[Leica] 90 M lenses

[drodgers@nextlink.net]

I've been catching up on some Lug reading and found the comments on the various
90s quite interesting.

I've owned and used both versions of the 90/2, the original Elmarit, 3 different
versions of the 90 Elmar and 3 versions of the 90 Tele-Elmarit.  Perhaps I'm not
looking closely enough, but I don't see much difference. They all perform
extremely well at middle apertures and reasonable shutter speeds in the proper
light. At wide apertures I don't recall that one stood out above the others.

The only practical differences I see relate to maximum aperture and size. The
original 90/2 was a brute. I like the thin little Tele-Elmarit.  It's no bigger
than a 90 Elmar. That's why I kept it and sold my newer version and my older fat
90 TE.  I  have a recent 90/2 but I don't use it much.

The greatest feature of the M system, IMO, is that it is nimble. I very rarely
put an M camera on a tripod. The one exception is the original 90 Summicron. It
had a built in collar and i used it on a tripod on several occasions, which
resulted in the sharpest frames I ever made with a 90 M.

I feel that slower shutter speeds  and focusing mistakes  -- the effects of
which are compounded in proportion to focal length -- can quickly drown out any
edge in optical quality. I can hand hold a 21 at 1/15, but not so a 90. Further,
a subject need only shift slightly to move the plane of focus from the eyes to
the ears in a wide open 90/2 and 2 meters. The focusing issue is probably the
main reason I don't like to use longer lenses on an R, and why I'd be reluctant
to spend close to $2K on one fo the new 90s. While I'm sure they are superb, I'd
rather spend the money on an R tele.

I'm wondering how others feel about this?

Dave





I think the best features of the Leica M is it's .