75 Summilux - SLR alternatives

<p>I got a 75 Summilux about a year ago and love it. However, I'd like to augment my RF setup with an SLR finally, maybe even a digital one. At this point in time, an M9 is a no go for me. I'd like to get a lens that is similar to the 75 Summilux for an SLR.<br /><br /><br />I know comparing any lenses is opening a can of worms. Especially Leica lenses :) So I'll set out my parameters. I know the 75 Summilux isn't the sharpest lens wide open; it has an overlaying haze of softness and relatively low contrast. However, stopped down to f/2.8 or so, it is pretty good, and it is super sharp at f/4-5.6. I like this varied behavior. I've owned other lenses with 'dual personalities' (Nikkor 50/1.4 LTM and the Canon EF 50/1.4), but they weren't as pleasing or as usable wide open in my mind. I know the Summilux really isn't technically a good performer wide open, but it's just right in many occasions, and the ability to go to great performance a couple stops down is great.<br /><br /><br />Anyway, I know the 75 Summilux for M is very similar to the 80 Summilux for R. That seems like the obvious candidate. However, it's expensive and I don't currently have an R at all. And the R system is a dead end. I do have a Canon EOS SLR, but I'd be willing to pick up a Nikon if I had to - I'm not that invested in Canon lenses. I know you can adapt R lenses to EF mount, so that is an option even though I don't really like the idea of stop down metering. Autofocus would also be nice.<br /><br />I also know the Canon 85/1.2 is very well respected, as is the Nikon 85/1.4. The Zeiss ZE 85/1.4 doesn't seem to be as well respected by some, but those people complain about softness wide open - I'm sure they'd complain about the 75 Summilux too; maybe it's the lens I'm looking for. While I'm sure the Canon 85/1.2 and the Nikon 85/1.4 are technically better lenses than the 75/80 Summilux, I wonder if they have the same 'character' that I'm looking for. I'm not just after shallow depth of field. Maybe the Canon 50/1.2 is another lens I should look at. I don't want to get into a bunch of Leica mumbo-jumbo; the Canon and Nikon lenses might be too good compared to the Summilux.<br /><br />In summary, I was wondering if anyone had suggestions for a modern 75/80 Summilux replacement for one of the current SLR systems. Should I just break down and get the Canon? Will I be unsatisfied until I adapt an 80 Summilux?</p>

<p>I would suggest a Nikon D700 and an 85 f/1.4. It is one of Nikon's best lenses. Other option- M8/8.2 and 50 lux. Good luck.</p>

<p>Actually, it is possible that your Summilux would mount on a Soviet pre-1967 Zenit camera (M39x1, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenit_%28camera%29 ) although I think the lens register is slightly different (probably no infinity focus?).</p>

<p>I think I am not exaggerating when I say that most of today's short telephotos tend to be copies/"developments" of one or another Zeiss lens (e.g., Sonnar, Biotar).<br>

Not only is the Nikon 85mm f/1.4 excellent, but so are other lenses like the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 L and even the inexpensive EF 85mm f/1.8.<br>

On a 35mm-sensor, these lenses will serve their original function. For an equivalent on an APS-C digital camera, of course, you would need to go to one of many excellent 50-60mm lenses.</p>

<p>Stephen Gandy's Cameraquest website is now listing a Nikon/Canon mount version of the Cosina/Voigtlander 75mm 1.8 lens, to be released at some point in the future (he's taking deposits). It might be just what you're looking for. Here's a link: <a href="http://www.cameraquest.com/Voigt_SL2.htm#75/1.8">http://www.cameraquest.com/Voigt_SL2.htm#75/1.8</a></p>

<p>For a Canon SLR the 85 F1.8 is hard to beat (despite it's bargain price). I am a big fan of the old FD 85 F1.2 (indeed I still own two copies) but I must say that the Zeiss 85 F1.4 and the MkI and MkII Canon 85 F1.2s have not impressed me enough to buy one. The Leica R 80 f1.4 is a better lens and i almost bought one but the difficulty of MF on a Canon EOS body put me off (there is no focus confirmation). I own the Canon 50 F1.4 but it is soft until F2 - I use the Contax 50 F1.7 and it is a better lens (but MF). The Voigtlander 75 and 90 have good reputations - I own the 90 F3.5 but mine is a Leica Screw - used on my M series. the 90 F3.5 is a very good lens but fairly slow.<br>

So if you want Canon the 85 F1.8 is hard to beat (hopefully the 85 F1.2 III if they make it will be better) and their 100 F2.8 LIS Macro is also a great lens (for general use not just Macro). If you want 50mm Then a Contax or Leica 50mm is the way to go - unless you are OK with a slower lens in which case the 50 F2.5 Macro is the best Canon 50mm lens.<br>

If you just want AF and film the Contax G 90mm F2.8 is an amazing lens (the sharpest low contrast lens AP ever tested)</p>

<p>Check out the Pentax-FA 77mm f1.8 Limited, an absolutely brilliant lens! Not only affordable, you can try out all sorts of film/digital/auto/manual combinations- on an MX body would make a very compact system (or an LX for a higher end body), an MZ-S for autofocus, and for digital go with a K-7 or K-5 body.<br>

In fact, my Leica (film) system includes M6/M4/M2 bodies along with the 75 Summilux and various other lenses, while my digital SLR system is a Pentax K7 body with the FA 31mm f1.8/43mm f1.9/77mm f1.8 Limited Series lenses. An excellent line of lenses with exceptionally high build and image quality (of which I use the 31 and 77 the most). Although hard to find, the 43mm is also available in LTM mount and can be adapted for use on any M body. I also have a Pentax MZ-S body for film. You can have a digital and film SLR system for much, much less than the price of an M9!</p>

<p>Canon 85mm f1/2 $$$$ but probably unique (I don't have one), Canon 85mm f1.8 - excellent all round, but not as special as the 135mm f2L Canon, 85mm f1.4 Nikon - probably excellent (but I've never tried one). From the reviews I've read, I don't think the ZE 85mm is so special. I used to have the 80mm 'lux and it was my favorite R lens (with the 35mm Summicron-R). It's probably too expensive really to use on a Canon and get a worthwhile return (given the Leica premium), but you could manually focus it OK on a 5D MkII. I gave up using my R lenses on the EOS because I'm lazy. I have to say in your situation I'd consider the Canon 85mm f1.8 or the 135/2L - both a lot less than the 85/1.2.</p>

<p>Thanks for the ideas!</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Voigtlander 75/1.8 - interesting. Didn't know it was coming out for SLR mounts.</li>

<li>Canon 85/1.8 - looks like a great, very usable, and affordable lens. But I'm not sure if it has the look I'm after. I might end up with it anyway. I've considered it in the past.</li>

<li>Pentax 77 (and other Limited lenses) - these guys always intrigued me. If Pentax came out with a full frame digital I'd be all over them. Or even if the crop was less. I might still look into them...</li>

</ul>

<p>Robin, thanks especially for your input. I know you were a big proponent of the 80 Summilux in the past. It's interesting to read that you don't use them on EOS because it's too much of a pain. Which is kind of what I suspected. It's also interesting, if I'm reading your correctly, that you really haven't found a substitute for it. Not that that's the end of the world - life goes on, right? :)</p>

<p>Since you are going to be on an SLR anyway, I would say be a bit more flexible about the angle of view. The 105mm f/2 DC lens for Nikon is probably one of the best equivalents of the Summilux for a digital camera, or even one of the 105mm f/2.5 Nikkors that cost peanuts these days.<br>

But if Voigtlander is releasing the 75/1.8 in EF and F mount, I would say definitely give it a shot. Voigtlander is probably the closest modern manufacturer to the look of older Leica lenses, and the 75/1.8 would be very very close in angle of view and speed, so it is worth a shot. </p>

 

<p>Cool I'll look into that lens too.</p>

<p>Tim,</p>

<p>Yes, I tend to use the 135mm L where before I would have used the Summilux 80mm. But they are not quite the same, obviously. I have the 85mmf1.8 but only rarely use it as it happens.</p>

<p>As Robin says the 135 F2, 85 F1.8 and 100 F2.8 LIS Macro all produce very good results but they have a Japanese look. to get a German look you really have to get a German lens. using Leica or Contax on an adaptor gives you that look but MF on EOS bodies is not great unless you have AF confirmation of use a tripod and live view. You can also look at MF lenses on an adaptor - they work well but again you have the MF issue (I use a Mirex Tilt / shift adaptor). If the Voigtlander is available this is a good choice - otherwise look at Leica R or a C/Y SLR lens. </p>

<p>I used to want the 135/2, but I think it's too long for how I shoot. Thanks again everyone.</p>

<p>I've owned the Canon f/1.2 85mm mkI and f/1.8, and the 75mm Summilux. Also shot extensively with the manual focus Nikon 105mm f/2.5. I would say the Canon f/1.2 is the most similar in terms of 'look' when shot wide open. That 'look,' as defined by me, is nice vignetting, creamy bokeh, and strong center sharpness with less sharp corners.</p>

<p>The nikkor 105mm f/2.5 is just too blazing sharp wide open to be similar to the Summilux and has less attractive bokeh. Great lens, though. The Canon 1.8 is also too evenly sharp when shot wide open, and is a flare-y bastard.</p>