Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/03/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Would you agree that the 2.8 is sharper at 2.8 than the 2.0 at 2.8? Is there better microcontrast and resolution? At 07:06 PM 3/24/98 -0600, Eric Welch wrote: >At 09:12 AM 3/24/98 -0800, you wrote: >>I have an M6 0.85 with a 35/2 ASPH and a 50/2. >>I am ready to buy a 90mm for the M6. Which >>version will give me the highest quality images >>from f/2.8 to f/8? I do not have to have the f/2 if it >>is not the best since I already have 2 f/2 lenses. >>F/2.8 would be fine. Some have told me that the >>2.0 is soft wide open and the 2.8 is sharp and >>contrasty wide open. Any more comparisons >>on these lenses? > >No doubt about it, the 90 Elmarit is a superb lens, and is better than the >Summicron. In fact, the 90 Summicron R has a better reputation than the 90 >Summicron M. I'm sure the focusing differences might have something to do >with that. But any of those lenses will give you top results. But the >Elmarit (same lens in R and M versions) is the best. Now, with a 90 >Summicron ASPH coming mid-98, I don't know. It could have a bit of an edge. >========== > >Eric Welch >St. Joseph, MO >http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch > >Pi R Squared? No Pi R round, Cornbread R Square! > Francesco Sanfilippo, Five Senses Productions webmaster@5senses.com http://www.5senses.com/