes it's hard...Maybe I should go to sea.  "Whenever it is a cold and grey November in my soul, I know it is time to go to sea."  Well, maybe that's not an exact quote.

 

The 50mm Summicron I have is a 1953 collapsible.

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For the record, "Summicron" in Leica parlance simply means "f/2" - at least since the 1960's. Nothing to do with any particular optical design. Summilux = f/1.4, Elmarit = f/2.8.

 

For sure, if you want to match 1950's contrast as closely as possible, you'll want the original double-gauss, large, 90 Summicron. Preferably one of the late 1950's-era lenses (a few out there, all chrome, I believe, separate hood, aka SOOZI, some in screw-mount (adaptable to M mount)).

 

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/RF-Nikkor/Leica_RF/Kelvin_LEICA_SM/90mm/SOOZI-1st/Kel_1stSOOZI9cmf2_1.jpg

 

That design was tweaked slightly one or two times between 1960 and 1980, (and added built-in sliding hood and black exterior) but remained a DG formula overall (roughly symmetrical around the aperture, with 3 rather jelly-bean-shaped elements in front and 3 more behind). Coatings definitely improved over that period (somewhat more contrast). 10 air/glass surfaces.

 

http://aflenses.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/diagram2.jpg

 

The 90 Summicron-R and the similar 90 Summicron-M of 1980 were "telephoto" designs - lens physically more compact than the nominal focal length. Primarily (for the M version) to make it a better fit to the M body size - the DG version is quite a stovepipe. (Oddly, Leica had a 90 f/2.8 Elmarit, and when they designed a compact, tele version, they named it a Tele-Elmarit. But did not call the tele 90 f/2 a "Tele-Summicron," although that is what it is.)

 

Only five elements, asymmetric around the aperture (4 in front, one behind), and with 8 air/glass surfaces (fewer internal reflections) and even newer coatings, does bring the contrast (what you may see as "harshness") up a lot. The current 90 Summarits are a revise of that 5-element design.

 

The 90 APO ASPH of 1998 is also 5 elements, but in a 3/2 configuration with an ASPH surface. Really an all-new design even though it is roughly the same overall size as the 1980 or R version.

 

It has been quite a while since I tried various versions of the double-gauss 90 Summicron - never liked the size.

 

The 1980 design (R or M) has more contrast (as you saw), has a bit more distortion (pin-cushion) due to the tele design, may be slightly lower in resolution at f/2 (it has been said to have "soft sharpness" at f/2 due to spherical aberration), and may have more chromatic aberration (purple-green edges to objects, especially at f/2 and in slightly out-of-focus objects). The last two based more on theory than any direct comparisons I made. The 1980 version has beautiful soft bokeh (despite the extra contrast), but I can't remember whether the DG version was different or not.

 

The APO version is really different yet again from the 1980 version - much less CA, higher resolution @ f/2, quite a bit more contrast.

[finarphin]

 

For sure, if you want to match 1950's contrast as closely as possible, you'll want the original double-gauss, large, 90 Summicron. Preferably one of the late 1950's-era lenses (a few out there, all chrome, I believe, separate hood, aka SOOZI, some in screw-mount (adaptable to M mount)).

 

 

adan, Thank you for your detailed and informative response.  I was gravitating toward the idea of an older M mount Summicron  and now you've provided more impetus for it.  They're about 600/700 dollars now -- count 'em: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven.  The ltm ones are more (it's like they're a collectors item or something).  On the other hand I might go with a Mitakon 85mm f2, or a Minolta 85mm f1.7 MC, or a Nikon 85mm f1.8; I have reason to believe all three of these are relatively simple double-gaussian lenses.  Or I might get an adapter for a Soligor 105mm f2.8 -- I already have that, no money down.  I'm not sure what it is; apparently it's symmetrical, 4/4.  Actually I think the one I really need is a 90mm Elmarit r.

 

I'm wondering if contrast is really the only significant variable that's involved.

 

Examples: first two are with a Leica 90mm Summicron r, on a digital camera.  They look good: nice and sharp, with a touch of sweetness (for lack of a better term).  The third one is with a Leica IIIf and a 50mm Summicron collapsible, using film, probably some non-descript Fuji 200: the "holotype" of the look I can't quite put my finger on verbally.  It's pure magic.  And it's not even scanned at a particularly high resolution.

 

1 90mm Summicron r

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

2 90mm Summicron r

 

3 50mm Summicron collapsible

[masjah]

My experience is limited to the modern Apo Asph 90 Summicron R. I understand though, that the M equivalent has the same optical cell. Technically Ii is a superb performer, ruthlessly sharp to the point that some people, including myself, find it a bit unforgiving for portraits (not that I do many of these). A bit perversely perhaps, I prefer to

use the 100/2.8 Macro Elmarit for posed portraits, or even a 50 Summicron R with a 2X Apo Extender, mainly because they are what I have available in my kit to do the job!

[finarphin]

My experience is limited to the modern Apo Asph 90 Summicron R. I understand though, that the M equivalent has the same optical cell. Technically Ii is a superb performer, ruthlessly sharp to the point that some people, including myself, find it a bit unforgiving for portraits (not that I do many of these). A bit perversely perhaps, I prefer to

use the 100/2.8 Macro Elmarit for posed portraits, or even a 50 Summicron R with a 2X Apo Extender, mainly because they are what I have available in my kit to do the job!

 

That 100mm Macro Elmarit looks to be 1) a double-gaussian design, and 2) what I should have acquired -- maybe.  I can't focus these things any longer.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/100mm_f/2.8_APO-Macro-Elmarit-R

 

I've looked into this matter a little more; something I should have done in the beginning.  In the following list, T=Triplet, and DG=Double-Gaussian, using the terms somewhat in a sensu-lato sense.  90mm lenses:

 

Elmar                         ltm/m            1930-1968               T

Elmar-C                     m                  1973-1977               T

Elmarit                       m                  1959-1974               T

Elmarit-M                   m                  1990-2008               T

Tele-Elmarit               m                  1964-1974               DG  (5/5)

Tele-Elmarit-M           m                  1974-1990               T    

 

Summicron                ltm/m             1957-1979               DG

Summicron-M            m                   1980-1998              T

Summicron-M Asph   m                   1998 -                     DG (5/5)

 

Summicron-R            r                    1970-2000              T

Summicron-R Asph   r                    2002-2009              DG (5/5)

 

Elmarit-R                   r                    1964-1983              DG (5/4)

 

It looks like when Leica went with a new Summicron-M design in 1980 they didn't carry forward the double-gaussian plan of the 50mm Summicron or the previous 90mm Summicron; instead they made one that resembled a 135mm Elmarit/135mm Elmarit-R/180mm Elmarit-R. Modified triplet.

 

Anyway, I can't focus my 90mm Summicron-R on a film camera.  I'm getting it focused about four to six inches behind where it should be.  If I want to shoot film at that focal length it looks like I need autofocus money.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[lct]

[..] I can't focus my 90mm Summicron-R on a film camera.  I'm getting it focused about four to six inches behind where it should be.  If I want to shoot film at that focal length it looks like I need autofocus money.

Curious indeed. This should not happen with a TTL camera. Which one are you using if i may ask?

[finarphin]

Curious indeed. This should not happen with a TTL camera. Which one are you using if i may ask?

 

It's a Leica R6.2.  I don't think there's anything wrong with the camera.  It's my eyesight.

[lct]

Did you try a split-image focus screen? I had one on my R4s (14303) and it helped a lot to focus my pre-apo 90/2. FWIW.

[spydrxx]

Boy I can relate to the deteriorating eyesight. For a number of years I've had to wear increasingly strong progressive lenses, and even with minor tweaks in the prescription, it throws fine focusing out the window. SLRs & DSLRs with variable diopters are one solution, but when that option isn't available, try checking out snap on/or screw in diopters on RF or SLR bodies which don't have the variable feature. They definitely bring back the fun in photography for me.