Re: [Leica] Re Pre-set

[Henning Wulff <henningw@archiphoto.com>]

At 9:36 PM -0400 8/17/01, Simon Stevens wrote:
>  >I didn't mean the lens isn't very good in general; it's a very fine
>>design for the 50's
>
>Henning:
>
>I can't disagree with any of your comments although it would be fun to
>compare it side-by-side with the apo-asph to see how much difference
>there really is. No doubt what the overall verdict would be about which
>is better, but it would be interesting to see the degree. When I
>upgraded from a contemporary 8 element 35mm f2 to my asph the visible
>difference was a lot less than I expected.
>
>Simon Stevens

Those two versions I haven't compared directly, although I had a big 
90/2 of about 1968 vintage, the compact 90/2 of about 1980 and now 
the 90AA. The difference between the first and the second was slight, 
but the weight and size difference was big. The compact version was 
very slightly better w.r.t. flare as well as detail resolution, 
especially at f/2. The AA is about the same size and weight as the 
older compact, but the difference in performance is huge. The 90AA is 
essentially the same at all apertures, has virtually no light falloff 
at any stop (unlike almost any other short tele) and has incredible 
flare resistance. However, even the out of focus areas are clearer, 
and do not show as smooth a transition. No double line stuff, just 
not as creamy as the earlier versions. However, you could also say 
that the older lenses were 'creamier' on the focussed items ;-). The 
in focus performance that you get with your lens at f/5.6 will be 
very similar to what the AA gets at f/2, with the AA having probably 
a very slight edge even in this comparison, and of course the AA is 
way ahead in flare resistance.

All very useable lenses though, that make delightful pictures.

- -- 
    *            Henning J. Wulff
   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
  /###\   mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com