Macro-Elmar-M 90mm vs Zeiss Tele-Tessar-M 85mm

[indergaard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello

 

I have been testing these two lenses. Initially I was happy with the Zeiss, but had the opportunity to test the MEM and compare them. I was expecting the MEM to be sharper and have more clarity than the Zeiss, but... I was really surprised to see these lenses side by side in a direct comparison.

 

I put the tripod up, and locked the M10 in place. And shot and swapped lenses. The light will change a bit, but it is quite easy to see that the trees are noticeably sharper and crisper on the Zeiss image. Interestingly, the Zeiss has a (in my opinion) nicer colour and contrast signature also. The Zeiss also seems a bit brighter at the exact same exposure settings. Note: There was absolutely no wind. And the pictures were taken on a tripod, with a 12 second timer, and with live view disabled to prevent shutter shock.

I tested both lenses at 5.6 and 8, focused them at infinity. There is no discernible difference between the lenses at either aperture, but there is a consistent difference between the lenses in regards to sharpness, clarity and colour.

 

I have two raw files from the M10 and each image available for download on my website:

 

http://indergaard.net/share/teletessar.dng - Zeiss Tele-Tessar 85/4 @ f/5.6, ISO 100, 1/250 sec (coded as MEM 90/4)

http://indergaard.net/share/macroelmar.dng - Leica Macro-Elmar-M 90/4 @ f/5.6, ISO 100, 1/250 sec

 

Feel free to take a look at the images.

 

Is the MEM a dud? Or a bad copy? Or is the Zeiss I have a good copy?

I'd love to hear your opinion. The prices on these lenses (used, mint) are $500 for the Zeiss and $2000 for the Leica.

 

I avoided putting up crops here, as the file-size restriction caused the crops to be of very low quality, which makes it almost impossible to actually see the difference.

[Advertisement]

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

[adan]

There is one hint in the name of the Leica lens - Macro-Elmar.

 

The "math" for tracing light rays in designing a lens is different between lenses optimized for long distances (infinity (which in practice means "beyond 1000x the focal length"), where the light rays are assumed to come in virtually parallel) and for Macro lenses, which are assumed will be used for light coming in from a closer distance (divergent light rays spreading at an angle). Lenses are thus optimized for - close-ups, or infinity (e.g. the 180 Telyt-R f/3.4 surveillance lens) - or an "average" distance for general-purpose lenses. That is, "pretty good" at all distances.

 

You might try comparing the two again with some detailed subject that is 2 meters away or less. Just to - you know - see what happens...

 

Now, modern lens design has made the differences between "Macro" and "general" lenses less obvious than in the 1960s, when for example the 100mm Zeiss Planar f/3.5 (Hassy) was much better at infinity and the 120mm Makro-Planar f/5.6 was much better below 1 meter.

 

What I notice most is that your Zeiss has less color fringing than the Macro-Elmar (in the distant buildings - window frames and the silver rooftop ventilator system) - and that again can be due to different optimization for distance.

[lct]

Different light, different focal lengths, it is difficult to do comparisons like yours in my modest experience. The Tele-Tessar is slightly sharper than the Macro-Elmar in my book but it is also a taller lens (95 vs 52mm) with a longer MFD (0.9 vs 0.5m) and no macro capabilities, reasons why i did not get one essentially. It is one of the best "90s" available anyway.

[indergaard]

There is one hint in the name of the Leica lens - Macro-Elmar.

 

The "math" for tracing light rays in designing a lens is different between lenses optimized for long distances (infinity (which in practice means "beyond 1000x the focal length"), where the light rays are assumed to come in virtually parallel) and for Macro lenses, which are assumed will be used for light coming in from a closer distance (divergent light rays spreading at an angle). Lenses are thus optimized for - close-ups, or infinity (e.g. the 180 Telyt-R f/3.4 surveillance lens) - or an "average" distance for general-purpose lenses. That is, "pretty good" at all distances.

 

You might try comparing the two again with some detailed subject that is 2 meters away or less. Just to - you know - see what happens...

 

Now, modern lens design has made the differences between "Macro" and "general" lenses less obvious than in the 1960s, when for example the 100mm Zeiss Planar f/3.5 (Hassy) was much better at infinity and the 120mm Makro-Planar f/5.6 was much better below 1 meter.

 

What I notice most is that your Zeiss has less color fringing than the Macro-Elmar (in the distant buildings - window frames and the silver rooftop ventilator system) - and that again can be due to different optimization for distance.

 

 

Yes, for Macro use or close up photography, the situation might be the opposite. But my main use of this focal length and lens is to have a compact and light-weight lens for short tele landscapes while hiking. Which means I will 90-95% of the time be working at infinity.

 

I've scoured the internet and forums, and generally, it was stated that the Macro-Elmar was slightly ahead of the Tele-Tessar for landscape use. Which is why I was surprised to see the Tele-Tessar perform better for that type of use. Which again led me to believe that this MEM might require servicing. It was manufactured in 2014, so it's by no means old. But it is out of warranty, and as such it would cost a lot to have it serviced and calibrated. And it might also already be performing as it should, which is why I am asking.

Edited May 29, 2018 by indergaard

[indergaard]

Different light, different focal lengths, it is difficult to do comparisons like yours in my modest experience. The Tele-Tessar is slightly sharper than the Macro-Elmar in my book but it is also a taller lens (95 vs 52mm) with a longer MFD (0.9 vs 0.5m) and no macro capabilities, reasons why i did not get one essentially. It is one of the best "90s" available anyway.

 

Yes, but the details in the far distant trees are still very easy to see. They are much clearer and defined on the image made with the Tele-Tessar, regardless of light. And this test should be in the MEM's favor, since it is a 90mm, which means that there should even be more detail captured, due to the 5mm difference.

 

True, the Tele-Tessar is bigger and slightly heavier. But the MEM with it's bulky and non-reversible hood (at least on this newer 2014 year MEM) actually takes up just as much space effectively. So it's not like one is a big and heavy lens and one is a small and light lens. They are very comparable in practical size and weight.

[lct]

[...] They are very comparable in practical size and weight.

 

Well they are not to me, perhaps because i have the first version of the Macro-Elmar. But i have other compact 90/4, 90/2.8 and 90/2.4 M lenses so i am not tempted by the Tele-Tessar which is even taller than my Leica 90/2 apo. Great lens anyway.

[tsleica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Apples and Oranges..

Now do a test at 2'..or less.....

Edited May 29, 2018 by tsleica

[indergaard]

Apples and Oranges..

Now do a test at 2'..or less.....

As I wrote, that’s not interesting for my intended use. The consensus is that the MEM is better for landscapes. Which clearly does not match my results from a simple test.

Edited May 29, 2018 by indergaard

[sleepyhead]

i indergaard, it's good that you're happy with your tele-tessar.

 

I've been using the first version of the MEM for about 10 years now, most recently on the Leica SL. A few months ago I took a photo in Copenhagen of Christiansborg that had the moon in the background. It was shot at f/4 (wide open), ISO 8000. and focused on infinity. When I looked at the photo in Lightroom, and zoomed in on the moon at 100%, I was pleasantl surprised to see that the lens resolved craters on the moon!

 

So I question if your copy of the MEM is up to spec with regards to focus accuracy at infinity. In your test photos, the far distant trees look sharper with the tele tessar, but in the shot with the MEM the brick building in the foreground looks sharpest to my eyes. It's a little hard to say because the tele tessar pic was in sunshine, the MEM in shadow.

 

I agree that a test between the two lenses at around 2 meters would be interesting to see.

 

Thanks for sharing.

[indergaard]

i indergaard, it's good that you're happy with your tele-tessar.

 

I've been using the first version of the MEM for about 10 years now, most recently on the Leica SL. A few months ago I took a photo in Copenhagen of Christiansborg that had the moon in the background. It was shot at f/4 (wide open), ISO 8000. and focused on infinity. When I looked at the photo in Lightroom, and zoomed in on the moon at 100%, I was pleasantl surprised to see that the lens resolved craters on the moon!

 

So I question if your copy of the MEM is up to spec with regards to focus accuracy at infinity. In your test photos, the far distant trees look sharper with the tele tessar, but in the shot with the MEM the brick building in the foreground looks sharpest to my eyes. It's a little hard to say because the tele tessar pic was in sunshine, the MEM in shadow.

 

I agree that a test between the two lenses at around 2 meters would be interesting to see.

 

Thanks for sharing.

 

 

Thanks. Yes, i expected the MEM to outshine the Tessar :-) I suspect that the lens might need some calibration or alignment adjustments, but since the lens is out of warranty, that is servicing that I would not be willing to pay for if I was considering "upgrading" to the MEM. And I would expect the seller to rather want to sell the lens to someone that doesn't inspect and compare lenses in the way I do. I have found a lot of alignment issues in used lenses that are out of warranty, that seem like really good deals, but that would require servicing because they are out of spec. It doesn't take a lot to throw a lens out of spec. Dropping a lens from sofa height on to a carpeted floor can easily throw a lens out of spec.

 

I suspect that the MEM might be more prone to going out of spec because of it's design? The collapsible design seems like it maybe could cause alignment and calibration issues to more easily happen? This is just an assumption from my part, but I do detect some "wobble" when the lens is extended, even if it is locked in place. And the lens is barely 3-4 years old and has virtually no traces of use.

Edited May 30, 2018 by indergaard

[Nordvik]

It looks to me that the Macro-Elmar do not reach infinity. It is almost there. But is it good enough?

I have bought two M-mount lenses new. Both from Zeiss, and both did not reach infinity. I want my M-mount lenses to have a hard stop infinity focus. I like to take pictures at infinity (one/two kilometer away) without needing to focus. Just point it out of the car window and shoot.

 

It seems like many on this forum do not care how a lens behave at infinity. I do not care how it behave at one meter when it comes to sharpness.

[jmahto]

I don't have Zeiss but the 90MEM is very sharp for me on M240 at infinity (all apertures, best at f5.6).

[indergaard]

It looks to me that the Macro-Elmar do not reach infinity. It is almost there. But is it good enough?

I have bought two M-mount lenses new. Both from Zeiss, and both did not reach infinity. I want my M-mount lenses to have a hard stop infinity focus. I like to take pictures at infinity (one/two kilometer away) without needing to focus. Just point it out of the car window and shoot.

 

It seems like many on this forum do not care how a lens behave at infinity. I do not care how it behave at one meter when it comes to sharpness.

 

Yes, that might be. All my other lenses (35 cron, 50 lux, 24 elmar, and the 85/4 Zeiss) focus fine at infinity. I do a lot of shooting at infinity also, and it is at infinity that I require the best and most uniform edge-to-edge resolution. I don't need edge to edge resolution and sharpness at 2 meters distance...

 

Which is also why, for me, the MEM is a dud in this case.

[rpittal]

I have the macro 90 (first version) and find it works well, but prone to flare. I also have the 90/2.4 and the APO90 and a couple of older Summicron 90s. For general landscape use, I find the macro 90 very usable. You mention set at infinity. I find the lens infinity stops not necessarily accurate and always focus with magnified live view for landscape use, and not rely on the infinity stop. Its not clear if you focused the lens during your test or just ran it to the infinity stop.

[indergaard]

I have the macro 90 (first version) and find it works well, but prone to flare. I also have the 90/2.4 and the APO90 and a couple of older Summicron 90s. For general landscape use, I find the macro 90 very usable. You mention set at infinity. I find the lens infinity stops not necessarily accurate and always focus with magnified live view for landscape use, and not rely on the infinity stop. Its not clear if you focused the lens during your test or just ran it to the infinity stop.

 

I used the infinity stop. I don't find LV and magnification with focus peaking accurate for landscape use at infinty with apertures of f/5.6-f/11 typically. All my other lenses are pin sharp at the infinity stop. Even the Zeiss is. But I guess the collapsible nature of the MEM might make it more difficult to make the infinity stop completely accurate, as there will always be some mechanical play in the collapsible construction. And the tolerances might change with temperature and humidity even.

 

The MEM is going back and I will be keeping the Tessar. In addition to the sharpness, I also find the color, contrast and brilliance that I get from the Tessar very attractive. The images from the MEM seems very dull and lifeless by comparison.

 

I find this comment on FredMiranda regarding the Tele-Tessar to be a very good match to what I am seeing myself: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1432773/3&year=2016#13583438

 

 

I think that the excellent performance of the 85mm f4,0 Zeiss ZM is due to the Tele-Tessar optical formula, excellent illumination and brilliance of the entire image frame with great contrast and very even performance from center to corner. The lens really excels in good lighting condition. In the film days, Carl Zeiss also produce the 160mm f4.8 CB Tele-Tessar for Hasselblad V system, which also have many faithful followers who wanted a light and compact lens. But the optical designs of the Tele-Tessar or Tessar are limited to small apertures. For Leica M system, being a mid telephoto lens with the f4,0 aperture, the 85mm Tele-Tessar is certainly less attractive. Then, in good or ideal lighting conditions, very few lenses can outperform the Tele-Tessar for landscaping usages. 

 

The Tessar has some magic that I am not seeing in the MEM.

 

According to people on Fredmiranda the Tessar is outperforming the Sony 85/1.4 GM lens for landscape use adapted on Sony A7RII/III cameras.

Edited May 31, 2018 by indergaard

[indergaard]

I double-checked the MEM at infinity now. If I nudge the focusing barrel slightly back from the infinity lock position, the image is a little bit sharper and clearer. So it seems this MEM focuses a very little bit past infinity at the infinity stop.

What I am observing though, is that the MEM only becomes a little sharper by going slightly back from infinity at f/8. At f/4, there is zero difference. So it seems like the plane of focus moves back every so slightly from stopping down. Is the MEM prone to focus shift?

 

The Tessar is still ever so slightly ahead in sharpness and structure, but the difference is very minor, and I almost need to zoom in at 200% to see the differences, but they are there. The Tessar file can deal better with upsampling for example, since it is very sharp and crisp.

 

Still, though, the price difference is huge. $2000 vs $500. And the MEM requires "special attention" or servicing. So it's kind of an easy decision, although I do prefer the 5mm extra reach of the MEM. I actually wish I could find a 100mm lens - that would be perfect with the 24 and 50.

Edited May 31, 2018 by indergaard

[indergaard]

Testing the MEM at f/5.6, which is the optimal aperture, it is easy to see the focus shift, or infinity focus issue. The lens focuses past infinity at the lock position. When focused properly at f/5.6, compared with the Zeiss, I think sharpness is about equal, although the Zeiss seems to have little bit more micro contrast, and slightly more saturation, which results in a slightly more vivid image.

[Ecar]

I actually wish I could find a 100mm lens - that would be perfect with the 24 and 50.

 

Japanese lenses in LTM (with adapter) from the late 50's / early 60's.

You may be surprised at the IQ some of them provide at f/4.

Edited May 31, 2018 by Ecar

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[helged]

It looks to me that the Macro-Elmar do not reach infinity. It is almost there. But is it good enough?

I have bought two M-mount lenses new. Both from Zeiss, and both did not reach infinity. I want my M-mount lenses to have a hard stop infinity focus. I like to take pictures at infinity (one/two kilometer away) without needing to focus. Just point it out of the car window and shoot.

 

It seems like many on this forum do not care how a lens behave at infinity. I do not care how it behave at one meter when it comes to sharpness.

For critical sharpness at infinity, say astrophotography, manual focus is needed. This is easily seen with the outstanding EVF on the SL at 10x magnification, and it holds for all (as far as I recall...) lenses I have tested, including Leica M, Leica R, Zeiss (Otus), Voigtländer and Nikon (G). Several of the Leica M lenses are really off when it comes to the infinity mark. On the SL, the M-to-L adapter adds to this, but similar tendencies are seen with M-bodies with EVF and magnification activated (in my case M240 and M246, I dont have the M10).

 

A problem with any infinity hard stop is that the infinity focus can be temperature dependent. So infinity during the day may not be similar to infinity during the night.

 

The beauty with high-res EVFs are that you see what the sensor sees, so focus can be critically nailed.

Edited June 1, 2018 by helged

[jmahto]

It looks to me that the Macro-Elmar do not reach infinity. It is almost there. But is it good enough?

I have bought two M-mount lenses new. Both from Zeiss, and both did not reach infinity. I want my M-mount lenses to have a hard stop infinity focus. I like to take pictures at infinity (one/two kilometer away) without needing to focus. Just point it out of the car window and shoot.

 

It seems like many on this forum do not care how a lens behave at infinity. I do not care how it behave at one meter when it comes to sharpness.

I do care how it behaves at infinity and I am very much pleased with how mine behaves on M240. The following picture was a quick grab shot by simply turning the focus ring to infinity while the animals were running away. It is sharp enough to identify the animals in 1:1 zoom.

 

https://flic.kr/p/wgkimC

 

On EVF cameras the infinity stop will not coincide with infinity focus due to adapter thickness (known issue), but on M cameras it is fine.

Edited June 1, 2018 by jmahto