Vario Elmarit 28-90 poor sample?

[Bernie R]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello, I was recently able to purchase a used Vario Elmarit 28-90 and am now amazed at the comparatively poor performance at 28mm focal length - my old "Sigma" Vario Elmar 28-70 is much sharper and has less CA. Attached are my test images in overview, aperture 2.8 and 3.5 respectively, as well as crops at open aperture and stopped down (stopped down the 28-90 is sharper, but there is still CA). Is this performance normal, or does the lens need to be adjusted? At 35mm the 28-90 is better (still worse than the 28-70), at 50mm very good, at 70 and 90mm excellent. 


Thanks a lot for your help!  Bernie

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!

[Advertisement]

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

[Bernie R]

The first pic ist the 28-70 at 3.5, the second the 28-70 at 6.3, the third the 28-90 at 8, the forth the 28-90 at 2.8.

The fifth pic is the 28-90 in overview wide open, the last one the 28-70 in overview wide open. 

[davidmknoble]

It seems very hard to see with photographs of a newspaper.  Have you taken and photos outside or of some other things that show the lens is having trouble?  

[wizard]

I can assure you that, if within specs (which my copy is), the 28 - 90mm is an extremely sharp and high resolving lens. My personal copy is outstandingly good, and is visibly better at any focal length than almost all comparable fixed focal length Leica R lenses save but a few of the very last ones (Summilux 50 E60, Summicron 2/90 asph). Did you test your lens at greater distances, too (it seems your newspaper shots are all close-ups)?

[Bernie R]

Thank you for your comments! Yes, I did tests at larger distance (but not on a flat target) and saw the same unsharpness at 28 mm in the midzone region. I was unhappy with these shots, this is why I did the newspaper test. Great to hear that the 28-90 should be sharp at 28 mm as well! I will try to get it adjusted and keep you updated about the result!

[Stuart Richardson]

I am not completely convinced it is out of spec. I also had this lens, and it was great. That said, I primarily used it on film and the DMR (10mp crop sensor). If you search for the data sheet for this lens, you will notice that the MTF is much better on the longer end, and that the contrast level for the edges at 28mm are not very high...below 20% contrast for tangential structures in the edges. This is probably also explained by field curvature (meaning it might be sharp somewhere, just not on a plane), but also other kinds of aberrations. All this said, I think this is a fine lens, but it is probably not going to hold up as well on modern cameras. Another issue might be cover glass. If you are using this on a non-Leica body, they tend to have thicker cover glass that causes problems with older lenses that were not designed to account for it, especially with wider angle lenses. You might find that it performs badly on an S1/R, but just fine on film, for example.

[jansjo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think my question is connected to OP´s question, all though not exactly. I very much like the rendering of this vario elmarit r 28-90mm f/2.8-4.5 lens and with the resolution in the tele-part of the zoom. I am a bit dissatisfied with the resolution fo this lens at 28-35mm and even at 50mm focal length. Compared with the R 35-70mm f/4 it should be better, but is not at 35 and 50 mm (a little bit less sharp at long distance). The first picture is from 28-90mm at f/5.6-8, 35mm focal length, the second from 35-70mm at f/5.6-8 (at 35mm)(cropped a lot). At 50mm the difference is bigger in favour of 35-70. I focused at open aperture and then down to 5.6-8, and registered a focus shift in this 28-90 lens at 50mm. I am a bit surprised that the focus shift is so big that the DOF of 5.6-8 is not enough to get it sharp. When I focused at the exposed aperture, it is much better, but 35-70 is still a little bit more sharp. Do you think there is something with my lens or is it normal? Both on Leica SL2. (it might be nothing wrong, only that 35-70mm is extremely good, but in the forum and other places I have read the opposite).

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!

[jansjo]

The difference to 35-70mm is very small and maybe not noticeable, so my question is more about if it should have been better than the 35-70mm. And the focus shift at 50mm, if anyone else have similar experience. Connected to the OPs question: I have also tested the 28-90 at 28mm, to other lenses, for example Pentax K 28mm f/2 (the zeiss contax design, "hollywood" lens), both at f/5.6-8. The pentax first, then leica r 28-90. The Pentax lens is a little bit better both in center (first examples) and at the right side (second examples). This lens is old, from the 70´s, but it matters of course that it is a prime lens and not a zoom.

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!

[Stuart Richardson]

13 minutes ago, jansjo said:

I think my question is connected to OP´s question, all though not exactly. I very much like the rendering of this vario elmarit r 28-90mm f/2.8-4.5 lens and with the resolution in the tele-part of the zoom. I am a bit dissatisfied with the resolution fo this lens at 28-35mm and even at 50mm focal length....Do you think there is something with my lens or is it normal? Both on Leica SL2. (it might be nothing wrong, only that 35-70mm is extremely good, but in the forum and other places I have read the opposite).

Zoom design has come a long way. If you are using the SL2, you are likely to get better performance out of the 24-70mm SL lens (or the Sigma lens it is based on), let alone the 24-90mm. The 28-90 R lens has a well deserved reputation as an excellent example of a zoom lens from the end of the film era, but a lot of people who loved it (me included) were also using it on the DMR, which was a 10mp crop frame sensor. Your edges don't matter if they are not in the frame...

There has been a large jump in the quality of lens designs, particular in the last few years. If you download Leica's data sheets, the information is right there to see...when it comes to the technical characteristics of lens performance the new designs are better. They are sharper, tend to have less distortion and fewer chromatic errors. For example, the data sheet of the 24-70mm show that the performance wide open and at 5.6 are significantly better on the 24-70mm at 24mm than they are on the 28-90mm at 28mm. The older lens is a bit more even at 70mm (the new lens is sharper on center, but softer in the edges and corners), but otherwise the newer lens is better in every way. The more expensive and larger 24-90mm is technically superior at every focal length and aperture.

So the question, "is it normal?", the answer is likely yes. This lens was designed in such a way that its best performance is at the longer end. That the 35-70mm is better in the 35-50mm range is not that surprising, as it is a more conservative design, with a smaller zoom range and slower maximum aperture...that is, fewer design difficulties and compromises to make. The 28-90mm is a much wider range and is a faster design, so it was more difficult to design. Since the zooms are roughly contemporary, it makes sense that the 35-70mm can be better in that range. Another case of "just because it is cheaper, does not mean it is worse..."

[jansjo]

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!

[jansjo]

Thank you Stuart, for a reply that makes very good sense, and that I can relax on my sample that might be ok. Even though the quality-issues, I like the lens and the rendering it gives, and time will show if I later want to shift to more modern zooms, as the SL 24- 70mm 🙂

[dkCambridgeshire]

On 7/14/2022 at 12:18 PM, Bernie R said:

The first pic ist the 28-70 at 3.5, the second the 28-70 at 6.3, the third the 28-90 at 8, the forth the 28-90 at 2.8.

The fifth pic is the 28-90 in overview wide open, the last one the 28-70 in overview wide open. 

Consider using the R 28-90mm lens with a Leica R film camera ... it's a film era lens and performs very well hitched up to e.g a Leica R4 which can be bought for relatively €little. 

dunk

[davidmknoble]

@jansjoi had the 28-90mm for a time and found the color rendition to be superb.  But in the field of Leica R lenses, I preferred the 35-70 f/4 and the primes, 28 v1 (for size) and 50 cron v2 and 90mm Elmarit v2 or the APO 90 cron.  Those lenses seemed to out perform that zoom. On the high end there are more choices - 80-200, 70-180 etc. But that is not the same. 

[Bernie R]

Hello all,  thank you a lot for your comments. My 28-90 was now checked by Leica and was found to perform according to specs. 

I looked at my test images again, the "Sigma" 28-70 is significantly sharper than the 28-90 at 28 and 35mm focal lengths at the same apertures, but it also has a lot of distortion at 28mm. The distortion was a major reason I wanted the 28-90. I now have the impression that the 28-70 was way ahead of its time in terms of sharpness (at the price of strong distrotion) and almost plays in the league of modern lenses, such as the Canon 24-70 L ii. A comparison with earlier test images taken with my Canon FD 2.8 28 mm shows that the Leica 28-90 is a sharper than the Canon fixed focal length, with which I have taken many great slides. So I look forward to taking slides with the Leica 28-90 once it is back. 

[darylgo]

@Bernie R

 I’ve had lenses that Leica Germany checked for poor image quality and also saying they were within spec. My lens in one case was an Apo 180 R that underperformed a non Apo 180 2.8 R. The mtf curves and test results from the Apo told me it was a bad sample. I’m thinking you too have a bad sample.  
 

What can be done?  I generally test for this upon purchase, it is common with older Leica optics. With newer optics the consistency from one sample to the next is almost 100%, so Leica is improving greatly.  Unfortunately, a bad sample can only be made slightly better.  This has been my experience and also written by Roger Cicala at lens rentals with their extensive numbers of optics.  

If you want to pursue this further I would contact Don Goldman to see what his thoughts are.