75/1.4 focusing on a .72 M6 - comments please

[really__]

Choice of portrait/longer lenses - a clean 50mm chrome Summilux or a "user" 75/1.4? On

a classic M6. I know enough not to think about Noctiluxes, but is the 75/1.4 also as hard

to get good focused shots with? I've got this M6 with those dumb 75mm framelines, so it's

tempting to get a fast 75 instead of a dubious 50.

 

Also, how much does the 75 with hood intrude into the VF and how front-heavy does it

make the camera? I know it's a larger lens, but does its size preclude you from walking

around with it? (I used to use 85/1.4s on SLRs, so I really miss this sort of lens.)

 

Thanks

[markwilkins]

Haven't tried the Noctilux but from everything I've heard in this forum the 75mm 1.4 is, if

anything, harder to focus because of its shallower depth of field.

[markwilkins]

shallower depth of field due to the longer focal length overwhelming the one-stop

difference, I mean.

[brunom]

The 75mm is a big heavy lens that does intrude quite a bit into its frames. Unless you specifically need that particular lens the 50mm Summilux would serve you very well. Don't know why you call the Lux dubious? as my 1959 version is fantastic, IMO, ideal for people pictures.

 

Regards

 

Bruno

[really__]

People here just seem to dump on the 50 Summilux when compared to the other 50s and

35s. But I agree, qualities that hurt it in the absolute sharpness contest may help it with

portraiture.

 

So, the 75/1.4 is even more critical to focus than the Nocti! If I go that route, then I really

need to be looking at .85 VFs or M3s?

[markwilkins]

well, I have the 75 and a 0.72 finder M7 and find that it's not bad to focus. Sensitive to

rangefinder misalignment though.

[james_h]

Have only had the 75 lux for a few months but...

I have probably used the 75 lux more with my .72 ttl than my .85 ttl as the .72 is the body that has always had film in it with my 35mm attached. The viewfinder is obstructed less with the .72 because the frame is not as large/magnified. I don't think I have had lots of focusing errors, though I have not enlarged anything shot at f/1.4 at min. focus.

 

If I know I'm going to be shooting tele, or need/want two bodies, then of course the 75 or 90mm goes on the .85 body, it is surely a nicer view through the high-mag finder. Though I wouldn't' avoiding buying the lens because you only have a .72.

 

Whether a fast 50mm is a better buy than the 75 lux is another matter :-)

[furcafe]

I don't have a 0.72 M6, but have had no difficulties using the 75/1.4 on a 0.58 M6 TTL & a Hexar RF, so there should be no problem.

[raymond_tai]

I also use an Hexar RF with the 75mm 'lux and Noctilux. While its .58x is smaller the continuous motordrive allows me to bracket the focusing very easily. Also with the AE I can hold the camera steadier since I don't have to figit with the dials.

[cabophoto]

I have both the 75/1.4 and the Noctilux. The 75/1.4 is definitely harder to focus correctly on both an .72 and a .85 finder. Still it can be done IF your rangefinder is perfectly aligned.

 

Carsten

 

http://www.cabophoto.com/

[ben z]

"Raymond Tai Photo.net Patron, jan 14, 2005; 02:14 a.m.

I also use an Hexar RF with the 75mm 'lux and Noctilux."

 

Didn't Erwin Puts and I think Popular Photography prove that the lens mount to film distance on the RF was different than Leica? How is it possible to get sharp focus with lenses as sensitive to focus accuracy as the 75 Lux and Noct? I'm curious because I'm in the market for a 28mm and prices on the Hexar 28 are very tempting, but I am afraid that it might not focus well on my Leicas since it was designed for a different focal distance. I keep reading conflicting things.

[wgpinc]

I have been thinking about trying the 75mm CV lens. Cheap enough at $299 that if I really love that focal length I can buy the Leica 1.4 later. Best, Gil.

[furcafe]

I don't they "proved" anything, other than that the samples they received may have had some problems. I'm not a camera tech, so I don't have a collimator, etc., but I am among the many Hexar RF owners who have not experienced any incompatibility problems using Leica (or any other brand) M lenses, incl. LTM lenses w/adapters, on the Hexar RF.

 

---------------------

 

"Didn't Erwin Puts and I think Popular Photography prove that the lens mount to film distance on the RF was different than Leica?"

[john_morris4]

Ben Z, didn't you think that the coming discussion about whether or not the 50mm Summilux is "dubious" would be enough fun, without bringing up Hexar focus tales and Erwin? You're just being impish, right?

 

Gil, you're right that $300 is well spent on the CV 75. It's a delightful little lens -- good to carry along with a 35. And if you don't need to use it in the dark, you might just get by without the Summilux.

[Rob F.]

Mark Wilkins wrote, ". . . from everything I've heard in this forum the 75mm 1.4 is, if anything, harder to focus because of its shallower depth of field." "shallower depth of field due to the longer focal length overwhelming the one-stop difference, I mean." And then Mark observed, "well, I have the 75 and a 0.72 finder M7 and find that it's not bad to focus. Sensitive to rangefinder misalignment though."

 

I'd say Mark has summed up both sides of this issue. A few minutes with Jonathan Eastland's DOF tables shows that at a distance of 2 meters, a 50 f/1 is sharp from 1.96 to 2.05 meters. At the same distance, a 75 f/1.4 goes from 1.97 to 2.03M. So, it is tighter, though not by much. For comparison, a 90 f/2 is sharp from 1.97 to 2.03, just the same as the 75 at f/1.4. Few complain about focusing the 90 Cron with the normal magnification. This would seem to argue against the need for a .85 finder.

 

OTOH, it seems to me that the .85 was introduced for the 50 Nocti and 75 Summilux. So, which one does a person really need? Erwin has written that the rangefinder accuracy resides not just in the camera, but in the system comprised of the rangefinder and the eye using it. I recall he said that for a sharp, fresh eye, the .72 is good enough. But for a tired eye, the extra magnification of the .85 was required.

 

So, it's a judgement call. I think Leica must have felt that by the time most of us can afford a 75 Summilux, we are going to be old enough to need that .85 finder. The .91 finder on the M3 would be even better, but the M3 has no 75mm frameline, and it's probably not worth the expense of adding it. After all, it still won't have a meter. I don't need such a fast lens at that focal length, but if I did, I would want the .85 finder.

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[james_h]

"Erwin has written that the rangefinder accuracy resides not just in the camera, but in the system comprised of the rangefinder and the eye using it. I recall he said that for a sharp, fresh eye, the .72 is good enough. But for a tired eye, the extra magnification of the .85 was required."

 

Good point Rob F.

 

Although I still have my 20-15 vision and don't mind the .72 finder w/ the 75m lux, I do find it easier on the eyes, particularly in low light, to use the .85 body for focusing. It is also much easier for me to open my left eye and still look through the viewfinder (regardless of the lens mounted) using the a high-mag body.

 

My desire to really use the 75 lux in combination with my 35mm (#1 focal length) and 21mm (#2 focal length) has prompted me to again try to use the .85ttl as my main body instead of the .72. I tried this briefly once before but the 35mm lines drew me back to the .72. This was before I owned the 75mm. Now I'm using the Lutz eye Scoop on my Ms which changes how close I put my eye to the finder, and has the surprising benefit of keeping my thumbprints off the finder. I assume I will return to the .72 finder for use with a 35mm but I want to give the .85 another chance. The more life-like high-mag finder is a pleasure to look through regardless of the lens mounted.

[really__]

I forgot about the VC 75. Boy, that just saved me $1200!

 

Seriously, how do does the VC 75 rank on the VC build quality chart? From the few

examples I've seen, some of their lenses seem like Leica quality, others seem like old

Super-Albinars (don't ask.)

[woodward_hoffman]

IMHO the 75mm is the better choice. I own the Noctilux, but I find either the 75mm or 35mm perspective is more useful. Over Christmas with the family I used the 75mm more than anything else, shooting mainly with the lens wide open.

 

But I'd pick up and use the 1.25x magnifier with a .72 finder. That pushes the viewfinder magnification to 0.9.

[michael_kastner]

I used one with my M6 TTL 0.72 for a week.

<br>(a) I found the shots and coverage great, especially for "up close" portraits of church columns and engravings etc... but...

<br>(b) The whole lens itself was otherwise a pain in the butt since its size and weight were way out. Hey, an M is otherwise a compact and light camera! Focusing with today's Leica 75 needs a pipe wrench!!

[lutz]

Thanks, Michael. I was waiting for the magical word "pipe wrench" which I have been missing ever since Jay left us. So <a href="http://www.leicagoodies.com/steer.html">here goes again</a>...<p>Did I mention what a wonderful and unique lens the 75 lux is...? Oh, wait, the b.... word hasn't come up yet! ;-)

[peter_mcdonough3]

I have the 75 Summilux and use it on my M6/.85. I usually use it at f/1.4 and correct focus is not a problem. I had the Voightlander 75/2.5 and it was a dog-soft and flare-prone. The Leica 75mm is the finest lens I have come across in 35 years of shooting.

[james_h]

Lutz Konermann

"I was waiting for the magical word "pipe wrench"

Did I mention what a wonderful and unique lens the 75 lux is...? Oh, wait, the b.... word hasn't come up yet! ;-)"

 

Good call Lutz :-)

I'm curious, does the vented lens hood on your (older?) 75mm lock into place similar to the older Leica lenses or my CV 35 f/2.5 pancake II? During what time frame was that hood used instead of the built-in sliding hood?

 

B-word or not Lutz there is no doubt that the 75 lux has some very nice out-of-focus renderings. With the few shots I have taken with this lens it has made me think of searching for a similar 'look' lens in a 35mm focal length (even though my 35 lux ASPH is 'the lens').

 

Peter McDonough , jan 14, 2005; 07:59 p.m.

"... I had the Voightlander 75/2.5 and it was a dog-soft and flare-prone. The Leica 75mm is the finest lens I have come across in 35 years of shooting."

 

Very interesting to hear an opposing view as I have read so many accounts saying the CV 75mm is great. Surely it is a nice size and price compared to the Leica 75mm. The Leica 75 is rumored to be very flare resistant and my limited use seems to agree.

[lutz]

<i> I'm curious, does the vented lens hood on your (older?) 75mm lock into place similar to the older Leica lenses or my CV 35 f/2.5 pancake II? During what time frame was that hood used instead of the built-in sliding hood?</i><p>

Yep, it does. Plus, I've adapted (read: dremel'ed) it to mount the other way 'round, too (like the 21's), so my first type 75 (cause that's what it is) plus hood makes for a nice and compact package when stored.<p>

BTW, focussing the 75 isn't harder than focussing any other lens - on the contrary, it's easier since the focus throw is long. It's just a matter of DOF which, naturally, tends to become quite shallow wide open and close-up - as, again, with any other lens. The 75 just exceeds the other lenses possibilities in this regard.<p>

 

<i>With the few shots I have taken with this lens it has made me think of searching for a similar 'look' lens in a 35mm focal length (even though my 35 lux ASPH is 'the lens').</i>

<p>Search no further - it's the 35 lux pre-asph. Just avoid using it wide open. But from 1.7 on it's the most comparable to the 75 - in fact, I'm keeping it for exactly this reason although the 35 lux asph is "the lens" for resolution and sharpness.<p>On another note - which would be the 50 equivalent? The old lux? I've no experience with that one, so, whoever has (and knows the 75), please share.

[giselher_spitzer]

Two answers, being late: with my Hexar RF i had no problems with 'lux 75 and Nocti [means: not more than with M ;-)) ].

And: The 75 is a VERY good high performance lens. OPen i.m.o. cearly ay ahead of the Lux 50 and from 2.8..4 absolutely outstanding. At 5.6 i.m.o. You see no difference to the even heavy and big 2/90 APO.

Only week point: it is exactly between "normal" lenght of 50mm and "classic" portrait lens with 85...90mm. But that makes it more useful as a standard lens, if You want to carry.

Well - intruding... Like with Noctilux - if there is the important part (or a light source) in the right lower edge, you turn the camera 180 degrees.

But do not forget: 1.0/ - 1.4/75 - all 135 get in touch wth the limits

of the finders 0.58 and 0.72!

But a wonderful lens with the best bookeh beside "classic" 2/35 and Summicron scd. version.