dazedgonebye
Veteran
I have the Heliar 75mm f2.5, which I bought figuring it would be a better portrait lens than the 90mm f3.5. Never did it occur to me to do the math behind my assumptions.
Now that I’ve done it, things swing toward the 90mm. The fact that the 90mm focuses closer plus its longer FL equals tighter shots. Dof wide open is almost exactly the same with a tiny edge going to the 90mm.
The only downside to the 90 is that you’re shooting about a stop slower and it’s naturally a larger lens.
Of course this means I need a 90 to make a comparison…. :bang:
Now that I’ve done it, things swing toward the 90mm. The fact that the 90mm focuses closer plus its longer FL equals tighter shots. Dof wide open is almost exactly the same with a tiny edge going to the 90mm.
The only downside to the 90 is that you’re shooting about a stop slower and it’s naturally a larger lens.
Of course this means I need a 90 to make a comparison…. :bang:
ferider
Veteran
dazedgonebye said:
Good question. Only you can decide - use the framelines and see which one you
prefer ... Another great lens to consider
is the classic 90/2.8 Elmarit. Typically costs as much or less than the Apo
Lanthar.
(note that both CV lenses close focus to 1m though).
Roland.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
ferider said:
Cameraquest shows the 75mm focusing to 3.5 feet and the 90mm to 3 feet.
How does the Elmarit compare to the CV for sharpness?
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
VC lenses are relatively inexpensive and their resale is value is excellent (on par, or better, with Leica I would say. If you buy pre-owned you should be able to acquire a VC 90mm lens, use it for comparison purposes, and sell the one you want to part with without loosing much over and above shipping and sales costs.
ferider
Veteran
dazedgonebye said:
I only own the 75, somebody here with the 90 might confirm.
I don't know about the Apo Lanthar, but the Elmarit v1 is a truly great
lens. Relatively small, well built, very, very sharp and very nice bokeh.
.9m close focus, 39mm filter size. And half stop faster at 90, so less DOF.
But very focusable on the R3*.
But then I have read only good things about the 90/3.5. All three lenses
are great, and differences will be subtle.
I like the 75 because it's so small and has the same filter size as my 40/1.4.
Best,
Roland.
Last edited:
dazedgonebye
Veteran
ferider said:
A quick look at oboy shows a wide range of prices for the elmarit. Different versions?
ferider
Veteran
One like this 180115690173 or 140117682553, prices vary. Not sure
how good these ones are ...
There is also the new version (E46) which is much more expensive.
Then there are "thin" and "fat" "Tele Elmarits", a bit less sharp than the v1
Elmarit above, but smaller, and good lenses by themselves. Avoid early
thin Tele Elmarits.
The chrome Elmarit v1 is usually cheaper than the black one.
Old Leitz glass, therefore cleaning marks
are frequent. Best is to wait until a good one there or here comes up,
they show up often, for less than US 300. I know Wayne, Blake
and others here are happy with theirs too .... Even critical Magus likes it
Cheers,
Roland.
how good these ones are ...
There is also the new version (E46) which is much more expensive.
Then there are "thin" and "fat" "Tele Elmarits", a bit less sharp than the v1
Elmarit above, but smaller, and good lenses by themselves. Avoid early
thin Tele Elmarits.
The chrome Elmarit v1 is usually cheaper than the black one.
Old Leitz glass, therefore cleaning marks
are frequent. Best is to wait until a good one there or here comes up,
they show up often, for less than US 300. I know Wayne, Blake
and others here are happy with theirs too .... Even critical Magus likes it
Cheers,
Roland.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
Well, I entered a snipe on the black one. Maybe less than it'll go for, but all I have for this sort of thing at the moment.
Don't worry, if it's a lemon, I won't blame you.
Don't worry, if it's a lemon, I won't blame you.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
That black one went for $323...more than my snipe.
I'm thinking I'll keep an eye out for the CV lens.
I'm thinking I'll keep an eye out for the CV lens.
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
This is only tangentially relevant. With my Canon FD bodies I use a fine 100/2.8 for portraits. Once I tried my 35 mm FL lens (only a so-so performer) with a 2X teleconverter, giving a focal length of 70 mm. The results were pleasing because of the imperfections of the optical system. I do not use the combination often, though.
Have never even seen a 75 mm. Can say that I found a borrowed 90 mm on an M3 much better for portraits than the 135 mm I had. When the owner moved to the other side of this large city, I pretty much stopped doing portraits with the Leica.
Have never even seen a 75 mm. Can say that I found a borrowed 90 mm on an M3 much better for portraits than the 135 mm I had. When the owner moved to the other side of this large city, I pretty much stopped doing portraits with the Leica.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
payasam said:
The 75 is very nice. Small, light and sharp. I'm just thinking that I'd like the greater magnification of the longer FL and closer focusing with the CV90.
Actually, I'd really like a 90mm f2, but that's more than I can afford and more than I can expect my R3A to be able to focus accurately.
Sparrow
Veteran
the cv75 isn’t very forgiving as a portrait lens, on a good complexion its fine but any slight blemishes are rendered in perfect detail; I would imagine the cv90 would be similar
I had wondered about finding a Jupiter-9 with cleaning marks just for portraits, not sure however if it would be 100% accurate on the r3a
I had wondered about finding a Jupiter-9 with cleaning marks just for portraits, not sure however if it would be 100% accurate on the r3a
dazedgonebye
Veteran
Sparrow said:
I've got a very good J9 that works well on my R3A. Much better than I expected really. See one example below.
I don't mind the sharpness for portraits. It's easy enough to soften things up after scanning the negs. Adding sharpness is much harder to do well.
Sparrow
Veteran
That looks excellent Steve, why do you need a 90?
dazedgonebye
Veteran
Sparrow said:
Because I want the sharpness you don't want.
I did a side by side with the 75mm and, although the J9 exceeded my expectations, it fell well short.
Sparrow
Veteran
dazedgonebye said:
I can imagine it’s the most precise lens I’ve ever had around that length
joachim
Convicted Ektachome user
dazedgonebye said:
Not sure which cameraquest page you are quoting. http://www.cameraquest.com/voigtlenchart.htm and http://www.cameraquest.com/voigtlen.htm both say, both lenses are 1m (who wants that in feets anyway
)Still there remains the difference in magnification and perspective.
ferider
Veteran
I hesitated to say this, Steve, because I am the last one to tell
somebody not to buy something:
If you decide to go for the 40/1.4, I recommend to live with the 75 for
a while. A 28/40/75 combo really works well on the R3* (isolated
75mm frameline and all that), and the 75 is one of best lenses built by CV.
Best,
Roland.
somebody not to buy something:
If you decide to go for the 40/1.4, I recommend to live with the 75 for
a while. A 28/40/75 combo really works well on the R3* (isolated
75mm frameline and all that), and the 75 is one of best lenses built by CV.
Best,
Roland.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
joachim said:Not sure which cameraquest page you are quoting. http://www.cameraquest.com/voigtlenchart.htm and http://www.cameraquest.com/voigtlen.htm both say, both lenses are 1m (who wants that in feets anyway
Still there remains the difference in magnification and perspective.
From this page: http://www.cameraquest.com/voigtlen.htm
...and the 75mm is indeed engraved with "3.5."
Of course, 1 meter=3.28 feet...so that's about right anyway.
Last edited:
ferider
Veteran
dazedgonebye said:
From the same page:
3.5 feet = 107cm.
Sorry to be nit-picky ...
Roland.