Re: Elmarit or Summicron 90mm

[Welch <Bill.Welch@pressroom.com>]

I'm a bit surprised at all the negative sentiment about the 90mm 
Summicron expressed here. I've found mine to be a very nice performer.  I 
wouldn't want to give up the extra stop.

I too found the 135 f/2.8 disappointing, but not for its optical 
qualities. Mine was an early version, plenty sharp and contrasty. I got 
rid of it because it was a pain to carry and didn't handle well. The 135 
length just doesn't seem practical with the rangefinder. But it's not a 
length I much care for with SLRs either.  The 135 Elmarit-M seems to be a 
real dog on the used market. Not a lot of demand for them. My old one is 
still on my dealer's shelf.  

Bill

Gary Todoroff wrote:
> 
> >
> > Answering your Elmarit-M versus Summicron question is easy: buy the
> > Elmarit-M. Better images at any aperture and at any distance setting. The
> > Elmarit-M is one of the better Leica lenses. The Summicron one of the
> worse
> > (relative to other Leica glass, not relative to other manufacturers
> glass).
> >
> > Gerard Captijn
> 
> Funny, by far my worst lens is the 135mm f/2.8 Tele-Elmarit. In fact, it so
> "Un-Leica-Like" in its lack of resolution that I sometimes wonder if
> something is wrong. It looked brand new when I bought it used and still
> looks great with no drops or other damage. Has anyone else had problems
> with this lens?
> 
> Now in defense of the mighty SUMMICRON:
> 
> I've used the 90mm Summicron since picking up a used SOOZI w/ bayonet
> adapter from Roger Pelham at Malone's Camera in Dayton, Ohio in 1969. It is
> one of the original few hundred Summicron 90mm lenses that Leica made and
> is an absolutely fantastic performer! I've used it wide open for theater
> photography and can count every hair. That lens is so fine, that just the
> act of focusing  it initiates an attitude in my mind toward sharpness and
> detail that elevates the way I see things.
> 
> ...