sazerac
Well-known
I'd like to get a 75mm lens for spring time and the Leica versions are out of the question for me at the time. Can anyone compare and contrast the 2.5 and 1.8 versions? My main lenses are the current 50 summicron & the 90 Elmarit M. Both are sharp, clean and beautiful as a pair but I'm wondering if one lens could do both. I have the CV 35/1.2 & 35/2.5. I love the dreaminess of the 1.2 and the contrast of the 2.5.
Without buying both CV lenses would you suggest one over the other?
Without buying both CV lenses would you suggest one over the other?
Fernando2
Well-known
I've chosen the 75/2.5 because sharpness is very important to me. The 2.5 is a modern design, with high microcontrast and very little CA and focus shift.
The 1.8 is a beautiful lens but it's harder to get high sharpness out of it, in my opinion.
Fernando
The 1.8 is a beautiful lens but it's harder to get high sharpness out of it, in my opinion.
Fernando
sevres_babylone
Veteran
I bought the !.8 version when I bought my M9. At the time I was switching from the R-D1 where my most used angle of view as a 75mm equivalent that I was getting from the 50s I owned, and there was introductory pricing on the 1.8. I later picked up a used 2.5 at a pretty good price (which was not that far off from what I'd seen them going for, in any event.
I think if I'd bought the 2.5 first, I wouldn't have bought the 1.8. I prefer the handling of the 2.5 because of its size. My experience is different from Fernando's; I find the 1.8 to be plenty sharp. I choose it when I need the extra speed.
My advice would be to go when the 1.8 if you need the faster lens, but otherwise, I would choose the 2.5.
Interestingly, since getting the M9, I've tended to use the 75mm angle of view a lot less than I expected, and when going longer than 50mm, I more and more use my OM-D. In part, that is because I don't like composing with the 75mm "framelines" on the M9.
I think if I'd bought the 2.5 first, I wouldn't have bought the 1.8. I prefer the handling of the 2.5 because of its size. My experience is different from Fernando's; I find the 1.8 to be plenty sharp. I choose it when I need the extra speed.
My advice would be to go when the 1.8 if you need the faster lens, but otherwise, I would choose the 2.5.
Interestingly, since getting the M9, I've tended to use the 75mm angle of view a lot less than I expected, and when going longer than 50mm, I more and more use my OM-D. In part, that is because I don't like composing with the 75mm "framelines" on the M9.
ShinX414
camera geek
i think sevres_babylone hit the mark. Choose the f1.8 if you need the speed and the f2.5 for everything else. i stayed with the f2.5 mainly because of the size and weight. contrast wise the f1.8 has a tad lower contrast compared to the f2.5. I wish i didn't sell the f1.8 to show some comparison photos.
seakayaker1
Well-known
I have owned both and prefer the 75/2.5 Voigtlander over the 75/1.8.
I like the rendering, the size, the focus, the look and feel of the 75/2.5 lens.
I sold the 75/2.5 when the 75/1.8 became available to buy the 75/1.8 thinking I wanted the speed. The 75/1.8 is a very nice lens but I found myself missing the 75/2.5.
I eventually sold the 75/1.8 when I had the opportunity to purchase a Leica 75/2 at a good price.
I like the rendering, the size, the focus, the look and feel of the 75/2.5 lens.
I sold the 75/2.5 when the 75/1.8 became available to buy the 75/1.8 thinking I wanted the speed. The 75/1.8 is a very nice lens but I found myself missing the 75/2.5.
I eventually sold the 75/1.8 when I had the opportunity to purchase a Leica 75/2 at a good price.
I do own both and prefer the f/1.8. There may be sample variations or just different perceptions. I never had much enthusiasm for the 75mm focal length until using it on the M9. My f/2.5 just is not as sharp on the M9 as the f/1.8, though the smaller size is nice.
Interesting to me is that the Voigtlander 75mm f/1.8 optical arrangement appears very similar to the old 73mm f/1.9 Hektor, a variation on the traditional Heliar formula.
Interesting to me is that the Voigtlander 75mm f/1.8 optical arrangement appears very similar to the old 73mm f/1.9 Hektor, a variation on the traditional Heliar formula.
Denton
Established
I use the 75 f1.8 excusively for portraiture, at which it excels. I wish I did have the 2.5 as I don't like the 1.8 as a walkaround, just a tad too long and heavy. Use it on the M9 and M6.
biomed
Veteran
I bought the Heliar 75/2.5 for use on an R3A. It is an excellent lens, but did not see a lot of use. However, mounted on a u4/3 body it has quickly become one of my most used lenses. I have always thought of it as being very sharp and having good ergonomics.
R
rpsawin
Guest
I have the 75/2.5 and use it on both digital M and film M bodies. It is one of my favorite lenses. I find the fov perfect for my "tele" purposes. I find the images from this lens very pleasing and of a high quality. My only niggle is the 43mm filter size. It would have been so much nicer with a 46mm thread.
sazerac
Well-known
Thanks for all the replies everyone! It looks like the 2.5 is the more popular version. That one is probably fast enough for my purposes, but can anyone talk to the bokeh and tonal gradations? I gather that the 2.5 has a bit more contrast but since I plan to use this mostly for portraits would the lower contrast be preferred?