Decision: 90mm or 75mm choices?

[Roger Hicks]

Dearest Roger
This lens is very flexible. I dare say it takes some time to get into it. Who says its "inferior" with the exception of your eminent self?
Zero depth of field at 1.4, but by f4 / 5.6 Ill bet you could not tell it from your 75 ;cron. Size and weight agreed. But people shot weddings with MF for years and never complained. Its not that heavy🙂

Richard

Dear Richard,

I have no evidence that it is inferior, which is why I said 'alleged to be', i.e. I have heard this from others. I also said that this would be unlikely to matter to either Dave or me, if it were true.

On the other hand I'd be astonished if it were as good at f/2 or even f/2.8 as the (more recent, slower, aspheric) Summicron but indeed by f/5.6 it is hard to tell most good lenses apart. Even then, I'd guess that test-chart addicts would see significant differences: I doubt the Summilux can reasonably reliably deliver 120 lp/mm on the film at f/8, as the Summicron is the only lens I have ever seen that has done so with my testing procedures.

Point taken about MF, but that is a bit apples-and-oranges: for me (and I suspect for most) a lot of the attraction of 35mm over MF is smaller size and lower weight, so I prefer to avoid large lenses on Leicas whenever possible. Then again, 'whenever possible' is a purely personal choice, and therefore a weasel phrase.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[dcsang]

Roger and Richard and George,

Thank you again for your input.
I have decided to "go big" at first and try the 75 Summilux and see if I like it (so much for not wanting to bend over for the lens). If I find the throw too excessive or the lens too "much" for the purposes I require it for, I may just sell it and get either a Summicron or the Summarit (which I understand is a good lens in its own right).

If I also find the 75mm frameline not being "my cup of tea" I'll give it a go with the 90mm; likely the elmarit-m rather than the summarit or summicron APO ASPH,

Cheers,
Dave

 

[cmogi10]

75/1.4

 

[Hacker]

You cannot go wrong with the 75 Lux or the Cron. The 90AA does not perform at its best for nearer distances. For portraits/weddings, there are options like the Canon 85mm f1.8 and the 100mm f2. The Nikon 8.5cm f2 is another consideration. I've not come across a bad lens in this focal range.

 

[Richard Marks]

Dear Richard,

I have no evidence that it is inferior, which is why I said 'alleged to be', i.e. I have heard this from others. I also said that this would be unlikely to matter to either Dave or me, if it were true.

On the other hand I'd be astonished if it were as good at f/2 or even f/2.8 as the (more recent, slower, aspheric) Summicron but indeed by f/5.6 it is hard to tell most good lenses apart. Even then, I'd guess that test-chart addicts would see significant differences: I doubt the Summilux can reasonably reliably deliver 120 lp/mm on the film at f/8, as the Summicron is the only lens I have ever seen that has done so with my testing procedures.

Point taken about MF, but that is a bit apples-and-oranges: for me (and I suspect for most) a lot of the attraction of 35mm over MF is smaller size and lower weight, so I prefer to avoid large lenses on Leicas whenever possible. Then again, 'whenever possible' is a purely personal choice, and therefore a weasel phrase.

Cheers,

Roger

Dearest Roger

Lets steer clear of alleged inferiority. There are those who allege that an M8 is pretty ropey too! Im guessing you have not had a 75 lux on the M8. It really does a very nice job. I can not say how many l.p.m at f8, but its ceratainly plenty for my needs.

Benjamin Marks who contributes fairly regularly here did show some comparisons of the lux and new cron and concluded that above 2.8 he could not tell a difference. Next time you bump into a 75 lux with your M8 let me know what you think!

Best wishes

Richard

 

[pss]

when i bought my first m8 i got a complete CV lens range to go with it...15, 35, 50, 90....now i have 2 m8 bodies and just got rid of the 35, 50 and 90...not that they were bad lenses, they are a steal for the money and really are great but i got the summarit 35 and 75 to replace all 3.....shooting wide open/fast is of no importance to me and i really like the compactness of the summarit line...i always felt the 90 was too long and the 50 was just a little too wide...the 75 really is a great focal length for the m8.....great for close-up face shots and still manageable for wider portraits....getting focus on the 90 is also a bit of a challenge....
the advantage for me with the summarits is also that i can switch cameras (one for each lens) and get very similar character within one shoot/set-up....the detail from both is phenomenal and i have to say the biggest difference (to the CVs) is the way the summarits treat blown-out highlights....the transitions seems a lot cleaner....not sure how this is possible, but it is....i use aperture (almost) exclusively and my light stays pretty much the same and that just popped out at me....
i did try the 75/20 asp? and did not like the harsher contrast....i really feel that with digital (very much unlike film) lower contrast (without loosing a grip on detail) is better and gives just more headroom for post production....

 

[HenningW]

Over the years I've used or had most Leica lenses. I did have the 90AA from the time it came out until a month ago, and while I used it quite a bit with film I've used it hardly at all with the M8. If I got another 90/2 it would probably be the last pre-asph. I still have a good copy of the Tele-Elmarit that I take when I want a really small kit (along with the 35 pre-asph Summicron and 15 or 21 CV). Slower than f/2.8 in a 90 is pointless to me. When I want something longer than 75 for the M8 I use a 135 Elmarit; mine works beatifully on the M8 and gives me a long enough reach for most purposes. Only it's big and clunky, so it doesn't get out much. On the other hand the goggles do what they're supposed to, and make it easier to use than the 135 Tele-Elmar, which doesn't have enough extra performance to make the hassle worth it.

For the shorter tele range I use the 75/2 most of the time. It's small enough, handles nicely and all the aperture ring does to the images is change depth of field. I take the Summilux whenever I think I might need f/1.4, and as far as I'm concerned the difference in performance between the lenses isn't of any significance in practial terms. When I'm using the f/1.4, I'm probably shooting a lot at 1/60 or slower, and that becomes a bigger factor than any difference in optical performance. Focussing either isn't really an issue, as I can nail the focus with both lenses and the difference in focus throw usually doesn't matter. The finder intrusion of the Summilux is a definite factor, but again becomes a non-issue when I need f/1.4. All in all, I generally like the pictures made with the Summilux a little better, but I like the handling of the Summicron better. The latter usually wins. The Summarit may be a fine lens, but it's irrelevant for me. The 75 CV can't focus close enough.

In the 50mm range, I have the 50 ASPH and the Noctilux, plus some slower lenses. The ASPH is definitely of higher performance in most respects, but the Noctilux even with an IR/UV filter has extremely good flare resistance, and of course it has f/1. It also has a very long throw, a narrow focussing ring and is a big lump. Here the difference between the two lenses is quite significant, and I choose one or the other on a number of factors; not just f-stop. Neither gets as much use as the 75 Summicron.

As a two lens package for the M8 I often take the 75/2 and 28/2. I wish I had choices of such quality and great handling in the DSLR world.

Henning

 

[dcsang]

<snip>For the shorter tele range I use the 75/2 most of the time. It's small enough, handles nicely and all the aperture ring does to the images is change depth of field. I take the Summilux whenever I think I might need f/1.4, and as far as I'm concerned the difference in performance between the lenses isn't of any significance in practial terms. When I'm using the f/1.4, I'm probably shooting a lot at 1/60 or slower, and that becomes a bigger factor than any difference in optical performance. Focussing either isn't really an issue, as I can nail the focus with both lenses and the difference in focus throw usually doesn't matter. The finder intrusion of the Summilux is a definite factor, but again becomes a non-issue when I need f/1.4. All in all, I generally like the pictures made with the Summilux a little better, but I like the handling of the Summicron better. The latter usually wins. The Summarit may be a fine lens, but it's irrelevant for me. The 75 CV can't focus close enough.
</snip>

Henning, that information offers me excellent insight into usage of the Lux versus the Cron. Thanks a lot for that!!

As a two lens package for the M8 I often take the 75/2 and 28/2. I wish I had choices of such quality and great handling in the DSLR world.

Henning

I too would think that this may be the way to go - sadly I can't exactly afford the 28 Summicron so I am suffering currently with a 28mm ZM Biogon and losing a stop. It's a great lens but I find I want the speed... I have been also considering the Ultron...

Cheers,
Dave

 

[cmogi10]

75mm lux
=)

 

[Damaso]

The CV 75 is great. Plenty sharp for the money but clearly not that fast...

 

[EricC]

Hi,

You may want to have a look at this thread :

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=206

Guy Mancuso tests the Leica 75mm Summarit Vs Leica 75mm Summilux with lots of comparison photo's.

Regards
Eric