75

[noimmunity]

Some of my best images of people came from a CV 75 that I had for only a short time. I am interested in going back to that FL, as I like what it does to people (portraits) compared to both 50 and 85/90. Am I imagining this difference, or does it really exist?
What alternatives to the CV 75 are there besides the expensive 'lux and 'cron from Leica? (Even the new summarit 75 seems too steep to me). I actually thought the CV 75 was among the better of the CV lenses I have used.
This thread doesn't have to stick to my questions, but could just become a(nother) place to discuss 75s...

 

[lZr]

I agree all about CV 75. It have same properties like the CV 35/2.5. Both dress my Bessa R like gloves

 

[sykotec]

agreed on 75 being a comfortable portrait length with a pleasing look - at least to me!

I've got a bad habit of having both 'vintage' and 'modern' looking lenses in a couple lengths - this will soon be one of them if I can sell enuff SLR gear to fund a CV 75/2.5

as an alternative, though not a common or cheap one - I was very lucky to purchase a Hektor 73/1.9 from a fellow Forum member. so far it's got a great old-school look for people with some really neat character. there have been a few 75's made eons ago in LTM, but alas, the Hektor MIGHT even be one of the more common and affordable, and it's the most expensive piece of geat I've got!

side note - the CV 75mm finder that 'goes with' that 75/2.5 is just perfect

 

[noimmunity]

I agree with Alexander about the intimacy without distancing effect of the 75 vs. 90. Wish there was an affordable 75 that allowed focusing down to 0.7 meters. Using a 50 on the RD-1 allows me that kind of distancing, and I'd like to be able to get it with film.
Envy skyotec for trying the Hektor 1,9/73. Have you any examples to show?
I will almost certainly acquire a CV 75 when circumstances permit.
Would have loved to see some of the leciaphiles talk about the superlative offerings from leica in this FL...

 

[Roger Hicks]

I'm surprised no-one's championed the 75/2.5 Summarit, a lovely lens. I have one on loan at the moment, though understandably, I prefer the 75/2 Summicron I bought a couple of years ago (closer focus, more speed, better close-up quality, better quality at wide apertures). There's a Summarit review at:

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps firstlook summarit.html

The Voigtländer lens also delivers excellent quality (I have tried that too), but my own view is that the higher the price, the better the quality. The Summicron leads; the Summarit is just behind; and the Voigtländer is a very close third. Whether the quality differences are justified by the price differences is something you have to decide for yourself. I find the handling of the Summarit preferable to the Voigtländer, but that may just be prejudice and seeing what I want to see.

The Summilux is not to my taste: too big and heavy, and too little depth of field, quite apart from the price. Then again, I have never used one for 'real' shooting; I have only tried a friend's lens, at his house.

Older lenses? There are very few, and even fewer in Leica fit. The 73/1.9 is lovely, but I've never even seen a 7/1.5 Sonnar and although I think a friend of mine has one I've never seen the 75/1.5 Meyer Plasmat either. It was available uncoupled in the late 20s/early 30s: Meyers could be 'unofficially' fitted to 'fixed-lens' bodies, though a coupled mount appeared in 1934.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[BillP]

I think there is a philosophical point around the 75 that I would like to explore. I am a "50mm=standard" shooter. 35 to me is a wideangle. I regard the 75 - which I have in VC form, and I love - as a "long-standard", in much the same way as I regard a 40mm as a "short-standard". A 90, on the other hand, is a short-tele in my book. The difference kicks in in terms of how I use the 75 as opposed to the 90. I use the 75 to crop tightly, whereas I use the 90 to get closer (closer still, of course with a 135). In practical terms that means I will happily wander around for hours with a 75 fitted, but I will put on a 90 for specific shots.

Regards,

Bill

 

[oscroft]

I think there is a philosophical point around the 75 that I would like to explore. I am a "50mm=standard" shooter. 35 to me is a wideangle. I regard the 75 - which I have in VC form, and I love - as a "long-standard", in much the same way as I regard a 40mm as a "short-standard". A 90, on the other hand, is a short-tele in my book. The difference kicks in in terms of how I use the 75 as opposed to the 90. I use the 75 to crop tightly, whereas I use the 90 to get closer (closer still, of course with a 135). In practical terms that means I will happily wander around for hours with a 75 fitted, but I will put on a 90 for specific shots.

That's interesting. 75 (a CV one) is the longest RF lens I use, but if you asked me about telephoto work I'd tell you that I don't use RF for telephoto (My "telephoto" shooting starts with a 100mm SLR lens). So without really having consciously thought about it, yes, I think I'd regard 75 as a more tightly-cropped "standard" too.

 

[mfunnell]

I think there is a philosophical point around the 75 that I would like to explore. I am a "50mm=standard" shooter. 35 to me is a wideangle. I regard the 75 - which I have in VC form, and I love - as a "long-standard", in much the same way as I regard a 40mm as a "short-standard". A 90, on the other hand, is a short-tele in my book. The difference kicks in in terms of how I use the 75 as opposed to the 90. I use the 75 to crop tightly, whereas I use the 90 to get closer (closer still, of course with a 135). In practical terms that means I will happily wander around for hours with a 75 fitted, but I will put on a 90 for specific shots.

Regards,

Bill

Bill, as Alan said, that seems to be a remarkably consistent view of the 75. I came about my love of the 75 differently (but honestly). On my OM gear, back in the day, I used to think of my 50mm as "a little too wide" in that I often thought "I should have been closer" when I shot with the 50. I loved my Tamron 70-210 zoom on OM gear for lots of reasons including that 70mm seemed to suit me rather well for people shots, although the lens size wasn't very convenient.

Cut forward to the digital era and I found that a 50mm lens on a crop-factor digital SLR seemed to suit me very well - far better than 50mm ever suited me with film. An "80mm" field of view. A large part of my decision process in buying an RF camera was the availability of a decent and decently-priced 75mm lens, to preserve that field of view. As it turns out, I "see" 50mm and 35mm far better on an RF than I ever could or did with an SLR. But also, as it turns out, that 75 (that spent months off being CLA'd) was a 75mm Summilux at what I now know was a shockingly good price!

Its now my best and favourite lens. And, somehow, even though I can now see 50mm and 35mm in a way I never could before, the 75 seems, still, to be my natural focal length. And I never feel myself wanting something longer on an RF camera. A 90 seems "too long" on an RF though I often work much longer on an SLR.

That rambling is probably fairly boring to others but it taught me something about my "eye" and how I "see" differently with an RF than I do with an SLR. Also, I'll be forever grateful to Lady Luck that I got what turns out to be such a great deal on my 75 'lux. If I'd seen a less-lucky price (I sure can't afford current prices ) I may never have bought an RF camera. I've learned a lot from the experience and continue to learn.

...Mike
(P.S. if anyone's interested, following the link to dA in my signature will show you to a fair number of shots taken with my 75, mixed in with other stuff)

 

[faris]

'cron 75...with me currently in the beautiful country of Scotland..couldn't
ask for more from a lens...

BTW, beautiful people and scenic..scenic.. did I say lovely people and country.

Thanks to RM and IB.

 

[Keith]

I discovered recently that the 75 Heliar I bought in the classifieds a while ago and had never got around to using is very nice on my Hexar RF. I went out for the day with the Hexar and decided to put the 75 on it and take no other lenses. I thought it would be very restrictive and would limit my shooting quite severely ... which it didn't. I enjoyed the whole process thoroughly and have a new respect for this length. I have now used it at night with Neopan 400 pushed to 1600 and discovered for people shots it gives you an advantage of not having to be in their faces and having them less conscious of being photographed!

 

[ferider]

75 is great. I do regard it as a true tele though. One of the advantages on RFs with both 75 and 90mm framelines, is that you can crop to 8x10 (hate this format, but in my world most portraits get printed on it ....) and keep a 90mm perspective. Note that this works too for 40/50 or 28/35.

I have yet to find any negative comments on the Heliar. It's an outstanding lens (and so are all other available 75s.)

Roland.