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