[Leica] Summicrons 90 - opinions?

[marcsmall at comcast.net (Marc James Small)]

I have owned and used both the f/2.8 and f/2 90mm 
ASPH lenses.  In fact, my f/2.8 lens was bought 
used from Erwin:  it was the one he tested for 
his lens book.  I later sold that and upgraded to 
the 2/90 Asph which I got from a prominenent 
member of the LUG.  I used both extensively.

The 2.8/90 is every bit as good as the 2/90 from 
f/4 up and is almost indistinguishable at f/2.8 
unless you are doing some REALLY world-class, 
big-time, bad-ass cropping of minute parts of a 
negative.  Otherwise, the lenses are of similar 
and excellent performance though the Summicron is substantially heavier.

But then you have to factor in the Hicks 
Conundrum.  Roger Hicks, a noted British 
professional photographer used to rave about his 
1.4/35 pre-Asph Summilux (he also raved about 
Soviet lenses, showing that he was a man of 
discerning taste and of a sound optical 
mind).  One acquaintance once confronted him on 
his love of the Summilux and pointed out that any 
version of the 35mm Summicron had noticeably 
better performance at f/2.8 and f/4 and 
f/5.6.  So, queried the querent, why stick with 
the 1.4/35?  Responded Roger:  I concede that the 
Summicron is generally more satisfactory in 
performance from f/2.8 to f/5.6.  But it does a much better job at f/1.4!

In other words, if you NEED an f/2 lens, get the 
Summicron.  If you sometimes will need an f/2 
lens, get the Summicron.  If you can safely say 
that you will never need to shoot a 90mm lens 
wide-open at f/2, then save your shoulders and 
get the f/2.8 lens.  (A possible workaround is to 
pick up a SPS 2/85 Jupiter-9 as an emergency 
lens, and the Jupiter is relatively light.)

Jerry Lehrer used to lecture Henry Ford, back in 
the Longago, when Henry was trying to figure out 
whether to replace the Model T with the Model A, 
"Henry, when in doubt, bore it out!" In a similar 
vein, many of you subscribe to Capa's suggestion 
that there has never been a lens which is 
excessively wide-angle.  I do not hold to that as 
I am not especially fond of lenses much wider 
than 50mm on miniature-format or 80mm on MF, but 
my own mantra is to ALWAYS go for the fastest lens reasonably available.

(Just by way of example, my basic Leica bag 
consists of:  M6 with non-Asph 1.4/50, 4.5/21 
Zeiss Biogon, 1.4/35 Summilux ASPH, 2/90 
Summicron ASPH, and a 2.4/135 AA Telyt.  I also 
have a Vivitar 283, a couple of packs of spare 
batteries, six or eight or more rolls of film.  I 
finally quit including the Leica M motor drive 
(the old one) as I just never use it.  My 
Hasselblad bag is similarly laden:  a 2000FCM 
body with a 2.8/80 Planar T*, a 4/50 Distagon, a 
5.6/120 S-Planar, and a 2.8/18cm CZJ Sonnar.  My 
Rolleiflex bag is a LOT smaller and lighter, as 
this only includes my 2.8GX and some filters and 
the three Rolleinar close-up units;  unless I see 
a specific need, I leave my Weitwinkel- and 
Tele-Mutars behind.  The trick is to plan to park 
closeby to the scene you are shooting;  I rethink 
this if I have to hike in and would probably opt 
for some LTM gear or a Retina IIIc or my Werra 3 in that event.)

Again, there is no real difference in optical 
performance between the f/2 and f/2.8 ASPH 
lenses, so the determinant probably should be 
based on the need for f/2, the weight, and the price.

Marc


msmall@aya.yale.edu
Cha robh b?s fir gun ghr?s fir!