90mm or 100mm lens? (Leica question) and/or do you like one over the other and why?

90mm f/2 APO-SUMMICRON-R ASPH or 100mm f/2.8 APO-MACRO-ELMARIT-R?

According to http://www.wildlightphoto.com/leica/main.html both are
really great. However with all of the reading I've been doing, it seems
that most if not all of the newest and/or updated versions surpass the
quality of the older. I understand that the 90mm f/2 ASPH is a much newer
design than the 100mm APO and has some better qualities. With that sort
of thinking, I would lean towards the 90mm f/2 ASPH except it has a small
amount of distortion and has "soft?" focus from 1.5 meters and closer
(with lens wide open).. So now I'm thinking of going with the 100mm
f/2.8.

All of the qualities of the 100mm f 2.8 sounds right for me such as
getting in close with high quality at all openings, however the 90mm
f/2.0 ASPH is listed as having really nice "imaging properties at full
aperture" and is better in all other areas due to it's newer design...
I'm not sure if I would really that difference when my slides are
projected on my 70 screen (with a leica projector and lens) when
compaired with the 100 Elmarit. I would think so if there really is a
difference in lens quality.

The 100mm would probably be easier to get in close to small animals such
as a kitten and face/sholder face shots of my friends when compaired to
the 90mm.

Has anyone worked with both a 90mm and a 100mm? Why would you like one
over the other?

Thank you,


Barney

 

I think you rather missed the point.

The 90mm f/2 is a general purpose telephoto lens that is optimised for
portraiture. It not only has excellent sharpness, but outstanding
bokeh, that is an exceptionally smooth rendition of out-of-focus
elements of the shot, especially highlights. This helps produce
flattering portraits.

The 100mm f/2.8 is a special purpose macro lens that is optimised for
extreme sharpness at short focusing distances. While Leica lenses
have good bokeh, all macro lenses - regardless of brand - have to
sacrifice *some* smoothness in the out-of-focus areas to obtain the
ultimate in sharpness at close focusing distances. That makes them
less suitable for portraiture.

If you choose the 90mm, you will find it capable of producing superb
portraits, but don't expect the ultimate in macro performance. If you
choose the 100mm, you will get optimum sharpness in macro mode but
don't expect your portraits to be as flattering as they would be with
the 90mm. Neither will the f/2.8 maximum aperture of the 100mm lens
allow you to defocus portrait backgrounds to the same extent as the
f/2 of the 90mm, and that's important for many portraits.

Therefore, you are going to have to decide what is your priority for
this lens: portraiture or macro.

If portraiture, choose the 90mm f/2.

If macro, choose the 100mm f/2.8.

Simple, isn't it?

;-)

 

I agree, you must decide the primary application.

I don't have either the R 90 or R 100 however I use an R 80 1.4 with my R8
and I use a 100mm f2.8 USM with my Canon 1V. Both lenses are fantastic but
if I had to pick one I would choose the 100 macro simply because you can
shoot a portrait with the 100 macro but not the other way around. That is
you can't shoot macro with the 90 2.0 (at least not without the addition of
extension tubes).

Regards
JJ

 

Maybe you can *shoot* a portrait with the 100 macro, but it will
inevitably be unflattering because of the optical design of the lens.
Specialist macro lenses almost all make bad portrait lenses because
their optical design results in unflattering portraits.

On the other hand, depending how close you want to go (say up to 1:2),
the 90mm f/2 ASPH can give some very acceptable results. The same
*cannot* be said of a macro lens used for portraits, unless you are
blind to the adverse qualities of the results.

Of course one answer may be to buy the doyen of multi-purpose 90mm
lenses, the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro, which is *both* a superb macro
lens *and* a superb portrait lens. I have 90mm f/4 and f/2 Leica M
lenses, yet I still prefer my trusty Tamron 90mm on a Pentax LX or MX
body for the shots that really matter!

 

Could you please include some example pictures to understand the
difference. So far I'm happy to use 135mm and 180mm nikkor for portrait
but sometimes (especially indoor, short distance&low light) it would be
better to get a 85mm/1.4.
Thanks!

/Janos

 

This issue (portrait vs. macro lenses) has been discussed here many
times. Possibly the best examples of bad portraits taken with an
excellent macro lens and discussed here were those made with a Sigma
180mm f/2.8 macro. That is a fine macro lens but it makes a very bad
portrait lens.

You should try a Google Groups search with that lens in the subject
line.

 

Subject: Re: 90mm or 100mm lens? (Leica question) and/or do you like one

Hi Tony:

Why do you prefer the Tamron 90 over your 2 Leica M lenses? Better bokeh and
sharpness (hard to believe as Leica is one of the kings of good bokeh and
sharpness and microcrontrast)? The fact that its an SLR lens so you can both
close focus, have no parallax and see exactly how far out of focus/how well the
oof works with the subject? Other reasons?

TIA

 

Simple. Buy both.

 

Maybe you can *shoot* a portrait with the 100 macro, but it will

I think you're just making it up as you go along now.

Are you talking about using extension tubes to get to 1:2 as the 90 will
only focus down to 0.7m on it's own?

And, is "Acceptable" the standard you strive for?

Well then I am clearly BLIND to the apparently abhorent qualities you refer
to as I've been using my (Canon) 100 2.8 macro for portraits for the last
few months I've had it and have been very pleased with the results. As the
lens is razor sharp wide open I think I can accurately say that I've never
stopped it down for a portrait, at least not that I can recall. Prior to
using the Canon I was using a R 180/2.0 and R 80/1.4 for portraits, both of
which were superb in this role. The Canon macro seems to be a good middle
ground although I miss the speed of the summilux.

JJ

 

Hi Lewis,

I should really have anticipated your response. ;-)

I prefer my Tamron 90mm over the Leica 90mm f/2 Summicron ASPH because
the ASPH design aims for maximising MTF. Unfortunately, this is
slightly at the expense of bokeh. The same could not be said of the
pre-ASPH Summicron because that design never fell victim to the
current fashion for high MTF numbers at the expense of good all-round
optical performance - for which we can blame Photodo, lens
manufacturers who publish MTF curves and people who read more into
them than they should <g>.

I prefer my Tamron 90mm f/2.5 over the Leica 90mm f/4 Elmar-C because
it has a much wider maximum aperture (by 1.3 stops) allowing working
in available light and defocusing of all but the closest backgrounds.
It also has (in my opinion) superior bokeh and resistance to flare and
does not give anything to the Elmar in terms of sharpness.

Yes, the fact it is an SLR lens helps in terms of evaluating OOF.
However, I find I can predict to a good level of accuracy what OOF
effects my rangefinder lenses will give, simply through experience.
The same is true of the Tamron lens; I don't always check DOF through
the lens, and I even have a Pentax K to Leica M adapter so I can use
it and other Pentax K lenses on my Leica/Minolta bodies.

Parallax really isn't a major issue with a 90mm lens used at normal
focusing distances on a parallax-corrected rangefinder camera. It is
much more of an issue when working close up with wide angle lenses,
especially my 15mm which I use with a non-parallax-corrected
viewfinder.

The Tamron 90mm macro is an outstanding optic. Even to be able to
compare such a modest optic (modesty based on price) with Leica and
Zeiss glass is a miracle, given its humble roots as a macro lens with
interchangeable mounts.

Of course it did once have its independent competitors, notably the
Tokina, Sigma and Vivitar 90mm f/2.8 macro lenses, and the sublime
Kiron 105mm f/2.5, but they have all fallen by the wayside while the
Tamron goes from strength to strength.

Neither Nikon or Canon ever made lenses this good.

Satisfied?

;-)

 

Sorry, blahblah.

;-)

 

IMO it is a highly subjective thing- not everyone notices the relevance of
the quality of the out-of-focus areas of a photo, even though it is the main
thing that defines the legendary status of manufacturers like Zeiss and
Leica (and individual lenses, like the Tamron 90mm and similar) over
excellent optics from others like Canon, Nikon and so on. Anyone can make a
sharp fixed focal length lens- Sigma do it, hell even Cosina do it- that can
give good results in the right hands. Zeiss lenses and Leica lenses don't
necessarily have better sharpness, definition or what have you, than good
Nikon or Pentax or Canon or Minolta glass. But sharpness doesn not
(necessarily) a good portrait make...

Besides, if you shoot wide open, chances are the out of focus elements look
okay anyway- and if you shoot portraits with a relatively uniform
background, chances are you won't see the benefits of smooth "bokeh" at all.

 

Are you really evaluating the Leica 100 f/2.8 APO? I find it very hard to
believe that you've ever used one. I own one, and find it to be an
excellent portrait lens, as well as a handy macro lense. Apparently, my
opinon is not unique:

http://www.wildlightphoto.com/leica/

Regards,

 

Subject: Re: 90mm or 100mm lens? (Leica question) and/or do you like one

Hi John:

Why did you switch to Canon from Leica R or do you sitll own/use both systems
but tend to use the same/similar lenses in different systems for different
purposes?

TIA

 

Subject: Re: 90mm or 100mm lens? (Leica question) and/or do you like one

Thanks. Yes, very satisfied... but only for now... ;-)

By the way, as a sife note, the current? 90mm f/2.8 R, supposeldy based on the
same design as the M version (or at least it was when I shot with one in the
early nineties) is a superb lens for both its sharpness and its bokeh (perhaps
a little too sharp, though not an ASPH). The 100/2.8 Leica macro I aslo had the
opportunity to shoot with and it is a superbly sharp lens but when I
photographed humans with it I got a bit too close (to test out the macro
function) and photographed nostrils and mini parts of faces, way too close to
get an idea of the bokeh at head shot distances, however I do remember being
pleased with the bokeh on other subjects such as trees shot up close, etc.
Unfortunately I haven't seen these test slides in years and I don't even know
if I still have them :-(.

 

Hi John:

Hi Lewis

I swapped (jumped ship) for several reasons all revolving around the
practicalities af getting the job done "faster" but I still have all my R
gear, just don't get many chances to use it any more. I miss the image
quality of the R lenses although the flare control in the Canon zooms is
better than the flare control in some of the leica primes I own. The 24-70
is fantastic by the way.

There are several main reasons for swapping;
- Canon zooms such as 17-40, 24-70 and 70-200, and AF to boot. I only ever
use the AF for action work.
- 9-10 fps with 1V and nicad pack (good for the action work which I do on a
regular basis)
- I doubled up on eos 1V's so if one breaks I'd still have a spare (I had
too many problems with my single R8)
- auto bracketing and 100% viewfinder on the 1v are important to me, these
are lacking on the R8
- digital upgrade path

JJ

 

Yes, but not at macro focusing distances.

That's where the Tamron really scores; it is one of a very rare group
of 90mm - 105mm macro lenses that have the optical qualities needed to
produce outstanding portraits as well as superbly sharp macro shots.

And it is the only one that is still manufactured in 2004.

 

Subject: Re: 90mm or 100mm lens? (Leica question) and/or do you like one

Thanks, John.

Did you know that with an adapter you can still use those Leica R lenses with
stop down metering (and aperture priority and manual exposure I believe and
manual focus, of course) on your EOS 1vs?

The R9 (and R8?) has a digital back available for it (but probably very
expensive as you know).

What type of (action) work do you do? The 28-70/2.8L is/was a great lens - only
downsides are its size and weight, the 24-70 seems like more of the same
excellence, but people (except those at events) would probably get alittle wary
from always having one of those big boar lenses pointed at them as if you/I
were Rambo and they were our "prey" - in other words, its not exactly an
inconspicuous lens ;-).

Why did you choose the 17-40 over the 16-35?

Thanks and TIA

 

Thanks, John.

Yeah I did know but I'm not sure it's worth the hasle when I can just use a
Leica body instead!

I'm sure it will be very expensive. I wonder how it will compare with the
1Ds in terms of image quality, colour accuracy etc?

I shoot cars for a bunch of Australian magazines and often need to shoot
action shots of the cars, eg pan shots, cornering, etc. Aside from that, I'm
often at Drag Racing or circuit racing events where AF really does help. I
always got by with my R lenses for these jobs but there's no denying that
using a zoom with AF is easier, faster, more reliable and practical than a
prime which is maunual focus. I've used the Leica 80-200 2.8, which is a
fine lens, but I could basically purchase 2x 1Vs and an EOS 80-200 2.8 IS
for about the same price, so I did. There were many other minor reasons I
decided to make the change but it came down to spending a lot of money to
upgrade some of my Leica gear, eg a couple of zooms, another R8/9, a motor
drive or I could spend a similar amount on the EOS gear and still have more
functionality ie AF and higher motor drive speeds.

The 28-70/2.8L is/was a great lens - only

Because it is lighter and this is a real factor with the type of work I do,
see www.jjphoto.com.au for some examples. Most of the movement/action shots
on the web site were shot with an R 24 2.8 and an R8 (except the stationary
shots which are all with an RZ). I have used a 16-35 for a job prior to
buying the 17-40 and found the 16-35 a bit heavier than I liked. I had also
read that the 17-40 performed slightly better at the wide end, which
appealed to me. The 17-40 also allows for gels at the rear element, which
the 16-35 does not. The 17-40 is not a terribly good lens and I find I need
to stop it down to 8 or smaller to get good results, but this suits my
applications so it's not a problem. The lens does vignette quite alot untill
about f8, more than the 16-35.

Regards
JJ

 

Subject: Re: 90mm or 100mm lens? (Leica question) and/or do you like one

All true, Tony. But Iwas mentioning this lens for portrait work, not macro. The
Tamron is definitely excelent in both arenas, though...