75 Summilux -- Very soft

I recently got a second hand Summilux (third "generation"). I find it

unusually soft, and I really have not made up my mind whether I like it or

not. I also wonder whether there is something wrong with and what that could

be. Below are a few sample pics (sorry for not having cleaned up the dirt on

some of them).<div></div>

Next example<div></div>

Another one<div></div>

Final example for comparison<div></div>

I should add that I did not apply any sharpening to any of the pics. The only thing I did was some levels. All scanned on a Coolscan V at 4000 ppi.

They don't look too bad to me.

i was not impressed. Sold mine and replaced it w/ 50mm pre-asph Lux.

Be interesting to know shutter speeds, aperatures, was a tripod used?

Look at them all very closely. Focus is an issue. The first 75mm shot is rear focused. The picture of the kid is on-target on his tummy. And the color shot is rear focused. The 90mm shot is fore-focused.

 

IMHO.

That lens is certainly sharp enough to resolve minor blemishes that could do with some retouching. I think that's a good thing ... I use a 50mm Summilux Asph for portraits to get really sharp eyes, and then I touch up areas where the lens is too critically sharp. I like the look of the black and white shots ... blow them up and you might be surprised at how sharp the lens is.

I may have gotten the focus wrong on the hand held wide open, but I am pretty certain that I got it right on the tripod ones (I used the 1.25 magnifyier on a 0.72 body). I also did some shots outside at about 2.8 and 1/1000 of a second with equally soft results. This is an example. I was focussing for the top of the post.<div></div>

I agree too, it's the focus problem. I think it's better to use 0.85 view finder (or even 0.9) finder to use with 75 Summilux. The DOF simply too narrow. Object movement might be another especially in low light while shutter speed is slow. I sold my 75 summilux for a 50 summilux and a 90 summarit. Better satisfied.

Mmm...I find my 75 f1,4 Summilux pretty sharp though...

http://www.photo.net/photo/5508438

Your focus is obviously off on the 1st shot. Subjects wobble back and forth and if you're hand holding you will too. It can mean a few inched difference in focal point. The baby shot is shot at a very slow speed. Look at the motion in the hands so it must be movement. At minimum focus distances the summilux focus must be dead on.

I agree with Pico/Thomas & Don

 

It's a focus issue

 

Having owned one along with a Nikkor 105 f/2 DC lens they can be tricky to shoot wide open as there is very little depth of field - even if focus is on the eyes by the time you shoot either the subject or you can sway in or out just a little & throw things off.

 

Not sure if anyone previously mentioned it but I would do some tripod test shooting with static subjects.

I also concur. I had a hard time hand-holding the 75 'lux and 50 Noct' up close and near open due to my and/or subject movement. What's the point of using such fast glass with a tripod? This, their physical size (one lees lens in the bag), and only slightly faster in the center than my 50 'lux made the sale of both a no-brainer.

Another (or more likely additional) factor could be whether or not the rangefinder itself is in proper adjustment...

They do not sharpen up until 2.5 or 2.8, at least the ones I used.

 

Confirm with a tripod shot or three making sure the RF is doing what is supposed to do. Do close ups. The combo is on the edge of design limits and everthing must be perfect. A repairman can match the two to perfection if you want.

 

I think the new 75 2.0 will give a sharper pic at 2.0.

I never knew that Leica put out a third version of that lens. Of course, I only have information up until the late 1990s. Is there a new one? Any changes over the second version to note? I too would otherwise go with the 75 'cron if I didn't like 50s so much.

I have had two second hand 75/1.4 lenses on approval that I returned because of focus errors: this on an M6 body that focussed two Noctilux at f1 critically accurately. I don't know what the history of the two 75s that I tried was, but they looked ok cosmetically. Someone will have bought them by now.

 

I suggest some critical tests of focus ( good tripod, suitable target that will indicate near or far focus errors).

Or just maybe your M body rangefinder mechanism may be ever so slightly out-of-alignment? Try the lens on a newspaper sheet stuck on a flat wall surface and shoot a couple of shots both hand-held and with a tripod. Any discrepancy may lead you to pin-point the possible causes.

Possibly it's the lens itself that needs an adjustment. Could be focus shift.

Georg

 

I think your screen shots are too small for anyone to be able to tell anything concrete. If you think they are too soft then see if any area on the negs are actually sharp. If so then your focussing or your r/f or lens alignment is off. I don't have the 75mm, but I have the 80mm-R and that is a sharp lens no question at f2 or smaller.

 

If you are worried you could send the lens to Leica or DAG and they can tell you whether there is an issue.

The post picture is, indeed not sharp but it impossible to know if there is an issue in the scanning.

 

It might be good to do a strident focus test with a slow B&W film developed for high contrast against an angled panel with close vertical lines. I forget where I read about it. When I get a moment I will look it up. It is easy and definitive.

Thanks for the helpful suggestions.

 

What really irritates me was that even the 2.8 or higher shots on a tripod were not "sharp" at any specific point. This is why I actually compared them with 90 mm Elmarit at 2.8 (which, I would think, at 2.8 is not more difficult to focus than the Summilux at 2.8). And I did all that on a 50 ISO film which provided some other very sharp pictures and a tripod.

 

The lens looks otherwise perfect. Is it possible that this lens is not sharp at all? I can't relly believe that.