90mm vs. 75mm APO-Summicron ASPH

[wpb]

The magnifier is very helpful for anything longer than a 50mm lens. The optical quality of the knock off is ok but the real reason to get the Leica magnifier is the chain that keeps it attached to the camera. After you loose a magnifier, and they don't have many threads to keep them secure, you'll see why spending more for the Leica is actually a wise decision.

 

[Rob-F]

The magnifier is very helpful for anything longer than a 50mm lens. The optical quality of the knock off is ok but the real reason to get the Leica magnifier is the chain that keeps it attached to the camera. After you loose a magnifier, and they don't have many threads to keep them secure, you'll see why spending more for the Leica is actually a wise decision.

Yes. I recently picked up a Leica 1.25 magnifier. I'm very pleased with it. Now I can focus my 90mm and 75mm Summicrons without having to buy an M3. I can put the 1.25X on any of my .72 finder bodies and know that I can focus them accurately even wide open.

 

[Rob-F]

The magnifier is very helpful for anything longer than a 50mm lens. The optical quality of the knock off is ok but the real reason to get the Leica magnifier is the chain that keeps it attached to the camera. After you loose a magnifier, and they don't have many threads to keep them secure, you'll see why spending more for the Leica is actually a wise decision.

I agree! That chain is a great idea! But do you think it is wise to let the magnifier dangle from the chain when not in use? Or better to remove it and put it in its case. The idea of it dangling makes me a little nervous.

 

[CLAdictic]

I'll jump in. Regarding the magnifier, I have it on one M that I use with my 75 f 1.4 and my Elmarit 90 f 2.8. All three of my M's have frames from 28 to 135. Reading this post I think I'll experiment and remove the magnifier. I'll be curious as to the focusing.

 

[Rob-F]

I'll jump in. Regarding the magnifier, I have it on one M that I use with my 75 f 1.4 and my Elmarit 90 f 2.8. All three of my M's have frames from 28 to 135. Reading this post I think I'll experiment and remove the magnifier. I'll be curious as to the focusing.

I don't understand what you are expecting, or why you would remove t'he magnifier from the Leica you have it on, rather than just looking through one of your other Leicas that isn't wearing a magnifier. Using the magnifier on a .72 body to focus your 75 and 90mm lenses is a very good idea. In fact it is essential with the 75/1.4 when shooting wide open.

 

[wpb]

There is a small Leica case (included) for the magnifier that can attach to the camera strap. The chain is merely to not lose the magnifier, you are correct in thinking having it dangling when not in use is a bad idea.

I use the magnifier with 50mm and 90mm lenses. I like the option of shooting with both eyes open and the magnification of the finder with the attachment is just about perfect for this.

 

[Miamarj]

I have a 90mm tele=elmarit, which is small and easy to throw in my bag or pocket. The frame lines on a Leica are difficult to use for any 90mm lens. I had a 75mm f2 but it is a weird focal length, particularly if you have a 50mm. When I was considering buying a. 75mm again, I settled for a Voightlander 50mm Lanthar. It is fantastic. I am going to see if the 50 as a general street and portrait lens is sufficient along with 90 tele-elmarit for some portraits and skip the 75 for now. I don’t want big heavy lenses anymore because I wont use them.

 

[x-ray]

I’m afraid I like a more classic rendering and don’t care for Leicas aspheric / Apo lenses. I’ll take my vintage class any day. I never owned the 75 f2 but had a 90 Apo Summicron for several years as well as several of the ASPH lenses and got rid of all of them. I especially disliked the 90 Apo and 35 Summicron ASPH.

My most used lens over the last twenty five or so years is my 75 Summilux. It’s classic in rendering and the FL just works for me. I use it like a longer 50mm and rarely touch my 50. My 75 and 35v1 Summicron are my two most used lenses and I I could only own two they are the ones.

When I got into Leica in 1968 I purchased a 90 Elmarit f2.8. Not the Tele version, the original Elmarit. I eventually upgraded in the 70’s to a 90 Summicron and to this day own and use both lenses. They’re sharp enough wide open and again have that beautiful classic rendering.

When you find your winning combination just stick with it. I didn’t and eventually went back to the kit I was using in the 60’s with one minor change.

The photos of the girls were shot with the 90 Elmarit. The singular girl was at f2.8. Notice the hair on both images.

The preacher and the farmer were shot with the 75 Summilux. The preacher at f1.4 and the farmer around f4.

 

[Miamarj]

Your photos are great and very inspiring. In candor, I am not sure that I understand what “a beautiful classic rendering“ means. My primary lens is a 35mm Summicron for street photography although it is a fairly recent vintage. I used to shoot with an M6 (in the 90s) and now shoot with a M10R. I still have not been able to duplicate the magic of my old M6. Post more pictures!

 

[Rob-F]

What with the wonderful portraits you take, I can agree you really don't need ASPH glass. The shots you posted don't need to be sharper, they are just fine! For landscape or architecture, well, that might be another story. Hollywood directors don't want super-sharp images in their romantic comedies, and the cinematographers are scrambling to find softer lenses!

 

[x-ray]

There are so many qualities that make for a good lens and what a good lens is to me may not be to you. Sharpness is important but tonal separation and smooth tonality without being over the top contrasty are prime factors to me. I’d much rather start with a lower contrast lens and adjust in the darkroom or photoshop than have a super contrasty lens and have to try and tame it.

Glad you enjoy them.

A couple more with the 90 Elmarit.