Why do I need a 90mm lens on my RF?

[DGA]

Recently I'm playing with the thought of adding a 90mm lens to my RF kit.
I started thinking about it after a friend had lent me his Jupiter 9 (85mm, f/2) for a few days before he sold it.
I took a couple of rolls with it (mostly portraits) and it caught me. I really liked this focal length and its perspective.

Still, as time goes by, an "evil" thought comes to my mind: why do I need a 90mm lens for my RF? what benefit will it give me, since I already have that focal length in my Canon EOS kit?
well, I can count numerous reasons, like the small size of the RF lens and the construction (I was thinking of the Elmarit 90mm f/2.8). But I was not so self-convinced.
I want a 90mm for my ZI, but I need more good reasons for that.

[ferider]

Because RFs are really good for portraiture. Small, quiet, great for low light. Keep the other eye open while talking to the subject. 90mm used to be a very common RF lens for half a century, until the internet said RFs are for "street" only and don't go together with teles :bang:. 90mm goes well together with 28/50, too. You don't really want to add an SLR to that small RF bag of yours, now, do you ? :)

BTW, the Elmarit is a great lens, but so is the 90/2.8 Hexanon.

A recent 90 shot:

http://ferider.smugmug.com/photos/371688321_dydPp-L.jpg

Cheers,

Roland.

[ferider]

And then, you know, you might fall completely out of the box, by considering the use of an RF tele with camera on tripod :eek:

http://ferider.smugmug.com/photos/195926909_WBbxN-L.jpg

Cheers,

Roland.

[maddoc]

90mm for RF ? :eek: ...:rolleyes: I tried 3 different 90/2.8 and was never satisfied. Then after half a year I got the 90/2.0 Summicron-M (pre-ASPH) Can't say why but really like this lens. :) Since I almost always take photos in the dark, the 2.8 was to limiting and I never brought the 90/2.8 lenses with me. Now, with either the 21/3.4 or 35/2.0 it makes a good combination.

[Paul C. Perkins, MD]

"I took a couple of rolls with it (mostly portraits) and it caught me. I really liked this focal length and its perspective."

Sound like compelling easons to me. . . Russian equivalent of the prewar Zeiss 80mm F:2.0 is a magnificent performer (if you get a good sample). Though I have a Leitz Midland 90mm F:2.0 Summicron available to me - I use a 100mm F:2.0 Canon and have been very satisfied with the results. An 85mm F:1.8 Canon (late black finish) . . . I'd like to just see one.

Paul

[thomasw_]

Roland's correct in asserting that RFs are great for portraiture; over time I have used the 90 and 135. I think the best all-round portrait lens I have used is the Leica 75 summilux. I used to think the 75 focal length was a compromise for portrait shots, but now I see it as the sweet-spot, 'go to' focal length for portraiture.

[35mmdelux]

In general shooting a 90mm is a must have. Its like insurance; nobody wants its until its too late. Outside the 90mm APO, most are sleeper priced. Used w/ adequate skill they stand their own ground. The problem w/ most of us is that we are so addicted to high-speed lenses that we don't often give the slower 90mm/2.8 lenses a fair shake.

The 90mm Elmarit-M (late model) I purchased from Gabor proved itself recently when I photog John McCain under challenging light condition. I shot into the darkness and into the spotlights as well. All the photos came out sharp & contrasty, shooting Kodachrome@ 400 ISO and the lens 1/60.

When I bought my 75mm/2.5 Summarit recently I toyed with the idea of selling the 90mm. I finally decided the 90 is a must have for a RF shooter.

[back alley]

...because it's nice to have all you need in one kit.

be it rf or/and slr.

[Steve Bellayr]

You do not need it. You want it. No question...the 90mm is great. I always keep a few portrait lenses of varying lengths. The prime is much sharper than the VF lenses. The VF are good for sports events but not straight portraits. If you do not have a lens within 75mm to 105mm you could be missing something. AS far as the lens that you are contemplating...as I read recently...people argue ad infinitum ref the difference in Leica lenses but in the end they are all good. As opposed to the 50mm lens the 90mm (Elmarit) IMHO makes a big difference. You may not need it in life but go for it you will not be disappointed. Good Luck.

[DGA]

Thanks you, guys.
Roland, great pictures. You are indeed a brave man, mounting your RF+90mm on a tripod :p
The advantages of the RF system outside are well known and appreciated by me.
But what about using RF+90mm in more controlled environments, like studios or interiors where the subject is acceptive and cooperative.
can you see any advantages to the RF system in such cases?

[joachim]

Still, as time goes by, an "evil" thought comes to my mind: why do I need a 90mm lens for my RF? what benefit will it give me, since I already have that focal length in my Canon EOS kit?

To me a key issue is to add versatility. You only need to carry the the 90mm and can leave the heavy evil EOS at home. Still you can do a lot of the things you could do with your EOS.

[Pherdinand]

well i din't know about that elmarit, but the small size...hmm hmmm. I have an older version 90/2 summicron and it is a huge beast! ANY 90mm SLR lens would be smaller than that - even 85mm f/1.4 lenses.
But i still like it:)

[Nokton48]

I have the V2 90mm Chrome Summicron, and I use it quite a bit, actually. I had one twenty years ago, and I really like the lens. So when I bought a second Leica body, I bought a second 90mm Leitz lens. This time, a collapsible 90mm f4 Elmar :cool:

[Pherdinand]

i have the same 90/2 but in black, Nokton.
It's a nice chunk of glass, isn't it?

[Pablito]

Perhaps with a high magnification finder I might have taken to it better, but I found on a standard .72 M6 viewfinder that the 90mm frame lines were too small to compose really accurately. I also found the 90mm Summicron too hard to focus accurately wide open but then I don't have fabulous eyesight. Since longer lenses wide open have such shallow DOF, using an SLR give a much more faithful representation of what you're going to get on the neg. As far as I'm concerned, the ONLY advantage of the longer lenses in RF is the smaller size and since I make my living at this, that's just not enough of an advantage, for me anyway. To be blunt, I just find the 90mm on RF much harder. to use than on SLR. I sold my 90mm summicron for less than I paid (used) and it was not easy to sell, took a long time. When I have work that requires sustained use of long lenses, I tend to leave the Leicas at home and use the SLR's.

[ferider]

You do have a point there, Pablito. I use the 90/2 on M3 (combo used for the first picture above), which has very nice 90mm framelines. The next best 90 Leica is the M2, IMO, but EBL is a bit on the short side. The M6 90 framelines are not really adequate.

But since the OP asked for a 90/2.8 and uses a ZI, I figured EBL and framelines not to be a problem.

Best,

Roland.

[caffeineshutter]

Good photo. Was it an Elmarit, a Tele-Elmarit, or Elmar-C?


CJ

Because RFs are really good for portraiture. Small, quiet, great for low light. Keep the other eye open while talking to the subject. 90mm used to be a very common RF lens for half a century, until the internet said RFs are for "street" only and don't go together with teles :bang:. 90mm goes well together with 28/50, too. You don't really want to add an SLR to that small RF bag of yours, now, do you ? :)

BTW, the Elmarit is a great lens, but so is the 90/2.8 Hexanon.

A recent 90 shot:

http://ferider.smugmug.com/photos/371688321_dydPp-L.jpg

Cheers,

Roland.

[Nokton48]

i have the same 90/2 but in black, Nokton.
It's a nice chunk of glass, isn't it?


Yes very nice chunk of glass, on M2 or M5.

Still waiting to get the 90 Collapsible Elmar. Hoped it would arrive today. I love my chrome 50mm f2.8 Elmar, so it'll be nice to have the set.

Somedays Elmars, somedays Summicrons. Life is good.

[ferider]

Good photo. Was it an Elmarit, a Tele-Elmarit, or Elmar-C?


CJ

This was a Summicron 90/2 v3, CJ. Best,

Roland.

[tbarker13]

Versatility.
I have a Pentax K10D that I generally use for telephoto work, alongside my M8, equipped with a 28 or 35.
But sometimes, I'd rather travel as light as possible. So I'll toss a CV75 in my bag and leave the Pentax at home. (that's effectively a 90mm with the crop factor)

[eric mac]

My standard travel kit is a 21mm on a Bessa L and a 35/40mm augmented with a 90mm tele elmarit on a Bessa R3 or Leica M2. Its great for portraits and sometimes you need a little tele photo action for situations where you can't get too close.

Eric

[Bingley]

I don't do many portraits, but I find a small tele very useful for landscapes and close-ups. In my case, the small tele is a Canon 100/3.5. The framelines for it on the Canon P are a joy to use, and the lens is small, light, and really really sharp. I borrowed an uncoated 90/4 pre-war Elmar last summer, and it was a joy to use as well. Beautiful color rendition and, again, great for close ups.

If you don't need speed, and are looking for a small, sharp lens for not a lot of $$$, you should check out the Canon 100/3.5:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3081/2636407865_94d82254b8_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3073/2747194684_5a4bddd8f3_o.jpg

[Doug]

You may or may not "need" a 90mm for your ZI; I have a ZI as well as an old 90mm Tele-Elmarit I got new decades ago. I seldom carry the lens, as it gets so little use. I agree with others it's mostly the small framelines. Somehow on an SLR 85mm is much more "normal" and comfortable to use. I just got a Zeiss 85mm f1.4 Planar in Pentax mount, so I'll need to make it prove me right!

[Ronald_H]

Well simple really, I want to be able to do portraits with my M2. Got myself a battered old Elmar 90mm f4 for all of 60 euros. Glass is, of course, flawless. I would have liked to have more speed, but 60 euros for a genuine Leica? You can't pass that up.

I realise it is one of the least popular M lenses, but it has a zillion diaphragm bladed :D

[DGA]

spending the money is not the real case in my decision, that is why I prefer not to go for the cheep 90/85mm out there.
I really prefer having a good short tele glass and willing to spend on it.

Having a single kit (with all the necessary lenses) is a good point.
But so is the potential inaccuracy of the 90mm on the ZI due to the small frame lines. (although I sill have my unsold Bessa R3A and I can use it as a special body for the 90mm, but I really need to sell it).

Has anyone used the 90mm/85mm RF lens in studio?

[Krosya]

90mm is nothing, try using 105mm ;) I love my Nikkor 105/2.5 wide open:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=62407&d=1218304326

[italy74]

Hi DGA
I'm not sure if you will find anyone having used a RF in studio.. you can do that but it's quite cumbersome to work with compared to a SLR which has also a better view.
Personally I wouldn't use that much a 90mm on a RF but of course I understand the need to have a 2-3 lenses kit instead of only one (to me, the best lens on a RF would be a 35mm) so I can only wish you two things: 1) you can understand if you need it or no and 2) you can get it in the affirmative case.

[BillBingham2]

90mm is nothing, try using 105mm ;) I love my Nikkor 105/2.5 wide open:



I even tried a 135/2.8 and loved it, I wonder if there's a book in here somewhere?

90-105 is where I go either way. I carry one in my RF kit when I only want to carry a single camera or single system. If I am going to carry a 180 I leave the 105 for the RF at home.

If size is an issue take a look at the new ZI 85/4, I'm betting she will be a razor. If money is an issue take a look a the old 90/4 from the wetzlar folks. I had one and while she was not a 'Cron she was good enough for the times I wanted to travel light and small. In between those are some great old lenses, IMHO, the best is the Black 85/2 Nikkor.

B2 (;->

[ferider]

spending the money is not the real case in my decision, that is why I prefer not to go for the cheep 90/85mm out there.
I really prefer having a good short tele glass and willing to spend on it.

Having a single kit (with all the necessary lenses) is a good point.
But so is the potential inaccuracy of the 90mm on the ZI due to the small frame lines. (although I sill have my unsold Bessa R3A and I can use it as a special body for the 90mm, but I really need to sell it).

Has anyone used the 90mm/85mm RF lens in studio?

Checkout charleschu's most recent gallery posts, DGA. Some very nice studio portraits using a 75mm on M8. :D

[kxl]

The title of the thread is: "Why do I need a 90mm on my RF?"

And given that you already have an EOS kit, the short answer is that...

YOU DON'T... assuming your EOS glass gives you the same quality as the 90mm RF lens you plan to buy. Given the same IQ, the primary advantage of a 90mm RF lens v. your EOS 90mm is gear portability.

When I decided to a get a 90mm for my RF gear, I knew it would be one of my least used lenses, so I decided to go for value rather than going for broke. I got a 90/4 Elmar for less than $100, and it's sufficient for my needs.

[ali_baba]

i just aquired a 90APO, im selling my elmar.
contact me if interested.

thanks

[Al Kaplan]

Here's something nobody ever mentions: It's also great for moderate close-ups. A 90mm lens at its closest focus (1 meter) covers exactly the same area as the 50mm Dual-Range Summicron at its closest focussing distance, and you don't have to stop and put the "goggles" on it, just focus and shoot.

[CuS]

I bought a 1948 85mm f2 Serenar on a lark (its in wonderful shape) and I find I use it quite a bit along with my CV 50/f2 Heliar Classic

I shoot alot of architectural elements in relation to their surroundings (weird, I know) and the tight framing of the 85 really shines.