Carl Zeiss Sonnar 85 f2.8 versus Leica Elmarit-R 90 f2.8

[dan_]

I have a 90mm Elmarit-R ( E55 filter) as well and I'm very content with its IQ and sharpness. I've paied 300€ for it and I think it deserves every cent - I would buy it again anytime.
I don't have the 85mm Sonnar to be able to make a direct comparison but compared with my 135mm f\2.8 Contax Zeiss Sonnar (I know, apples and oranges...) the Elmarit holds its own very well.

The last member of the Colorplan family is the very rare (and more epensive) Super-Colorplan and, based on reviews (I don't have one), it should be the best Colorplan.
If you intend to use the 90mm lens mainly for portraits a Colorplan could be, as stated before in this thread, a nice and cheaper option.

[paulhofseth]

I have adapted an Epidiascope Elmar (the one with the 4 long focussing pins at the front) to a diaprojector in order to get a larger picture when i cannot get far from the screen.

p

[kds315*]

[kds315*]

Here using the Leitz Colorplan f2.5 90mm









Full set is here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/albums/72157658050401373

Very flatfield, very sharp, excellent balanced high contrast colors, very creamy bokeh....

[RTI]

[manufelices]

And which of this do you think is better?:

-Carl Zeiss 85mm f1.4. ZE (Canon)
- Elmarit-R. 90mm f2.8

[Pontus]

[uhoh7]

Yes, two versions of the 90/2.8 R Leitz, both outstanding lenses, but the second version is simply one of the best 90s ever made, legendary today in it's M form, but the R should be it's equal.

First version (Puts):
"This first Canadian design for a 90mm lens for the R-system is an excellent performer and shares by the way most characteristics with the Colourplan 2.5/90, which is almost identical. A medium to high overall contrast is coupled to a very even edge to edge definition of very fine detail, that is recorded crisply. Stopping down slowly improves on this quality and at 1:5.6 a very high contrast is reached with a clean recording of very small textural details over a large part of the centre, falling off quite a bit in the outer zones. For best close-up performance one should stop down two stops at least"

The incredible second version:
"In 1980 the Wetzlar designers recomputed the 2.8/90 for the R again and created the best 2.8/90mm ever in the Leica history (R and M). The first series of the R-version have been built in Portugal. The M-version arrived on the market in 1990, and is, even today, one of the best lenses in the Leica M stable. We seem to have reached a temporary platform here and while the new Apo-Summicron-M Asph indicates the future direction as far as design methodology is concerned, an upgrade would not be very cheap."

"At full aperture, overall contrast is high and very fine detail is crisply rendered with only a faint trace of colour fringing and astigmatism over the whole picture area. The previous R-version has lower contrast and softer edge definition and needs to be stopped down to 4 to get comparable performance. At 1:4 the contrast improves visibly and at 1:5.6 we reach outstanding image quality with extremely fine detail recorded with high edge sharpness and good clarity over most of the image field. The edges are slightly softer, but this will be visible only when one needs exacting coverage of small details in the corners at bigger enlargements. After this aperture contrast and edge definition drop due to diffraction. Close-up performance is as good as at infinity. Vignetting is low with half a stop, and distortion just visible. Flare suppression is excellent as coma (among others) is well controlled. As the 4 element lens has no cemented surfaces, Absorban can not be used to control colour transmission and it has to be accomplished with several types of coating layers."

Erwin Puts

Or, you know, as Ian would put it: "nothing special and too expensive."

[manufelices]

I mean, which is better in technical aspects?. I want it for portrait and short distances (no macro)

[Attila]

[manufelices]

Could you please, send me some RAWs in order to compare them? Thanks a lot!
I love the sharpness and rendering of Zeiss but I am not sure the CA

[kryss]

Attila.....+1 .I am adverse to anyone who claims this is better than that, it is up to owner,if it satisfies them why argue and pretend you know better,Ian has been around quite a while and 99.9% of the time correct.Sorry to see another Leica FAN boy arguing "they are the best".

[uhoh7]

[iangreenhalgh1]

Considering how great the Sonnar 2.8/85 is and how much it costs (it's often really cheap if it's a QBM mount one) then 1700USD for the Leica alternative is far, far too much to justify in price vs performance terms. The Sonnar 2.8/90 in M mount is pretty much the same lens as the 85, just tweaked slightly for RF use.

[tb_a]

As a general observation I want to point out that there are very often some obvious misunderstandings around. To talk about lenses which are in production since ages and are available in different versions and qualities it should be always clear which version is the one meant in the discussion. Furthermore it may also be that this or that version and/or lens performs differently on different cameras, especially when the discussion is reaching pixel peeping level. Using such a high standard lens on a camera with AA-filter and discussing about ultimate sharpness is ludicrous anyway.

However, particularly the 2nd example from "uhoh7", the man with the red ski cap, is looking extremely good. I like the bokeh very much and the sharpness/contrast is also impressive. Nevertheless, I wouldn't spend 1.700 $ for it. But my old 90mm Elmarit (Version 1959-1974) isn't bad as well. Not as crispy sharp but with similar smooth bokeh what I like very much. For apprx. 300 $ not a bad deal at all.

I cannot say anything about the Zeiss equivalents as those lenses wouldn't make much sense for me anyway for my cameras. Those which may fit (the new ZM ones) are by far too expensive anyway and are mainly also Cosina lenses like my cheaper CV ones. Maybe the are in any respect different or better, maybe not. So what?

I have some Leica lenses and I am very happy with them. Obviously everybody has his own favorites which are different like we all are different and there is still no perfect lens around. Am I therefore a "Leica fan-boy"? I don't think so.

[Attila]

I head earlier lens from M.

[uhoh7]

[iangreenhalgh1]

Another option is the Biometar 2.8/80, even the old single coated versions are superb lenses. Less than half the price of the Sonnar 2.8/85 for a good MC copy.

[memetph]

Uhoh7,
Money, money, it seems to be an obsession !
Every time there is discussion about Leica, you think that your contradictors have financial problems or a wrong attitude regarding people spending money. Not only you think it but you say it .....
Someone could use such types of stupid arguments for you:
he has to justify the money spent not to feel stupid.
he buys the more expensive because the most expensive is the best.

We lost already a good contributor in the past after a dispute with you because of such rhetorics and then an unbalanced exclusion by the moderation.

I have to add that I have much respect about your feedback on lenses.

[tb_a]

[Tedat]

..some people here think they must preach Erwin Puts because he is the god of lenstesting and are shocked if somebody will disagree

[memetph]

[tb_a]

A general observation about the endless money discussion.

As I used to work internationally my whole life I have very good ideas about the extremely different income situation around the globe. This is an international forum where people participate from all those different environments but share the interest for lenses. As a logical consequence there are sometimes huge differences as to what is to consider as reasonable, cheap or expensive as this mainly depends on the personal situation.

A good example may also be my personal situation when I still was in the working process and earned good money compared to my present situation as retiree. So a lens which was cheap for me some years ago was a lens for less than 1.000 Euro. Above it was rather expensive but never out of reach. However, I also own some rather expensive ones from that times. Nowadays this limit looks totally different, although my pension isn't bad at all and allows me a carefree living even in Austria which is not really the cheapest country on earth.

The difference of the average income alone within Europe is 12 times the lowest compared to the highest (globally much higher), i.e. in Denmark it's apprx. 12 times of the income in Bulgaria (before tax).

Unfortunately the selling prices for our beloved lenses are almost everywhere the same (with some exceptions), particularly since the internet (Ebay) has globalized the market.
The ultimate lens heaven within Europe for new ones used to be always Switzerland for me (highest income and lowest tax). I don't know whether this is still like this.

Some people don't bear in mind those differences when the discussion comes to prices and this is obviously quite often the reason for misunderstandings or even resentments.

Should we therefore limit the discussion on lenses based on their selling prices? Certainly not. However, those of us living in the richer countries should always bear in mind that others may have other financial environments and judgments. This would avoid at least some misunderstandings.

Just my 2 cents.

[tb_a]

[scsambrook]

I've been reading and postiing on MF Lenses for a good few years but I've become exasperated with the recurrent, pointless denigration and/or nit-picking comparisons of certain lenses - whether it's the $5 Domiplan or the $1700 Elmarit. When I first started visiting the forum the emphasis was on what we could actually do with our old lenses on digtial cameras, not the now prevalent situation with questions like "Which is the best lens for me" or the usually pointless and often aggressive assertion that "Lens X beats lens Y so lens Y isn't good" or "Lens b costs ten times as much as lens c so it's not worth buying".

Are any of us really so blind that we can't recognize that ALL the lenses that get denigrated at different times here are actually wonderful picture making tools? Or that we can choose how we spend our own money? Is it not time to stop regurgitating what others assert and get back to celebrating what we have rather than knockiing what we haven't?

I'm getting old. Maybe it's time I signed off and deleted my MF Lenses bookmark . . .