75 'Lux Adventures, Chapter 2 (field of view)

Here's the first round of images from the weekend, demonstrating the relative coverage of the 50, 75, and 90mm focal lengths. I didn't have the camera mounted on a tripod, so there's a little bit of slop in the system, but the camera to subject distance is within about 3 or 4 inches for all the shots. Also, I changed the framing for the various focal lenghts in order to optimize the composition, though on the comparison photo, I centered the "framelines."<P>

The film was Kodak E100SW at EI80, though I overexposed the 50 and 75 shots a bit more than that. Lighting came from two windows in a second-floor bedroom: direct light from a window just to my left, and indirect light from a window at Renee's back (there was a fresh layer of snow on the roof next door which really pumped up the level of the fill). The sun was moving through light clouds during the session; this caused the obvious changes in color temperature (don't take these results as an indication of different color casts among the lenses).<P>

The usual thanks to Jack and company for providing me with the 75 'Lux, and special thanks to the lovely Renee for her help. Please keep any comments about the model respectful so I won't have to kick anyone's ass . . . ; )<P>

<TABLE BORDER=0 CELLPADDING=4 CELLSPACING=3 BGCOLOR="white" WIDTH=740>

<TR ALIGN="center" VALIGN="middle">

<TD HEIGHT="510" WIDTH="360"><IMG SRC="http://mikedixonphotography.com/reneecol22.jpg"><BR>

<I>75 Summilux (about f1.7)</I>

<TD HEIGHT="510" WIDTH="360"><IMG SRC="http://mikedixonphotography.com/reneecol21.jpg"><BR>

<I>50 Summilux (about f2.4)</I>

</TR>

<TR ALIGN="center" VALIGN="middle">

<TD HEIGHT="510" WIDTH="360"><IMG SRC="http://mikedixonphotography.com/reneecol20.jpg"><BR>

<I>90 Summicron (about f2)</I>

<TD HEIGHT="510" WIDTH="360"><IMG SRC="http://mikedixonphotography.com/reneeframes.jpg"><BR>

<I>field of view comparison</I>

</TR>

</TABLE>

Unless you're looking for absolute sharpness and love the tech

behind the 90, I think the 75 lux is a better all around lens.

Barely any framing diff. Thanks for the photos.

A good illustration of what Leica intended the 75 to be - a "fast

90" - though it ended up with its own unique characteristics. I like

the 75's softness here, and its ability to set Renee apart from the

background. Thanks, Mike.

Mike:

<p>

>>The film was Kodak E100SW at EI80

<p>

Then do you have the lab process the film for E180?

<p>

Nice shots. The 75 is a great lens but heavy.

Mike is of course the only one who knows what instructions he gave to

the lab but since the Ektachrome 100 is rather saturated it wouldn't

need special lab treatment if exposed at 80. In fact, this 1/3 stop

probably helped to show details in the black sweater.

<p>

What really surprises me is how close the 90 and the 75 are in field

of view!

The 90 Summicron rocks! Love that look. Thanks for posting

these.

Thanks Mike,

<p>

Always nice and motivating to read your posts incl. the

nice pictures!

Makes me want to buy these expensive lenses.

Thanks a lot, and please continue to keep us updated

with beautiful pictures.

I like em all, but have to admit that the 90 image is my favorite

compositionally. Subject-wise, they ALL rock!!!

<p>

:-),

Great set of shots. I prefer the 90 (but that just might be because

it gets us a bit closer to the lovely Renee!)

Thanks Mike. Could I impose on you for a future series? Could you

shoot the same model and background with the same three lenses,

BUT... move YOUR position to keep the model the same relative size?

This way we could see the effect on the background. I have always

heard that old thing about "just move a couple of feet and lens A and

B are the same", but in reality the background will be different.

Seeing this effect on film made me start using my 50mm lens again

rather than just leaning in with my 35mm. It would be nice to see it

with these three lenses. Mathematically, it would be something like

6 feet with the 50, 9 feet with the 75, and 11 feet (actually 10.8)

with the 90.

<p>

The next time you are shooting, it would be great if you could devote

three frames of film to this.

<p>

Again, thanks for you efforts here.

Mike, these are great shots, but I really can't see in them what I

need to see: please shoot the whole series the same way with Andrea

so we will all have a frame of reference. That way, we can be more

objective in our evaluation of the merits of these lenses. It's the

scientific method, don't you know!

Geeez, you people are <i>almost</i> as demanding as Renee!! : )

<p>

The film was developed normally (standard E6). My default for

shooting people with slide film is one-third stop overexposure. In

addition to opening up the shadows, it cleans up the skin tones and

tames saturation a bit.

<p>

Joop, the older 90 Summicron is a bargain (by Leica standards). I got

my black, Canadian pre-asph 90 in excellent plus condition for US$

485. It's not unusual to find them for less than $600.

<p>

Jack, have the prints arrived yet?

<p>

Al, believe it or not, that test is already one I'm planning. Because

of Renee's work schedule and bad weather, we didn't shoot much, and

our location choices were limited. When she comes to Nashville, I'll

be sure to do the test you mention if I haven't already done it with

someone else.

<p>

Preston, Andrea knows I'm willing to shoot with her again, but she's

far away, and I ain't driving. Maybe I'll find another model who

allows you to properly evaluate the lens performance in an objective

manner. ; )

Nike:

<p>

>>The film was developed normally (standard E6). My default for shooting people with slide film is one-third stop overexposure.

<p>

I don't follow: Exposing at E180 is underexposing the Ektachrome 100...

Mitch,

<p>

That is E.I. (exposure index) 80, not E180. ISO 100 film shot at ISO

80 over exposes the film.

Any picture of Renee is a good picture, but a Dixon is even better. ;-)

<p>

Nice work, Mike. Thanks for the comparisons.

FWIW When I first read your post I also read "EI80" as "EI 180".

Had to read it three times before I realized it was an "I" and not

a "1" before the "80"...

Mike you are a legend. I love the bed frame? in the background. I t

almost looks as if it is a window with light comming through. Another

excellent contribution.

I like the bed frame too!

<p>

Now...Mike could you do a series of shots say nine of them, with the

three lenses, and at three different positions keeping the size of

the head the same?

<p>

Oh, and could please do those with warm E100SW, neutral EPN and

coldish RDPIII. That makes a mere 27 shots, and we can evaluate the

color as well as perspective differences. And lest we be distracted

by Renee in particular, how about using 3 different models. Only 81

shots. And with and without the bedframe, which could be distracting

us. And with and without Renee, who definitely is. And on a cloudy

day and a sunny day too. And indoors and out. A mere 1296 shots...

<p>

Just kidding Mike ;-) Enjoy that new lens however you please...

<p>

And may I say again it is a pleasure to view your pictures whenever

you are so generous as to take the trouble to share them with us.

Gotta be careful to make sure that space is in between the EI and the

rating . . .

<p>

Yep, that's a bed frame. Renee had just moved and didn't have bed to

go with the frame yet. I thought about moving it, but decided it

would help to define the angle of view.

<p>

Mani, yeah, I was thinking of doing those tests, too. Mmmm hmmm. : )

I did do a quick comparison of EPN and E100S (not SW) one time--on

the shots I did, I couldn't tell them apart on the light box. On

closer examination, the E100S is much finer grained, but the color

balance is about the same.

<b>Below is a 'repost' of Mike's original and very useful post, which photo.net doesn't

seem to have translated very well from the old greenspun.com server. Ciao! <br><i>Dave

Carson</i></b>

<P>Here's the first round of images from the weekend, demonstrating the relative

coverage of

the 50, 75, and 90mm focal lengths. I didn't have the camera mounted on a tripod, so

there's a little bit of slop in the system, but the camera to subject distance is within about

3 or 4 inches for all the shots. Also, I changed the framing for the various focal lenghts in

order to optimize the composition, though on the comparison photo, I centered the

"framelines."<P> The film was Kodak E100SW at EI80, though I overexposed the 50 and

75 shots a bit more than that. Lighting came from two windows in a second-floor

bedroom: direct light from a window just to my left, and indirect light from a window at

Renee's back (there was a fresh layer of snow on the roof next door which really pumped

up the level of the fill). The sun was moving through light clouds during the session; this

caused the obvious changes in color temperature (don't take these results as an indication

of different color casts among the lenses).<P> The usual thanks to Jack and company for

providing me with the 75 'Lux, and special thanks to the lovely Renee for her help. Please

keep any comments about the model respectful so I won't have to kick anyone's ass . . . ;

)<P>

<TABLE BORDER=0 CELLPADDING=4 CELLSPACING=3 BGCOLOR="white" WIDTH=740>

<TR ALIGN="center" VALIGN="middle"> <TD HEIGHT="510" WIDTH="360"><IMG

SRC="http://mikedixonphotography.com/reneecol22.jpg"><BR> <I>75 Summilux (about

f1.7)</I> <TD HEIGHT="510" WIDTH="360"><IMG SRC="http://

mikedixonphotography.com/reneecol21.jpg"><BR> <I>50 Summilux (about f2.4)</I> </

TR> <TR ALIGN="center" VALIGN="middle"> <TD HEIGHT="510" WIDTH="360"><IMG

SRC="http://mikedixonphotography.com/reneecol20.jpg"><BR> <I>90 Summicron

(about f2)</I> <TD HEIGHT="510" WIDTH="360"><IMG SRC="http://

mikedixonphotography.com/reneeframes.jpg"><BR> <I>field of view comparison</I>

</TR> </TABLE>