Alex Krasotkin
Well-known
Guys,
I am planning to buy M7 and decided to go with 35 and 75 combo, therefore need to choose between:
35/2 ASPH and 35/1.4 ASPH
and
75/2 and 75/1.4 ASPH.
Also, when shooting with 75, will it be just one 75 frameline in the viewfinder, or dual frame 50/75?
What are your pros and cons for both combos?
P.S. I used to shoot with Hexar AF 35/2 and like its old-fashioned lens charachter, so look for nice bokeh and lens signature with futiure Leica lenses.
Appreciate your advises.
regards,
Alexander
www.krasotkin.com
I am planning to buy M7 and decided to go with 35 and 75 combo, therefore need to choose between:
35/2 ASPH and 35/1.4 ASPH
and
75/2 and 75/1.4 ASPH.
Also, when shooting with 75, will it be just one 75 frameline in the viewfinder, or dual frame 50/75?
What are your pros and cons for both combos?
P.S. I used to shoot with Hexar AF 35/2 and like its old-fashioned lens charachter, so look for nice bokeh and lens signature with futiure Leica lenses.
Appreciate your advises.
regards,
Alexander
www.krasotkin.com
Kensey
Member
Hi Alex
Although I have not posted too many times, I have been following this site with great interest. As you may be aware there are a number of threads re: 35/2 ASPH v 35/1.4 ASPH! Like many say - Horses for courses!
Although I own an M7, I tend to pair an MP with 35/1.4 ASPH and 75/2; this being my most used RF combo. I do not have extensive experience of the 35/2 but I have found the extra speed of the 35/1.4 more suited to giving me the limited DOF I now favour. Since bokeh is to a large extent subjective, I cannot comment on an "old fashioned character".
Insofar as the 75's are concerned, I did spend quite some time deliberating between the two and contrary to what I said above, the very limited DOF of the 75/1.4 still did not sway it for me! I found it a heavy lens, but with absolutely beautiful, IMHO, out of focus areas. The intrusion into the viewfinder was also sometimes distracting.
The 75/2 is the "best" lens, I own: and I have quite a number: Leica and others, RF, SLR and MF. I cannot praise it highly enough.
As for framelines, I use the standard .72 finder and the 50/75 work fine.
I hope the above helps. Kind regards
Ken
Although I have not posted too many times, I have been following this site with great interest. As you may be aware there are a number of threads re: 35/2 ASPH v 35/1.4 ASPH! Like many say - Horses for courses!
Although I own an M7, I tend to pair an MP with 35/1.4 ASPH and 75/2; this being my most used RF combo. I do not have extensive experience of the 35/2 but I have found the extra speed of the 35/1.4 more suited to giving me the limited DOF I now favour. Since bokeh is to a large extent subjective, I cannot comment on an "old fashioned character".
Insofar as the 75's are concerned, I did spend quite some time deliberating between the two and contrary to what I said above, the very limited DOF of the 75/1.4 still did not sway it for me! I found it a heavy lens, but with absolutely beautiful, IMHO, out of focus areas. The intrusion into the viewfinder was also sometimes distracting.
The 75/2 is the "best" lens, I own: and I have quite a number: Leica and others, RF, SLR and MF. I cannot praise it highly enough.
As for framelines, I use the standard .72 finder and the 50/75 work fine.
I hope the above helps. Kind regards
Ken
telenous
Well-known
Good choice Alex, and as I 'm sure everyone will say you can't really go wrong with any combo. But at the end of the day you do have to make a choice and a rather expensive one at that, so here's what I think:
Of the four permutations available to you, I would go for the 'Lux 35 (firmly) and 'Cron 75 (tentatively).
I believe it is essential that you have at least one lens that provides the speed for available light situations and it makes good sense that that lens is your normal (which in your case will be the 35mm focal length). So that even if the 'Cron 35 were slightly better (and that's a very big 'if') you 'd still have ample reason to choose the 'lux 35. As a user of the 'lux 35 Asph. I can tell you, the lens will not let do you down. It draws with authority from edge to edge and, contrary to what you will often hear, the bokeh is beautiful with a quasi-liquid quality. The lens does tend to blow highlights a little (something I 've never experienced with lenses of the previous generation) but I think you can tame that with experience.
I have no real experience with the two other lenses (or the 75mm focal length n general) but every single picture I 've seen from either of the two looks magical. I could again wield the 'available light argument' in favour of the 'lux 75 if it were not for the fact that a few portraits I have seen from the 'Cron 75 just nail the Leica look for my taste - although it will be fair to admit that it may had more to do with the ability of the photographer rather than the lens. Anyway, If I were to choose between the two, I would go first for the Cron., but I 'm sure you 'll get more advice from actual users of the lenses, who can comment on every aspect of their performance.
Best of luck with your quest,
Of the four permutations available to you, I would go for the 'Lux 35 (firmly) and 'Cron 75 (tentatively).
I believe it is essential that you have at least one lens that provides the speed for available light situations and it makes good sense that that lens is your normal (which in your case will be the 35mm focal length). So that even if the 'Cron 35 were slightly better (and that's a very big 'if') you 'd still have ample reason to choose the 'lux 35. As a user of the 'lux 35 Asph. I can tell you, the lens will not let do you down. It draws with authority from edge to edge and, contrary to what you will often hear, the bokeh is beautiful with a quasi-liquid quality. The lens does tend to blow highlights a little (something I 've never experienced with lenses of the previous generation) but I think you can tame that with experience.
I have no real experience with the two other lenses (or the 75mm focal length n general) but every single picture I 've seen from either of the two looks magical. I could again wield the 'available light argument' in favour of the 'lux 75 if it were not for the fact that a few portraits I have seen from the 'Cron 75 just nail the Leica look for my taste - although it will be fair to admit that it may had more to do with the ability of the photographer rather than the lens. Anyway, If I were to choose between the two, I would go first for the Cron., but I 'm sure you 'll get more advice from actual users of the lenses, who can comment on every aspect of their performance.
Best of luck with your quest,
T
Treb
Guest
The Summilux 75 is a very heavy piece of kit to haul around IMO...
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Flyfisher Tom
Well-known
On the 35 question.
Asph-cron : slightly higher contrast, half the size and price 39mm
Asph-lux: slightly lower contrast, larger in size and price 46mm
Both are stellar lenses, sharp across their range, so in that sense, you can't make a mistake
Asph-cron : slightly higher contrast, half the size and price 39mm
Asph-lux: slightly lower contrast, larger in size and price 46mm
Both are stellar lenses, sharp across their range, so in that sense, you can't make a mistake
The two lenses that I don't have that are on my wish list "if money was not an issue" are the 35 lux and 75 cron.
Jon Graham
Established
The 35/75 seems an ideal combo, but you really need something in the middle. 35-75mm is a big spread in focal lengths.
I suggest the 35lux as your first and only lens for at least 6 months. Get used to one lens only with the M7. Then go for your second lens. You cannot go wrong with the 75cron.
If you really need a 'longer focal length from the start, get the current 50 collapsible. It is a vastly underrated lens. It is inexpensive and very compact.
There is a BIG difference between 35/50/and 75mm focal lengths. So start slow and learn the 35lux, it is unique and stellar in performance.
I suggest the 35lux as your first and only lens for at least 6 months. Get used to one lens only with the M7. Then go for your second lens. You cannot go wrong with the 75cron.
If you really need a 'longer focal length from the start, get the current 50 collapsible. It is a vastly underrated lens. It is inexpensive and very compact.
There is a BIG difference between 35/50/and 75mm focal lengths. So start slow and learn the 35lux, it is unique and stellar in performance.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
steve garza
Well-known
I have both 75 'lux and 35 'lux asph. They are both wonderful. 75 'cron is nice I'm sure, but any improvement in contrast/sharpness would only be noticeable in large prints. The 75 'lux is heavy but delivers high performance as needed. The lens sticking into the VF is manageable and you'll be surprised how fast you get used to it. I picked one up a Canadian made model and it actually seems slightly smaller then the German made....but maybe not. The 35 'lux asph is stellar. It is quite sharp at smaller apertures and provides the extra stop when critical. I've not tried any Summicrons and don't really intend to as these are the Leica lenses I've always wanted to shoot with. I suppose a 50 might come in handy, but for some reason, I'm attracted to the Elmar. Do yourself a favor and go with the lux's if you do any serious available light shooting.
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Jon Graham said:
I'm going to stick my nose in here and argue this is the best approach. I'd strongly advise that you add a 50 to your mix; probably a 50/2 Summicron, but irregardless, you need to cover that middle distance better. There are real reasons that the "normal" lens continues to survive in a world where "everyone knows" that 35 is the new normal...
Slow down (in all the senses of that phrase) and shoot more carefully. You might just be surprised at what you can catch with what you already have in hand.William
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
Alkis has just about nailed it: a fast 35 as "normal" and either of the 75s. I'll say, though, that depending on the sort of work you will do, you might not need the extra stop of the 75/1.4, specially when seen against greater bulk and weight and very little depth of field at full aperture. I agree also with those who speak of the benefits of a 50. You will have, in effect, three normal lenses. My choice for the 50 would be the Elmar, for the reason that it is optically fine yet so small.
S
StuartR
Guest
Hello Alex,
I have been a big fan of your site for awhile. I hope that I can help with this problem.
I am currently using an M7 with the 35mm f/1.4 ASPH and the 75mm Summicron as my main kit. I also own the 75mm Summilux. From looking at your pictures, I think you might like the character of the 75mm summilux better. Ona bolee romantichno. It has an older character to it than the 75mm summicron, though both are absolutely superb lenses. If you don't feel like carrying the summilux ,the 75mm summicron is one of the very best lenses I have ever used, but it has a slightly more modern character. The 75mm summilux "glows" when wide open. The edges get slightly fuzzy and highlights have soft edges. This can be a lovely effect. It is gone by f/2.5. The 75mm summicron looks basically the same at every single f stop. f/2 is nearly as good as f/4, which is as good as f/5.6 and so on...
I have not talked about the 35mm lens because there is really no other choice than the 35mm f/1.4 ASPH. It is the best 35mm lens on the planet. There is essentially nothing wrong with it. Here is a shot with it at f/1.4:
Here is another stopped down to f/4
And a color one:
The 75's are a more difficult decision. The Summicron has a nearly perfect image character (from the technical point of view) at every aperture, it is fairly light and compact, and it is easy to use. The 75mm summilux is basically identical to the summicron from f/4 to f/16, only slightly behind it. But at f/2 to f/1.4 it has gorgeous aberrations. But the lens is large and heavy and has a long focusing throw. I don't really know which one I prefer, probably the summilux, but the one I am using now is the summicron. Perhaps that will tell you something...
Here are some shots. Please keep in mind that I have better shots from the summilux because I have had it longer...
75mm summilux:
(The fuzzyness in that photo is not something that the 75 summicron will do. That was taken at f/1.4)
And now some from the 75mm summicron...
Ok, sorry to completely saturate the thread with images. I just always tell more from images than words, even if they are only web images. They can usually a good feel for the macroscopic properties of the lenses.
I have been a big fan of your site for awhile. I hope that I can help with this problem.
I am currently using an M7 with the 35mm f/1.4 ASPH and the 75mm Summicron as my main kit. I also own the 75mm Summilux. From looking at your pictures, I think you might like the character of the 75mm summilux better. Ona bolee romantichno. It has an older character to it than the 75mm summicron, though both are absolutely superb lenses. If you don't feel like carrying the summilux ,the 75mm summicron is one of the very best lenses I have ever used, but it has a slightly more modern character. The 75mm summilux "glows" when wide open. The edges get slightly fuzzy and highlights have soft edges. This can be a lovely effect. It is gone by f/2.5. The 75mm summicron looks basically the same at every single f stop. f/2 is nearly as good as f/4, which is as good as f/5.6 and so on...
I have not talked about the 35mm lens because there is really no other choice than the 35mm f/1.4 ASPH. It is the best 35mm lens on the planet. There is essentially nothing wrong with it. Here is a shot with it at f/1.4:
Here is another stopped down to f/4
And a color one:
The 75's are a more difficult decision. The Summicron has a nearly perfect image character (from the technical point of view) at every aperture, it is fairly light and compact, and it is easy to use. The 75mm summilux is basically identical to the summicron from f/4 to f/16, only slightly behind it. But at f/2 to f/1.4 it has gorgeous aberrations. But the lens is large and heavy and has a long focusing throw. I don't really know which one I prefer, probably the summilux, but the one I am using now is the summicron. Perhaps that will tell you something...
Here are some shots. Please keep in mind that I have better shots from the summilux because I have had it longer...
75mm summilux:
(The fuzzyness in that photo is not something that the 75 summicron will do. That was taken at f/1.4)
And now some from the 75mm summicron...
Ok, sorry to completely saturate the thread with images. I just always tell more from images than words, even if they are only web images. They can usually a good feel for the macroscopic properties of the lenses.
Last edited by a moderator:
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
telenous
Well-known
The 'Cron 75 images are breathtaking...
Thanks for sharing these photos Stuart.
Thanks for sharing these photos Stuart.
Last edited:
peter_n
Veteran
Alex I too am an admirer of your site. The only lens that I have experience with of interest to you is the 35/1.4 ASPH. I would second (or third) Stuart's comment that it is truly a wonderful lens. Fantastic wide-open with virtually no flare. I don't like tabs on lenses at all but for this lens; anything. Get it.
BillBingham2
Registered User
I would say 35/2 and 75/2 from a size perspective. Use the money you save and get a ZI 15/2.8!
B2 (;->
B2 (;->
S
StuartR
Guest
Huh? The 15/2.8 costs more than either of these lenses...almost more than the two put together...
BillBingham2
Registered User
If you bought the 2.0 of each vs the 1.4?
B2 (;->
B2 (;->
BudGreen
Established
I have both the 35 'lux ASPH and the 75 'lux. I love the 35 ‘lux, but if I did it over again I might consider the 75 'cron over the 75 'lux. I find the 75 'lux a bit unwieldy and it often gets left behind for that reason. For me, my 50 'lux is the more essential lens.
Just check out your web site, Alex. Very nice stuff there.
Just check out your web site, Alex. Very nice stuff there.
Last edited: