90mm Macro Elmar M

[Csacwp]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm curious as to how this lens performs compared to the 100mm Apo Macro Elmarit R.  Both are spherical lenses with apochromatic correction (Leica strongly considered giving the 90mm Macro Elmar "apo" status, but decided it would impede sales of the 90mm Apo-Summicron).  How do the out of focus and in focus renderings compare, and is the 90mm as sharp as the 100mm?  Are there any other M lenses that are sharp with excellent color reproduction but aren't aspherical?

Edited January 30, 2018 by Csacwp

[a.noctilux]

In my view as early user of AMER (apo R 100), the most benefit is 760g ® shunk to 240g (M).

 

Macro-Elmar-M 90mm is good but not as user friendly as SLR Apo 100mm where I can see (wysiwyg ?) in the field and viewfinder.

 

Pictures quality : my Kodachrome from Apo 100 have something "vivid sparkling" never reached by Macro-Elmar-M on screen.

Maybe Kodachrome is "vivid" only when wide screen projected.

 

When "scanned" those IQ was lost and when viewed on computer screen, the Macro-Elmar-M 90mm equal Apo-Macro-Elmarit-M 100mm.

[Csacwp]

Interesting, so in digital they are on par. In my experience the 100 apo R is better than the 90 apo M, so I guess that makes the 90mm macro elmar a special lens! I plan on using it on the SL.

[tobey bilek]

Back in the day,  Leica rated them 90 APO,  90 2.8 version 2,  90 4.0 macro, but all within a hair quality wise.

 

I only owned the 100 APO which is now in Nikon mount and 90 4.0.    If I were to pick,  100 probably if I had live view.    

 

90 macro is my go to lens with 50 & 35 on M.   Also have 90 Summicron pre asph,  thin tele elmarit.    

 

FWIW,  I used a borrowed 100 2.8 to do slides of my 6 month old girl with soft umbrella light.   Same day,  90 Summicron R same shots, same roll.    Summicron looks poor in comparison to 100 2.8 APO. She was 6 months at the time and the APO would pick up skin texture.

 

90 2.0 is at the limit of good focus on digital m unless you have live view where the lens shines.  I would not buy APO without LV assist.

[chris_tribble]

I have 90 Apo M and Macro Elmar and use the Elmar a great deal more than the Apo.  It's easier to focus with the RF and gives wonderful flexibility with the Macro adapter + Live View or the Fixoflex. My current outdoors in nature go-to setup is the 35 asph + 90 Elmar with the macro adapter attached.  I can switch from landscape photography to flowers, bark and insects with minimal lens swapping...

[UliWer]

I don't think that it makes much sense to compare performance of the two lenses mentioned without taking practical aspects into account.

 

From what I know the Apo-Macro-Elmarit-R is better - for macro as well as for normal distances - at f/2.8 than the Macro-Elmar-M at f/4. And you can use the Apro-Macro-Elmarit in close ups which are beyond the limits of the Macro-Elmar.

 

Though: the Apo-Macro-Elmarit needs liveview in any situation with the R-to-M-adapter  adding weight and size to the already big lens. It has an enormously long focus throw which is good for precision but very very clumsy for "normal" photography. It changes its field of view when you focus it, making it even more impractical. For using its superb capacity for macro you'll have to put it on a tripod, and a focussing rail is recommended.

 

You can use the Macro-Elmar-M like any other M-lens, just with the optical M-finder for normal photography. Even the Macro-Adapter-M doesn't make it too big and adds many opportunities for  close ups. 

 

So the "perfomance" of both lenses depends on how you want to use them.

Edited January 30, 2018 by UliWer

[luigi bertolotti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My opinion is OOT, having NOT the Macro Elmarit, but when took the Macro Elmar 90 one of my first curiosity was to compare it with the Macro Elmar 100 R (bellows version) , and (on M240) they render REALLY very similar one to the other... so that my conclusion is, as UliWer says, that is all a matter of functionality : the 90 of course, has much more functionality on M ; on bellows... matter of taste about operations (rendering, as I said is virtually the same) : personally, I have started to appreciate the bellows R (which I have had for < 1 year vs. 30 years or so for the M bellowsII... and don't use each day....  )

[lct]

Different beasts indeed. I have no experience with the R 100/2.8 (only R 60/2.8) but it is a true macro lens able to do 1:1 together with the dedicated Elpro 1:2–1:1 and its sharpness is equal or superior to that of the M 90/4 macro at all apertures if memory serves me well. The R 100/2.8 is a much bulkier lens (104mm long, 760g) than the M 90/4 macro (59mm long, 230g) which in turn can only do 1:2 together with the Macro Adapter M. For handheld general and proxi photography the 90/4 macro is hard to beat but it has a modern rendering so it is not a forgiving lens for portraits. Hard to get sharpness + softness + proxi with the same lens. My favorite R 90/2 pre-apo (11219) could do it with the Elpro VIIa (16533) i suspect but i have no experience with this Elpro.