CV75/2.5 v Summilux 75/1.4

... well... you can't really take those things out of the equation... once you do, build quality and who's logo is on the box is about all that's left, by about f4 both are probably going to be similarly sharp... I've never tried the Summilux, but the bokeh on my CV is very nice, so nice that I can't see ever paying that much more for what could only be a slight improvement. Without having tried the Leica I'd probably say the biggest noticeable difference is going to be the speed... hence the price...
 
not sure

not sure

But have heard very good things about both and that the CV is a good value for the buck.

Puts mentions that the CV 75/2.5 is based on a 75 Summicron, but Tom A says it's a new CV design. In either case, I hope to try one someday, but only need one, and have the lux for now, which I love, but it is big.

steve kessel said:
Money and speed aside, what are the differences between these two?
Click to expand...
 
I've had my eye on the CV 75/2.5 & wonder how it feels on a Bessa R. This lens will round out my kit. Hope to see some examples from both lenses!
 
Well, you have to consider speed, the nearly two stop difference between the Summilux and the CV 75mm is a substantial.

I have the 75mm Summilux and can tell you that Rafeal has summed it up perfectly, the 75/1.4 has one of the most distinctive signatures of any m-mount lens. Nothing more I can add to his statement.

Jim B.
 
I have both lens. the CV I carry on a Bessa R2 in my car along with a 50 nokton and 35 PII. There's very little if any difference stop for stop between the two lenses. The summilux improves a little as it's stopped down to 2.8 and the CV is superb even wide open. I don't think you could tall any difference in prints if you didn't know they were made with different lenses. I keep the summilux because I shoot under really poor conditions and the additional speed is important. Look through my gallery and you'll see a few examples. 2 serpents on a Bible and Pastor Jimmy Morrow holding his Bible in his arms are good examples of the Summilux. The serpents were shot at 2.5 and the shot of Jimmy was shot at 1.4. Both were with the Summilux. I will have to think about what's there that was shot with the CV. If I didn't need the speed there's no question that I would sell the summilux and just keep the CV. Con't be fooled by price, the construction is superb and it's a tiny lens and quite easy to focus.
 
I have not used the CV lens but the Summilux has one of the largest image sizes of any M or LTM lens. The only lens I have that gives as good an image size is the 90mm Elmar Macro (?) and that's three stops slower. The Summilux is a wonderful lens and I would not think of parting with it.
 
sure

sure

It has smooth OOF backgrounds, "to die for" and just the right mix of red, greens, and blues. Or, in monochrome, blacks and whites. Images from this lens are like peering through god's eye.

steve kessel said:
Can anyone describe "one of the most distinctive signatures of any m-mount lens" in the case of the lux 75/1.4?
Click to expand...
 
I'll come clean. I have the CV75/2.5 and I'm very impressed with its sharpness and the out of focus areas. I would not say it has a "distinctive signature" as such - it's a straight up very good all round performer. From what I've seen the 75 lux has a seductive quality - soft modelling without loss of sharpness and dreamier oof. And 1.5 stops which for me is attractivefor indoor portraits.
 
I had both and sold the CV. I just needed the speed. DOF on the Summilux is pretty thin, and that was the look I am generally after. It is less clinical (less sharp), when wide open compared to modern glass. When I had both lenses, I invariably chose the Leica; since I never chose the CV, there was no need to keep it.

Ben Marks
 
steve kessel said:
I'll come clean. I have the CV75/2.5 and I'm very impressed with its sharpness and the out of focus areas. I would not say it has a "distinctive signature" as such - it's a straight up very good all round performer. From what I've seen the 75 lux has a seductive quality - soft modelling without loss of sharpness and dreamier oof. And 1.5 stops which for me is attractivefor indoor portraits.
Click to expand...
I owned all 75mm's and currently have the Cron and Lux.
There is only one reason to justify the 75mm Lux over any other 75mm's : the F1.4 look. I would describe it as such :
- lower constrast
- vignettes quite asome.
- sharp but with soft textures at the same time (skins).
- it somes glows in bright light, similarly to the 35 Cron pre-asph at F2.
- less saturated colors. I am fascinated by how it renders blue and green eyes.
- bokeh is very smooth and blobs well round shaped in most cases.
- at minimal focus distance, the in focus area is extremely thin, you can have basically only the eyes in focus.
You cannot replicate this with any other lens (my 60mm Hexanon comes very close). So if you main use will be portraits, the Lux is the one to go with. For street/reportage, the F1.4 is in practice very difficult to focus, so a F2 or F2.5 lens might be a better option.
 
I am sure the CV 75 produces great images, and I cannot compare it to my 75 Lux because I have no experance, but I will state the obvious anyway: shallower DOF because of larger aperature.

Off hand I do not remember how close my Lux can focus, but because of the combination of magnification, large aperature and close focus abilities I am able to get results that strongly resemble using a Nikon 55/2.8 Macro on a SLR.

The Lux has an eleven blade aperature, just like the 35/2.0 Cron V.4 and that I believe this helps contribute to the sweet Bokeh and smooth transition to OOF areas. How many blades does the CV 75 have? Also how close can it focus?

I also have to say the 75 Lux is especially good under harsh and extreame lighting conditions. Hard to imagine any other lense being able to display low coma as my 75 Lux except perhaps a Noctilux. I have some amazing shots of a jazz trio playing on a balcony where I'm shooting directly into the lights. I also have a hand held shot where only one person at a long table ten feet away has enough light for an image in a dimly lite bar. With my eblows on the table and siting down I captured the light at 1/15th of a second. Not sure if I can blow it up to 11x14.

While not for everyone, the Lux is for me. It is an exteame lense that has a lot of potential as a creative tool.

Calzone
 
I have both lenses & for me the only practical differences are speed & size/weight. If you don't need f/1.4 & f/2, whether it's for shooting in available darkness or to get the shallow DoF, there's really no reason to get the Summilux instead of the Color-Heliar. The Color-Heliar is basically the same size & weight as a regular 50mm lens, so it's much easier to carry around in your pocket or bag as a supplemental telephoto if your main lens is a 28 or 35. The 'lux requires more of a commitment.

Per x-ray's post, I think there are very subtle differences between the Summilux & Color-Heliar @ apertures smaller than f/2, w/the Color-Heliar having a bit more of a "modern" contrasty look (the Summilux is from 1980), @ least to my eyes.
 
Last edited:
Its strange that you want to compare the CV 75mm with the Summilux, why not the Summicron, or even more pertinantly the Summarit? But you could do worse and read a genuine comparison/review between the Summicron, Summarit, and Heliar by subscribing to Sean Reids website. So OK, you don't get a comparison with the Summilux, but it does give a good idea of what the Heliar is about. He compares the Heliar like for like with the Summarit by concluding that if both cost the same you'd choose between them simply on rendering, and even that is very similar. It holds its own with the Summicron as well, but is obviously half a stop slower. I have a 75mm Heliar that I use on my M9 and it is a superb lens and unless I needed the greater speed, or even shallower DOF, then I don't feel any need to change it.Steve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom