Re: 85-90 M and SM lenses

["Charles E. Love, Jr." <cel14@cornell.edu>]

At 08:31 AM 1/29/97 -0600, you wrote:
>I have just finished printing some pictures taken with <brief mention of
>non-Leica equipment> a Nikkor 85 mm f/2 AIS on an FM2 body. At
>wide-to-moderate apertures and fairly close range, the results are very
>appealing: tack-sharp down to the grain of the fast film I was using, and
>with a very smooth, unobtrusive quality to the out-of-focus areas. That
>same lens also yielded excellent results when used at infinity for
>landscapes.
>
>However, the center of my photographic life is now an M6 with 50 and 35
>Summicrons, and I am not going to drag a Nikon around just for those
>occasions when I might want a tighter head shot. So this is going to sound
>like sacrilege, but:
>
>Can the LUG in its collective wisdom recommend a Leica M- or screw-mount
>lens that is as good as this Nikon optic?

Current conventional wisdom has it that the current Leica M 90 f2.8 Elmarit
(not the tele-Elmarit you tested) is the best 90 Leica has ever made.  The
raves have come from all over.  Indeed, I'd be surprised if it didn't beat
all the Nikons--I think it's the choice if you can live with the f2.8
maximum aperture.  The current 90 f2 is regarded well too, though perhaps
not quite as well as the 90 f2.8--it's a much older design.  I would argue
that, if you are applying contemporary standards of judgment to lens
quality, you will not be happy with any of the older lenses you mention
(I've owned a number of them).  Many of them are quite sharp, but all of
them will fall down in contrast and saturation as compared with today's
models.  Photographs taken with lenses like the 90 f4 collapsible and the
first 90 2.8 will look less snappy because of this, especially if you use
saturated transparency film--the difference between old and new will be
quite evident.  In addition, flare will be greater in the older ones--e.g. I
once carefully tested a fine example of the first 90 2.8 against the
tele-Elmarit you mention, and the later lens resisted flare much better.  I
of course must add that these things are a matter of taste, and that there
are many who love the effect given by older optics.  To each his own--but,
as I say, if you apply contemporary standards, considering sharpness,
saturation, and contrast, I think you'll be happier with current lenses.
Perhaps Mr. Puts could weigh in here!

Have fun with your search--Charlie

Charles E. Love, Jr.
CEL14@CORNELL.EDU