75 Lux or Cron ?

[herzie]

am looking for photos with the Lux 75 and the Cron 75 to compare. Maybe someone has a tip. How is your opinion on these lenses? Thank you. regards klaus

 

[peter_n]

Use Google to search the Leica forum here. There's about three recent threads on the topic.

 

[victoriapio]

It is a hard choice and not to complicate things further, don't forget the Summarit. I have one and love the build design, sharpness, bokeh and the size/weight. Not much longer than a 50. Is only a 1/2 stop from the cron.

One of the best "photo" tests I have seen that compares all three 75s is here:
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?p=174323#post174323

 

[martin s]

I had the Summilux for the last half a year, it's a great lens but simply too long and too large. If I'd be willing to put up with a magnifier I'd get the Summicron, the size seems great.

martin

 

[Steve Bellayr]

Between the Summicron & Summarit is one half stop. If you are using the lens for portraits the optimum f/stop is f4 & f5.6. They perform about the same at those stops. I. Puts has a review of the 75mm Summarit on his site.

 

[Tom A]

They are two different "animals". The 75f1.4 is closer to a Noctilux in its rendition. It is a finicky lens. Often you need to dedicate a camera body to it and have the two matched. With a 75mm f1.4 @ 1.4 there is really no margin of error. I had the 1.4's since 1981 until last year. It is a lens were you spend a lot of time getting it right - but when you "hit" it with one - it is amazing.
The 75f2 is closer to the 50f1.4 asph as to rendition, sharpness and tonality. Incredibly sharp, biting edge type of rendition. More "technical" in its rendition than the 1.4. It is also much better in close than the 1.4 (floating element helps here). I got rid of my last 75f1.4 as I found it to much trouble and it is heavy and large. I kept the 75f2 - though I tend to use it on my Bessa R3 with its free standing 75 frame. The "mixed" finder of the M's (50/75 together) is too confusing.
Depends on what you are going to use it for - if you want drop dead gorgeous shots with a steep "out of focus" rendition - get a 75f1.4. If you want a bit less headachs as to focus and focus shifts - get the 75f2.
In the current Leica M-lens lineup there are some outstanding glass. The 21f1.4, the 24f3.8, the 50f1.4 and the 75f2 is at the top of the heap. Nothing out there at the moment that can touch these.

 

[semilog]

In the current Leica M-lens lineup there are some outstanding glass. The 21f1.4, the 24f3.8, the 50f1.4 and the 75f2 is at the top of the heap. Nothing out there at the moment that can touch these.

That's great to hear. In the past Leica has really had a lot of trouble shipping quality glass 😉 😉 😉.

 

[Hacker]

I still keep both, though I made a mistake of selling the Lux before. I had the Summarit too but preferred the Cron (feels more solidly built). They render different for sure and Tom described it perfectly.

 

[Innerimager]

I have the 75 lux and consider it one of the most beautiful image makers I've ever used. I agree with Tom about dedicating a body that fits well with it, in my case it's a 0.85 M7. Not only is it easier to focus wide open with the higher magnification, the body and lens just dance perfectly and I nail focus wide open all the time. I also use the 75 lux on the M9, but t's not quite as reliable, especially if I don't have a magnifier on the body. I had the 75 cron for a short while and it's all everyone says it is, I just couldn't justify so much investment in the 75 FL. On the M9 I don't love the frame lines, I prefer either 50 or 90, and I use the 50 lux asph on the M9 when I want that look (which is very often) that the 75 cron gives. On film, again, the 75 lux + M7 is heaven for me.
As an aside....Tom....when you list the "best" Leica lenses, why the 24 f3.8 rather than the 24 f2.8, which I find as good as can be?

 

[Debusti Paolo]

and also the 35/1,4 asph is @the top!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Innerimager]

and also the 35/1,4 asph is @the top!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

absolutely!!

 

[ampguy]

Hmm, I've never had either of 2 75 luxes be "finicky" on various film M's, the M8, and a couple of RD1 and RD1s's (which don't even have 75 framelines).

I get 99% of 1.4 shots in focus, and the 1% that aren't are due to me, not the lens or camera.

You do need one that is adjusted right. They can't be shimmed, this is why many folks get frustrated with the Canadian ones which were set for something other than optimal wide open min. focus distance when they left the Canadian plants, and have a different mount.

This is usually a controversial topic, so look at the photos or past threads. There is or was one in the archives a few years back that was titled something like, "Is the 75/1.4 defective" because no one could focus it accurately.

 

[ferider]

am looking for photos with the Lux 75 and the Cron 75 to compare. Maybe someone has a tip. How is your opinion on these lenses? Thank you. regards klaus

For these two lenses it's a simple trade-off of size vs speed, IMO. If you need 1.4, there is no choice, but the Summilux is big. For photos, have a look at the flickr M-mount forum. But I predict that web-posts at f2 will show you no difference.

 

[raid]

I happen to have gotten the Lux for a good price, but if I had seen a Cron for a good price, I may have bought it instead, Both lenses are great and you cannot go wrong here if you buy either one.

The 35mm 1.4 with the 75mm 1.4 make a great pair for almost anything.

 

[ampguy]

Here's one of my favorite shots with the 75 lux:

 

[Tom A]

[QUOTE....Tom....when you list the "best" Leica lenses, why the 24 f3.8 rather than the 24 f2.8, which I find as good as can be?[/QUOTE]

The 24f2.8 is a very good lens, but no better than a 25f2.8 Zeiss. I had it for some years, but never really got along with it. A bit flare prone, big and clumsy on a M.
The 24f3.8 is just one of the best medium wides around. Staggering performance - perfectly even light transmission - and compact. A bit slower but not significantly so. I rank it up there with the best M-lenses. Only serious rival is the slightly wider ZM Biogon 21f4.5. Leica is doing some spectacular lenses at the moment, cutting edge designs - the 21f1.4 (if I could figure what I need it for - I would get one!), the aforementioned 24f3.8 and the 50f1.4 asph and the 75f2 Apo-Asph. This does not mean that the other lenses in their line-up are bad - just that the ones mentioned are so damned good!
The truth is that most lenses available today for M's are as good as we will ever need. There have never been so many choices available to a M-user as right now - and at all price levels too.

 

[Boniface XIII]

and also the 35/1,4 asph is @the top!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not in TA's sense at all, I beg to differ. This is one ASPH that distinctly lags behind the mentioned series, furthermore lacking the deep shadow and blazing highlight rendition of its Summicron ASPH sibling. More toward the older look than the ASPH one in TA's sense. It may be a lens you like, but that's a different story. I love the 21 f/3.8 SA, but wouldn't put it 'at the top' of that particular series.

 

[stefan-s]

Uups,what is 21/3.8SA?
I know 21/3.4SA and 24/3.8SE

 

[Innerimager]

[QUOTE....Tom....when you list the "best" Leica lenses, why the 24 f3.8 rather than the 24 f2.8, which I find as good as can be?

Leica is doing some spectacular lenses at the moment, cutting edge designs - the 21f1.4 (if I could figure what I need it for - I would get one!)[/QUOTE]

Ha! I decided I needed it to learn about the world of 21mm, and just to enjoy it's performance. The fact it does not create significant red edge problems on the M9 also makes it a great choice as the main wide on the M9, at least until a FW fix solves the problem for other WAs.....Peter

 

[Boniface XIII]

Uups,what is 21/3.8SA?
I know 21/3.4SA and 24/3.8SE

It's the f/2.8 Super-Angulon - designed by Sch-Kr, sorry...