[LRFlex] Re: 90mm f/2 APO-SUMMICRON-R ASPH or 100mm f/2.8

I, too, have not worked with the 90, but I would find it hard to believe you could improve on the quality of the 100. An amazing piece of glass and metal. I have an older 90 and it sees use only if I want a ligher load, know I am not going to need to focus closely, or know I will have to focus fast on moving objects, Perhaps the 90 APO has such advantages over the 100, but as I said, I find it hard to believe any advantages on optical quality would be noticable. Maybe others have actual experience with both lenses. I,too, would like to hear from them.

Aram


From: "Neil Gould" <neil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: <leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [LRFlex] Re: 90mm f/2 APO-SUMMICRON-R ASPH or 100mm f/2.8
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 05:47:13 -0500

Hi Barney,

Recently, you wrote:

> From: Barney Kahn <thekahnman@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> 90mm f/2 APO-SUMMICRON-R ASPH or 100mm f/2.8
> APO-MACRO-ELMARIT-R?
>
> According to
> http://www.wildlightphoto.com/leica/main.html both are
> really great. However with all of the reading I've
> been doing, it seems that most if not all of the
> newest and/or updated versions surpass the quality of
> the older. I understand that the 90mm f/2 ASPH is a
> much newer design than the 100mm APO and has some
> better qualities. With that sort of thinking, I would
> lean towards the 90mm f/2 ASPH except it has a small
> amount of distortion and has "soft?" focus from 1.5
> meters and closer (with lens wide open).. So now I'm
> thinking of going with the 100mm f/2.8.
>
> All of the qualities of the 100mm f 2.8 sounds right
> for me such as getting in close with high quality at
> all openings, however the 90mm f/2.0 ASPH is listed as
> having really nice "imaging properties at full
> aperture" and is better in all other areas due to it's
> newer design...
>
> I'm not sure if I would really that difference when my
> slides are projected on my 70 screen (with a leica
> projector and lens) when compaired with the 100
> Elmarit.  I would think so if there really is a
> difference in lens quality.
>
> The 100mm would probably be easier to get in close to
> small animals such as a kitten and face/sholder face
> shots of my friends when compaired to the 90mm.  When
> I get in close, it will be more for small animals
> rather than people.
>
> Has anyone worked with both a 90mm and a 100mm?  Why
> would you like one over the other?
>
I have not worked with both a 90mm and the 100mm. However, I do own the
100mm, and have a bit of experience shooting iwth it. It is a dream lens
in most respects. Its macro qualities are excellent, and as you have
expressed an interest in that capability, it's an easy choice. I doubt
that the difference in focal lengths between these two lenses would make
much of a difference for your portrait shots.

What I'd suggest is renting each from your camera store and spending the
weekend shooting a couple of rolls. That should answer your question
definitively.

Regards,

Neil Gould

------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
    www.horizon.bc.ca/~dnr/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
    www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar ? get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
   www.horizon.bc.ca/~dnr/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
   www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/

Other related posts: