Calling 75mm Summicron-M users...

[Ted Witcher]

I'm torn between the 75 Summilux 1.4 and the Summicron at 2. I like making portraits wide open, preferring as limited a DOF as possible. The Summilux has the ideal "look" and optical characteristics, but is a little challenging operationally, given its size. Not unusable, but definitely challenging. The Summicron has ideal ergonomics, but is slower. I'm not interested in a subjective evaluation such as which lens has "better" bokeh, but something more computable: at f/2, and with distance to subject being equal, can I expect a DOF that is comparably shallow to the Summilux? Too close to bother, merely close, visible difference, etc.? And does anyone know the minimum focusing distance of the Summicron? That would also factor in my decision. Thanks very much for any help or images.

 

[Matthew Runkel]

You might try playing with the middle calculator here: http://johnhendry.com/gadget/dofcalc.htm

Near focus of the Summicron is listed as .7m. Near focus of the Summilux is listed as .75m.

 

[Mark Norton]

Why don't you look on the Leica web-site, there's very comprehensive information on DoF and MTF for each lens.

At close focus (say 2m), the depth field of the Summilux is extremely shallow - a few cm (shown as just 6.5cm). At f2, it increases to 9.8cm.

For the Summicron, depth of field at f2 is shown as 9.1cm.

I'd say that 6.5cm is pretty difficult to deal with, requires the camera to be tripod mounted and very accurate focussing. As such it confers no benefit which is one reason why I went for the Summicron.

 

[Andrew3511]

I bought a 75mm Summilux a month or so ago (near mint for £750) and I have been very pleased with it. Yes it is a big lens by the standards of the 35mm or 50mm summicrons but I felt it was well-balanced on the camera and ergonomically excellent. It's not even big if you compare it to the average consumer mid-range zoom on most SLR's though it is a bit heavier because of the glass. I don't think it is actually any more difficult focussing than the 85mm f2.0 that was/is my favourite lens for my Olympus cameras as the rangefinder system is inherently more accurate. Stopped down to f2.8 and below it is just stunningly sharp. I really couldn't afford the Summilux but they don't come up that often and the GAS struck. The Summicron is hardly available used at all and I couldn't afford it new.

 

[rxmd]

I find it interesting how Leica lenses of identical focal length are supposed to have different DOF at a given aperture. Could it be that the focal lengths of the Summilux and Summicron 75 are actually slightly different?

Philipp

 

[telenous]

I find it interesting how Leica lenses of identical focal length are supposed to have different DOF at a given aperture. Could it be that the focal lengths of the Summilux and Summicron 75 are actually slightly different?

Philipp

That's indeed very interesting. It would seem the Summicron 75 is slightly longer (?).

 

[telenous]

What I 'd like to know is how usable, in practice, is the Summicron 75 in low- to very low light applications. I have seen photos taken with it and in my mind it is one of the most (if not the most) remarkable lens in the Leica line-up but I haven't seen any low light samples at all (whereas with the 'Lux there are plenty).

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

A slightly related question to the owners of the 75 Summilux or Summicron: if you own or ever handled the Contax RF mount 85mm f/2 lens, which one's bigger, in your view?