Summilux 75 or Summilux 80 ?

[mfogiel]

Or Planar 85/1.4 for that matter...
I have been fascinated by images from the 75 Summilux, and have been thinking to add this lens to my arsenal sooner or later, as I would like to have a great portrait lens without excessive sharpness at hand. However, I have seen in classifieds an ad for the 80 Summilux, claiming that the optical formula of the 80 and 75 Summiluxes is identical. This has made me think about looking at the 80 version as an alternative. In fact , I normally prefer to use SLR lenses over 50mm FL. My current portrait lens is the 85/1.4 Planar ZF - great optics, but it has some focus shift problems, particularly annoying, when you cannot nail correctly the sharpness on the eyes. I was wondering if anybody has had some experience with these lenses and can comment on the Summilux 80 qualities, and on whether these Summiluxes also suffer from focus shift issues.

 

[Michiel Fokkema]

I got a 80 a few weeks ago. I really like it. NO idea if it has focusshift. I use it wide open almost all the time. I also understood that focusshift is not such a big problem on film as it is on digital.
Cheers,
Michiel Fokkema

 

[Tim Gray]

I was contemplating the exact same thing as you about 6 months ago. I was really leaning towards the 80 Summilux. It's half the price and focusing should be easier. I was all set - I had found one in great shape for a decent price too. Then I started looking for an R camera to mount it on. Obviously that would drive up the package price. I've heard some great things about R cameras and was looking forward to it.

However, as I looked more and more, I also stumbled upon a 75 Summilux for a good price. I started to have second thoughts about the 80. I knew if I bought the 80, I'd have to get an R camera too (that whole stop down metering thing when you use Leica lenses on Canon for example doesn't appeal to me). The package price started inching closer to the 75 Summilux. Furthermore, whenever I wanted to take portraits, I'd have to drag around an SLR and it's lens as well, instead of just an extra M lens. The final straw was thinking about our digital futures. With the M9, the 75 Summilux has a brighter future than the 80 Summilux.

In the end, I decided to get the 75 Summilux. I'm happy it did. It works pretty well on my film M's. I'm loving the pictures I'm getting out of it. I've not had any specific problems focusing it. Depending on what I'm shooting, I can just sub in the 75 for another lens in my more normal kit - it just integrates better into the system I already use. And it's going to have way better resale value than the 80 if I get sick of it. It is *the* Leica lens in my mind for low light 'tele' shooting. The 90 Summicrons are only f/2 and they are a bit long in focal length for really slow shutter speeds. An to my surprise, 75 is different enough from 50 for it to be a useful addition, for me anyway. Though most of the times I'd consider using the 75 Summilux, I'd probably not bring my 50 in the first place.

For what it's worth, the formulas are slightly different. Some people seem to like the 80 more than the 75. I think both can suffer from some focus shift, but it hasn't been a problem for me yet. Also note that the 75 can focus a bit closer (I think).

I wish I had more samples to show you of the 75, but I've not been taking a lot of pictures in the last couple months and have only have a couple rolls from the 75 online right now. But, you can check out some of them below if you wish. All are on film.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tgray1/tags/leicasummilux75mmf14/

 

[ferider]

No idea about the 80, but the 75/1.4 (as well as the 50/1.4 pre-asph) Summilux shifts quite heavily. Both lenses also have noticable barrel distortion. So not sure if you'll be better off than with your Planar.

That being said, once adjusted to a camera and my f-stop preference, the 75/1.4 has become my favorite RF lens. And I use it on an M3 these days.

Not sure if this helps.

Roland.

 

[Tim Gray]

Another point to consider: If you are already bringing along your SLR (is it an R?), then I would probably go with a lens for that SLR. As I mentioned above, I don't use my SLR very much, so that's not really a good option for me. But if you did, most lenses in the 80-90 range are pretty dang good, so you have a lot of options. And you could stand to save a good deal of money over the 75 Summilux. Especially if you are shooting Canon, Nikon, or Leica SLRs. I'm sure the situation is similar with other systems, but I'm not as familiar with them.

On the other hand, I think the time to get a 75 Summilux at a 'reasonable' price is now. I foresee them becoming pretty sought after and hard to get soon, especially with the Noctilux prices going through the damn roof.

 

[Charlie Lemay]

I own both these lenses and my experience is the focus shift has more to do with body rocking most of the time. I shot many of the human form images on my web site with the 80mm on a Canon 5D. Just my take on it.

 

[Calzone]

Love the summilux 75. In fact I just shot a wedding with this very lens and a version 1 summicron 35. I shot 6 or 7 rolls, 4 of which were with the 75.... Here's a portrait shot from a few years ago:


Focus by thomasw_, on Flickr

A 75 Lux paired with a 35 is a great two lens kit.

Cal

 

[Mackinaw]

Erwin Puts lumps both of these lenses together in his first "Compendium" book published in 2001. Looking at the optical diagrams, they look almost identical (but not quite, there is a bit of a difference in the element spacing forward of the diaphragm).

Interestingly, on the optical bench, Puts considers the 80mm Summilux to be a bit better than the 75mm, but he doubts whether these differences will translate onto film (being published in 2001, there's no mention of digital).

Prices for the 75mm Summilux started to skyrocket once the lens was discontinued. I picked one up from a fellow RFF'r several years back for $1,400 USD. Today, you'll pay at least twice that amount.

Jim B.

 

[mfogiel]

I do not have any R body, in fact I use a Nikon FM3A, but I thought a Leicaflex might not be so expensive these days. I have started thinking about the Summilux since I bought the V3 Summicron, and saw the type of rendering it has. I am looking for a similar rendering in a longer FL for portraits.

 

[Tim Gray]

Is the Nikkor 85/1.4 AI-s out? Might be worth thinking about...

 

[ferider]

I do not have any R body, in fact I use a Nikon FM3A, but I thought a Leicaflex might not be so expensive these days. I have started thinking about the Summilux since I bought the V3 Summicron, and saw the type of rendering it has. I am looking for a similar rendering in a longer FL for portraits.

35/2 v3 and 75 Summilux are a very good match. But the shift is real (about 3-4cm from f1.4 to f2 at 1m). Then again, I agree with Puts that f2 and up, the 75 Summilux is as good as the 75 Summicron. The general purpose nature is one thing I love about it.

In any case, here is a recent 75 shot from me ...

Bertha just has a unique signature.

Roland.

 

[Tim Gray]

Damn. 3-4 cm? Maybe I haven't shot my 75 at f/2 enough (or at all?) yet. I think I would have noticed 3-4 cm off in focusing.

 

[ferider]

I'll check numbers again, Tim and show some examples when I'm back home. The thing is that most "show" photos here on RFF are wide open.

 

[Tim Gray]

Yeah. I rarely record what aperture I shoot with, so it's a bit of guessing game sometimes for me to try and figure out what a picture was shot at. I know I've shot it wide open. I think I've shot it at f/2-2.8 as well. But who knows. Haha.

 

[Joerg]

Hi,

I own a 80 Summilux-R and it is great but for my failing eyes focusing becomes very hit and miss. Maybe it is the focus shift, something I have not considered yet. Maybe it is the screen of the R cameras?
Anyway please find a sample here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/12065461@N05/5641177798/in/photostream

Caio

joerg

 

[Calzone]

35/2 v3 and 75 Summilux are a very good match. But the shift is real (about 3-4cm from f1.4 to f2 at 1m). Then again, I agree with Puts that f2 and up, the 75 Summilux is as good as the 75 Summicron. The general purpose nature is one thing I love about it.

In any case, here is a recent 75 shot from me ...

Bertha just has a unique signature.

Roland.

I have to credit Roland's influence, where I copied his idea of a ideal two lens kit. I find that I can live without a fast fifty and I enjoy the extra spread and added reach of a 75 Lux.

I use to own the Nikon 85/1.4 AIS which deserves its legendary status, but I ended up culling down my SLR kit and decided to keep a 105/1.8 AIS. The 1.8 version of the 105 is better than the 2.5 version as far as speed, OOF and bokeh. The 1.8 has a 10 bladed aperature vs. 7 blade on the 2.5. Some people don't like the size, but if you're thinking of the 85/1.4 consider the 105/1.8 because they are about the same size.

Cal

 

[Platinum RF]

35/2 v3 and 75 Summilux are a very good match. But the shift is real (about 3-4cm from f1.4 to f2 at 1m). Then again, I agree with Puts that f2 and up, the 75 Summilux is as good as the 75 Summicron. The general purpose nature is one thing I love about it.

In any case, here is a recent 75 shot from me ...

Bertha just has a unique signature.

Roland.

Either soft or out of focus, 75mm is not a easy lens to focus on M and too large for M. get a R and 80mm f1.4

 

[mfogiel]

I have to give my Zeiss a try wide open on a slow film - on Tri X it is a bit too soft for my liking. I will also try focusing stopped down if I shoot at f 2.0 or 2.8. What I want to see, is if I can get the kind of OOF rendering that I like. In terms of sharpness, from f 2.8 on the Planar is one of the best lenses I've ever used.

 

[Tim Gray]

Now I'm all confused. I thought you wanted an 85 (or 75) that was a bit softer wide open. How does is Zeiss 85 not working for you? Is it too soft wide open? Or is it just that the focus shift is problematic.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

I never owned an M-tele lens. My feelings about the R-80/1.4 are based on comparisons to the Canon 85L v1.

I simply didn't find the 80 Lux to be noteworthy. I've seen nice images from it, and i even bought a photograph by Walter Chin, shot with this lens on Kodachrome, but it was stopped down, in a studio situation. Wide open, the 80 Lux just isn't a fantastic lens. Bokeh may be nice, but compared to the Canon, the Leica R is softer. I even prefer the Canon's bokeh. And, with AF, the Canon was just so much easier to use, so i kept it and sold the Leica.

I always did like pictures i'd seen from the 75 Summilux, though. If i had to choose and had both platforms, i'd try the M- lens. All of the raves i've seen about the M-80 were without context/comparison or the typical Leica-ist rationalization: Leica Soft = "Dreamy and Atmospheric."