Portraitlens: 75mm f/1.4 or 90mm f/2 ASPH.?

K

Klikk...

Newbie
Local time
2:00 PM
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
7
Hello everybody,

My goal is making portraits with an very small field of sharpness/depth (*). So only the eyes, or the nose for example are sharp.
What is an better lens to use on an M7 0.72? The SUMMILUX-M 75mm f/1.4, or the APO-SUMMICRON-M 90mm f/2 ASPH.?

Another question:
(*) In dutch, we use the word 'scherptediepte'. Who can tell met what's the right word in English, for 'field of sharpness/depth'? Allready thanks. :)
 
Last edited:
Hello Klikk. The term in English is "depth of field" or "DOF" acronymically. Can't help you on the comparison, sorry. Never have had the pleasure of using either lens.
 
I had the 90/2 summicron, very sharp! I would say that the 75/1.4 (wide open) would obviously throw more out of focus but I have never used one due to the cost.

Todd
 
There are Depth of Field calculators on the 'net... Here's one that's easy to show comparisons of multiple results: http://www.dudak.baka.com/dofcalc.html
Use inches for the distance input.

One thing that complicates this particular comparison is that for equivalent portrait coverage you will be closer with the 75mm than the 90mm.

At the same distance, the 75 at f/1.4 and the 90 at f/2 have almost identical DoF, but bringing the 75 in closer gives it the nod for narrow field!
 
I like how that site's layed out.

My Noctilux has a greater DoF wide open than my Elmarit 135 does at f/2.8!

You want shallow DoF, get yerself an Elmarit 135. Very shallow at 5 feet. Silly shallow.

I have the 90 f/2 AA. I like it. Takes nice pictures, and is easy to focus. It's also got an attractive look to the pictures.
 
Jupiter 9. 85mm/f2.0 Look in the gallery for many good examples (avoid my username - I said _good_ examples afterall.)

'Nuff Said.

:D

William
 
The 75 lux -- if you are doing portraits it simply cannot be beat. It is a stop faster, and it has an incredible mix of sharpness and softness that is hard to beat. The iron fist in a velvet glove so to speak...
Mmmm, glowy
75summilux-coffee.jpg
 
..with your coffee cup the focus is borderline to off (front of the object), visible at the table. Other than a portrait, this is not a moving target, right? ;-)

I prefer for *fast* portrait lenses (I speak of faster than f/2) SLR lenses. My RF 1.8/85 is at a limit. Out of focus area is better to control. Anyway its a continuos job focussing such a lens demanding excellent eyesight. I know people therefore preferring autofocus lenses. Some newer lenses are too sharp and unpleasing for portraits of non-perfect human beeings ;-)

A real portrait with my manual focus Zeiss Planar 85mm at f/1.4. One of two shots (both sharp)

While this isn't really a lightweight and everyday lens, it's quite compact in its class and handy to focus. To the question; leaving out the exorbitant price I would vote for the f/2 90mm-Asph. for it's excellent overall performance. See the figures and diagrams at Erwin Puts website. Although you can see there the Summilux 1.4/75 is a progress to the older Summarex

Cheers, Frank

Isa in my dining room
Isa_dreiviertel.jpg
 
Last edited:
Thanks so far people,

I understand that i will be more close on the persoon, with the 75 mm. But StuartR, your photo of the cup of coffee does look like an macro-photo. Do you remember ± the distance to the cup?

Interesting link, Doug gave.
 
A beautifull shot, Sonnar2.

But the text at my internet-browser is not easy to read anymore. Before uploading, it's good to reduce the image-size of your photo.
Advantage for you: I and other forum-visitors will see the complete photo. ;)
 
Klikk -- It was .7m, the close focus range. The focus is on the rim of the cup. In any case, here is another example with a clearer plane of focus. It would post a portrait, but it appears I do not have any taken with the lens posted online...
And by the way, I think portrait lenses are one area where if you go by MTF numbers, you will be exceedingly disappointed.

cannon-mouth.jpg
 
If your primary criterion is narrow DoF, then the 75/1.4 Summilux is the winner. When shooting wide-open @ the minimum focus distance (0.75m), I believe it has the narrowest DoF of any Leica lens (incl. the Noctilux @ f/1, since the Noct' doesn't focus as close). However, the focal length is a little weird (for me, being between 45/50mm & 85/90mm) & it can push the 0.72 VF's focusing abilities to the edge (I always use it w/a M6 TTL 0.85 or M3, though I was able to use it successfully once on a 0.58, though not @ super close distances).

As far as other characteristics, I have the 75/1.4, but not the 90/2 Summicron ASPH, so I can't give you a comparison of the 2, but I agree w/StuartR that the 75/1.4 has a very smooth look @ all apertures (& good boke if that matters to you) that I imagine would be good for portraits. That said, I haven't really used mine for portraits: (1) I don't really do a lot of portraits, period; & (2) I use it mainly as a telephoto "Noctilux" for dark lighting situations, like performances, etc., when I need a little more reach than the Noctilux can give me (e.g. http://photos8.flickr.com/6402610_8c6100a8ca_o.jpg).

Klikk... said:
Hello everybody,

My goal is making portraits with an very small field of sharpness/depth (*). So only the eyes, or the nose for example are sharp.
What is an better lens to use on an M7 0.72? The SUMMILUX-M 75mm f/1.4, or the APO-SUMMICRON-M 90mm f/2 ASPH.?
Click to expand...
 
I use both the 75 Summilux and the 90 Summicron Apo ASPH lenses. At maximum aperture and at the closest focusing distances, the DOF is approximately equal. The 90 SAA is "sharper" wide open and probably until F4, at which point the 75 Summilux is very close to the 90 SAA. Both lenses have their much discussed attributes; I like them both, and it is fun to use them at maximum aperture - but it takes a lot of practice (and some luck) to nail the point of focus consistently. The 90 has been called brutally sharp, and it is the sharpest lens at maximum aperture that I have ever used. But if I was forced to choose between them, I would opt for the 75 Summilux: the 75 Summilux gives such beautiul results that are so different from the results yielded by other lenses. Yes, many decry the size or the focusing throw, but the results are outstanding. Many will jump on the new 75 Summicron ASPH bandwagon - and I am sure that it will be outstanding optically and more diminutive, but I would not consider it a replacement for the Summilux. You pay your money and you make your choice. Try them both if you can and decide which to buy first. You might just be like me and decide that they are both different enough so that you want them both.
 
I'm quite sure a good screwmount Nikkor-P 2/85 of the 1950's will give such good results as every newer excellent lens in available-light portraits. I don't think you need the higher sharpness/ micro contrast of newer lenses wide open for that applications in most light situations. Even my Zeiss Planar, made around 1980 (I remember the Summilux 1.4/75 was constructed 1980) is something harsh in sharpness wide open - what brings difficulties with out-of-focus unsharpness in very near neighborhood. With all due respect to Leica glass this Zeiss lens was considered the sharpest high-speed portrait lens of that era in SLR and RF.
My Nikkor-P at f/2 isn't unsharp but much more creamy and pleasant for the eye (though more a piece of plumb handy as my Planar). It's a question what to show on your pictures: Every wrinkle and impurity (maybe impressive centenarians :) go for the newest, sharpest and expensivst lens.. very young girls (I mean 16 or younger).. the same, and sell the pictures to Vogue afterwards.
All in between don't need that overkill :)

just my 2c, Frank
 
Last edited:
StuartR said:
Klikk -- It was .7m, the close focus range. The focus is on the rim of the cup. In any case, here is another example with a clearer plane of focus. It would post a portrait, but it appears I do not have any taken with the lens posted online...
And by the way, I think portrait lenses are one area where if you go by MTF numbers, you will be exceedingly disappointed.
Click to expand...

What do you mean with MTF numbers?

Beautifull shot!! I'm in love with the 75 mm/1,4...
 
Last edited:
I'm not StuartR, but MTF = modulation transfer frequency, a technical method to analyze and measure sharpness/ contrast at film and show it on a diagram (as you find them at Leica/ Erwin Puts/ Zeiss website plus a detailed technical description of that approach).

It's a nice game evalutating lenses by MTF research, but highest MTF figures are needed for landscape, architecture and applications like that..not portraits. Although very low MTF caused by uncorrected optical errors in a bad design will also result in bad bokeh or lack of "glance". But the lenses considered as "good for portraits" don't have that failures... no rocket science here to figure it out.
 
Stuart very good photos. The Lux is and amazing lens. You have a very fast lens. I love too your hexanon 1.2...
 
Sonnar2 said:
I'm not StuartR, but MTF = modulation transfer frequency, a technical method to analyze and measure sharpness/ contrast at film and show it on a diagram (as you find them at Leica/ Erwin Puts/ Zeiss website plus a detailed technical description of that approach).

It's a nice game evalutating lenses by MTF research, but highest MTF figures are needed for landscape, architecture and applications like that..not portraits. Although very low MTF caused by uncorrected optical errors in a bad design will also result in bad bokeh or lack of "glance". But the lenses considered as "good for portraits" don't have that failures... no rocket science here to figure it out.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

[patriotic mode]Erwin Puts: I know his name from an dutch photomagazine, where he used to review about Leica-products.[/patriotic mode]
 
I basically agree. However, I would characterize the overall "look" of the 75/1.4 Summilux as closer to the 85/2 Sonnar in Contax/Contarex mount (or the Nikkor-P Nikon RF copy) or any of the other "classic" high-speed short telephotos of the 1930s-60s (e.g., Canon 85/1.8 or 100/2, 105/2.5 Nikkor-P, etc.). IMHO, the advantages that the 75/1.4 brings to the table (mine is c.1982 BTW) is improved flare-resistance from the more modern design & coatings & a fully useable f/1.4. As I wrote earlier, I don't have the 90/2 Summicron ASPH, but my understanding is that its look is more in the clinically-sharp "modern" mode.

Sonnar2 said:
I'm quite sure a good screwmount Nikkor-P 2/85 of the 1950's will give such good results as every newer excellent lens in available-light portraits. I don't think you need the higher sharpness/ micro contrast of newer lenses wide open for that applications in most light situations. Even my Zeiss Planar, made around 1980 (I remember the Summilux 1.4/75 was constructed 1980) is something harsh in sharpness wide open - what brings difficulties with out-of-focus unsharpness in very near neighborhood. With all due respect to Leica glass this Zeiss lens was considered the sharpest high-speed portrait lens of that era in SLR and RF.
My Nikkor-P at f/2 isn't unsharp but much more creamy and pleasant for the eye (though more a piece of plumb handy as my Planar). It's a question what to show on your pictures: Every wrinkle and impurity (maybe impressive centenarians :) go for the newest, sharpest and expensivst lens.. very young girls (I mean 16 or younger).. the same, and sell the pictures to Vogue afterwards.
All in between don't need that overkill :)

just my 2c, Frank
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom