'75 'Cron or Asph ?

Damaso

Damaso

Photojournalist
Local time
12:27 AM
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
2,380
I know much has been written in these pages about these two lenses. The 'cron is the sharpest lens Leica makes; the asph has creamy bokeh and is faster. Now that it looks like I have some money in hand I have to choose one.

On the one hand the asph is a bit smaller and easier to handle; on the other I am often shooting in low light and can use the extra speed. I also have the sneaking suspicion that Leica might just introduce a new version of this lens sometime soon.

Of course if I get the asph I can always sell it again for a good price. Just wanted to get the thoughts of some people who have owned both! Thanks for your time...
 
Last edited:
Dear Damaso,

The 75 Summicron is aspheric. As far as I'm aware, the 75 Summilux isn't (nor is it anything like as sharp). Or am I missing something in your question?

Cheers,

R.
 
Yes, this I know, I was just asking people what their personal preferences and experiences have been with these two lenses. I am interested in people who have owned and used both.
 
Damaso said:
Yes, this I know, I was just asking people what their personal preferences and experiences have been with these two lenses. I am interested in people who have owned and used both.
Click to expand...

Dear Damaso,

The header refers to "'Cron'" and "ASPH' as if they were different. Presumably you meant 'Lux' or 'Summilux' vs Summicron ASPH.

Re-read your header and the original post and you may see why I was confused.

The Summicron (aspheric) is smaller and super-sharp. (I own one.)

The Summilux (non-aspheric) is bigger, heavier and less sharp (I have only tried a friend's).

This doesn't tie in with your questions.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Damaso, I assume that you are asking for comparisons of the 75/1.4 Summilux and the APO 75/2 Summicron ASPH (the "'Cron" and the "ASPH" are the same lens). If this is the comparison that you are looking for, there are some interesting threads HERE and HERE.

Edit: Sorry, Roger got in ahead of me.
 
You are correct, I made a mistake I meant Lux versus 'Cron. Whoopsie! Thanks for the links...
 
Not actually have used the lux in depth but having tinkered with one I was shocked how big it was, compared to my other rangefinder lenses that is. Its a monster thats for sure, but if you look down the inside of the lens when you close the aperture its a thing of beauty. That aside, from the photos I was shown of this particular Dutch photographer, the images are very characteristic of last generation Leica glass. That being less "technical" and more "emotional" renderings.
 
Whoa, let's not be quite so dismissive of the 75 Summilux when it comes to sharpness. I have actually compared them (I own both). With the camera on a tripod, I took photos of the statues on the St. Louis Art Museum. I shot around optimum aperture for each lens: f/4 to f/5.6 range. I framed the picture first with the 75; then backed the tripod off until I had the same framing with the 90. Looking at the Velvia tranparencies with a high-power loupe, I could not see any difference.

It occurs to me that I posted these shots on the web. I'm sure it was over at the photo.net Leica forum. I'll see if I can still find that thread, and post a link.
 
Rob, I think he, the OP, is wanting a comparison of the two Leica 75s, not the 75 Lux spherical and 90 asph cron. It is interesting that you say the 75 lux is quite sharp, though, for that would be a small concern of mine were I to look at buying the 75 cron vs. the 75 lux. One thing I read about the 75 cron asph, is that its formula is derived from the lux 50 asph; is that so?
 
Thanks for all your thoughts so far. I haven't made any choices but I am leaning towards the 'cron, unless I find another awesome deal on the 'lux like the one I turned down a few months ago...
 
lux all the way:

ultra sharpness isn't good for portraits, especially ones of women

lux is plenty sharp enough unless you want to buy lenses purely for sharpness bragging rights

lux has THE fingerprint



if you really do need that much sharpness/resolution then be done with it and buy an H3
 
Calling the 75mm summilux unsharp yells of typical internet chatter, or they used bad copies. My copy is very sharp for what you'd want from 35mm, even at f1.4. Try one if you can Damaso.
 
If size and weight do matter for you, go for the Summicron.

Otherwise for the Summilux. The Summilux has the most beautiful bokeh of all Leica lenses, in my opinion (but I admit I have never tested the 90 Suummicrons). It is not true the Summilux is "not sharp". At f5.6 and higher it is even extremely sharp. It's only soft when you miss the focus wide open. Because it really needs very accurate focusing in such situations, but then delivers stunning images.

Both lenses have a high resale value.

Just my few pesos...
Didier
 
Not so sure I'd even buy the 'cron (never used it). My 'lux is tough to focus wide, but creates very distinctive images when properly used. I't's not what I'd call a "fast handling" lens either. And a magnifier does help even w/ an 0.85 finder. If i were after a sharp, small 75, I'd just pick up a CV new or used. They're so cheap I'd just buy one new. I'm sure the Leica is a better lens....but depending on the intended use, the CV should work for most shots. People really seem to to love that CV.
 
thomasw_ said:
Rob, I think he, the OP, is wanting a comparison of the two Leica 75s, not the 75 Lux spherical and 90 asph cron. It is interesting that you say the 75 lux is quite sharp, though, for that would be a small concern of mine were I to look at buying the 75 cron vs. the 75 lux. One thing I read about the 75 cron asph, is that its formula is derived from the lux 50 asph; is that so?
Click to expand...

Yes I knew the question was between the two 75s. (Actually, with the introduction of the Summarit f/2.5, there are three now.) Both the 75 and 90 ASPH lenses, though, are as sharp as anything Leica makes. What I was hoping to do was to treat the 90 ASPH, in my answer, as equivalent to the 75 ASPH for the sake of comparison. But I forgot to make that part clear. At any rate, I have found the 75 Summilux to be very satisfyingly sharp, right up there with the aspheres.

I don't have any info about the 75 being derived from the 50 Lux. I do know that both lenses were under development at the same time. At the 35th annual LHSA meeting in St. Louis, Stefan Daniels told us that both these lenses were in the works. It would not be surprising if there were a great deal of congruence of thinking in their designs.
 
Hi Roger

Hi Roger

The 75 'lux is only sharp when focused properly. It appears not all can do that. Here is one that can:

http://bp3.blogger.com/_3JNB9ik85M8/R19tu2hjDyI/AAAAAAAACYE/nMM9ViNlCYc/s1600-h/51330001.jpg


Roger Hicks said:
Dear Damaso,

The header refers to "'Cron'" and "ASPH' as if they were different. Presumably you meant 'Lux' or 'Summilux' vs Summicron ASPH.

Re-read your header and the original post and you may see why I was confused.

The Summicron (aspheric) is smaller and super-sharp. (I own one.)

The Summilux (non-aspheric) is bigger, heavier and less sharp (I have only tried a friend's).

This doesn't tie in with your questions.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...
 
I have both and they are both great lenses. In my completely non-scientific and utterly subjective view, I would rate the Summicron as a little more "clinical" and the Summilux as a little more "atmospheric," at least when used wide open. And there is the size difference, which for me is a total non-issue. As the posts above show, your mileage may vary depending on your tastes. I also owned the CV 75/3.5 for about a year. Also a very nice lens, although its speed was a deal-killer for me. The Summicron really is one of the sharpest lenses I have ever used -- sort of a family resemblance to the look of a 50/1.4 Asph. Good luck in your choice. There are no bad 75's among those you are considering.

Ben Marks
 
One question that hasn't been asked... What camera are you planning on using this lens on?

The 75 Summilux is fine with a .72 finder, but with a 1.25x magnifier or an M3 its great to see with and much easier to focus.

If you are thinking 'compact', and worried about weight the Summilux is not your lens. But the weight does have an advantage in that it settles the camera/lens down for low light and shower shutter speeds. I don't really understand the thought that its not sharp - it is! Maybe not 'razor' sharp across the field at f1.4 but still very sharp and with good contrast, by f 2.8 I don't think you'd see any difference in real-world handheld photography and by f4 even with a tripod and the finest grain films it will be very close to the Summicron. That you get in return for size it an image that is unique and a faster lens. Its one of the most beautiful image makers ever made, tonality, color and speed when you need it. The narrow depth of field can be fun to play with too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom