Which is better 75 f/1.4 or the new 75 f/2.0 apo

[lens_blur]

I would like to have a 75mm lens to go with M8 body. Appriciate any

suggestions. I also don't rule out the 90 f/2.0apo.

 

Thank you.

[charles_hess2]

You'll get a lot of opinions here, as all 3 lenses are superb. I chose the 75/2 APO because of its more compact size than the 1.4. Since I didn't need the extra stops of speed, I preferred the closer focusing ability of the 2.0 lens. I can say that it is the best lens I have ever owned, no matter the brand.

[ronald_moravec1]

75 2.0 is the best if you like modern Leica lenses. It maintains sharpness into close range whereas the 90 2.0 APO does not.

 

The 75 1.4 is larger and heavier than the 2.0. It does not achieve complete sharpness at 1.4 and 2.0. 2.8 and smaller, it is outstanding. It is among the best of the Mandler era optics and is much like the 90 2.0 pre ASPH.

[stephen_w.]

"It does not achieve complete sharpness at 1.4 and 2.0. 2.8 and smaller, it is outstanding."

 

Huh?

[Rob F.]

Stephen: Like most lenses, it requires some stopping down to reach its best performance. Ronald is just saying he begins to notice the improvement starting around f/2.8. Optimum for this lens is f/5.6.

 

I can tell you that at f/5.6, my 75mm Summilux is just as good as my 90mm AA. There's a thread around here somewhere with some uploads I posted, to illustrate this.

[david11]

"It does not achieve complete sharpness at 1.4 and 2.0. 2.8 and smaller, it is outstanding."

 

Not sure what "complete sharpness" is. Virtually all lenses benefit by stopping down, the 75 Summicron is no exception. Yes, the 75 Summicron does employ all of the new lens technologies: Apo Correction, ASPH lens, floating lens for close focus correction, special glass types, etc. But it is 2.0.

 

I use a 75 Summilux, and am pleased with its performance. It is sharp at 1.4. Some users have a problem focusing in the near range wide open with the Summilux. When I use it I don't ask myself if my images would be improved had I used the new Summicron. I need 1.4; do you?

[aplumpton]

No experience with either, but have heard that the Summicron, being a more modern optic, has best definition, overall contrast and micro-contrast. Has anyone measured them against each other in a critical way? Probably you might never need the differences, unless you print to 16 x 20 (and then your enlarger or scanner optics might be the weak link...).

[stuart_richardson]

I have both. The difference between the f/2 and the 1.4 is pretty much inconsequential at

f/2.8 and above. The summicron has a bit more contrast. The main difference is that the

summilux gets a bit soft and glowy at f/1.4, though it is still sharp compared to most

lenses. It has a very ethereal feel to it when used wide open. The summicron looks the

same regardless of aperture...only the DOF changes. The summilux is a lot bigger and

heavier. In use, if you just want a great, sharp lens for daily use, get the summicron. If you

want a lens that is very similar to a summicron from 2.8 to 16, but has some "romantic"

effects at 1.4 to 2.0, then get the summilux. I prefer either to any 50 or 90mm lens I have

used. The 90/2 APO ASPH will be like the 75/2 in character, only it has a longer

perspective and a 1m minimum focus instead of .7m. All of these lenses are great, it is

about what your preference is in focal length, the way they draw the image, and in bulk/

weight.

[ronald_moravec1]

In simple English, it is not as sharp at 1.4 and 2.0 as it is at 2.8 and smaller. Typical of the technology of the time.

 

Todays lenses are closer to the maximum performance of smaller stops when used wide open compared to older designs. In other words there is not as much difference open ot closed except debth of field.

[david k.]

Both are excellent, depends on what "look" you want wide open.

 

Cron: high resolution and contrast, Lux: beautiful OOF image.

[fjords]

Of significance, the summicron doesn't show up @ f/1.4, yehh!

[x-ray]

It's hard to see on the internet but his image was shot tripod mounted with HP5 at 1/15 and 1.4 with the 75 summilux. The focus was on the cover of the bible and the testure of the cover is tack sharp. I use it on .85x MP's and have no problem focusing but it is critical focusing wide open. Properly focused it's tack sharp at 1.4 but as mentioned virtually all lenses improve some stopped down two or three stops.<div></div>

[larry_kincaid1]

Sounds like the cron is close to modern perfection. But the 75mm Lux is magic. I wear glasses and use it on a .58 M6 and now M8. I've never had much trouble focusing; never understood what all the fuss was about. Occasionally it's softer than expected or I miss the focus, but to me it's worth the trouble. With the M8 I can check the focus. Weight is not a problem compared to Nikon SLR with 180mm lens (Nice comparison, no? Why compare it to a P&S?). However, for long hikes I do have a tendency to take the 50mm Lux instead. This is not such a bad choice to have to make.

[02Pete]

Define "better." I own and use the 75mm f/2. I haven't used the 75mm f/1.4 or 90mm f/2 APO, so I can't comment on them from first-hand experience. The 75mm f/2 is an all-around lens that does many things well, and is excellent for candid available-light portraiture. It is fast enough for available-light shooting, offers high optical quality at all apertures and distances, is compact and not too heavy, focuses quickly, handles well, balances well on an M body, and has a lockable built-in lens shade. It uses multiple glass types, an aspherical element and a movable rear group to deliver those qualities, so it costs an unreasonable amount of money. Compared with the 75mm f/1.4 and 90mm f/2 APO, the 75mm f/2 is somewhat smaller and lighter, and may handle slightly better. It won't isolate subjects using shallow depth of field at maximum aperture quite as well as the 75mm f/1.4 can, but it may offer better image quality at close focusing distances and maximum aperture than the 90mm f/2. It's my new favorite lens, and I don't regret spending the money to buy it. Whether it's "better" will depend upon what qualities you most value in a lens: compact size, exceptional optical quality and excellent handling (75mm f/2); the ability to isolate subjects with shallow depth of field and shoot in especially dim available light (75mm f/1.4); or the ability to deliver exceptionally sharp results at medium to longer distances (90mm f/2 APO). In the words of the carney barker, "Ya pays yer money an' ya takes yer choice."

[jeff_drew4]

<<Appriciate any suggestions.>><p>

Looking outside the lines; you may want to consider the C/V Color Heliar 75mm f/2.8. Add an M adapter and you are generally in business for under $400! I am not saying it is the equal of the above beautimous Leica lenses, but it is very close to them in every-day image terms! Anyway, it suffices for the times when I need a 75mm. Thus I have enough $$ remaining to add other stuff to the bag.

[guy_mancuso]

After trying several versions of lens setups including the 75mm cron . i decided what

worked best for me was a 50 lux , 75 lux and 90 apo which is very similar to the 75 cron

and i needed a fast long lens for certain jobs but the 75mm lux is the lens that has the

character to it and reason i switched to that and very similar thoughts on what Stuart

already mentioned. it's sort of like 2 lenses in one with nice character open or close to it

but a razor blade at around F4 . The 75mm cron is a great lens though and certainly is as

sharp as it can get and has nice weight , focusing and all that wonderful stuff . So you

really can't go wrong. maybe think of it as if you only want 1 lens above 50mm than the

75 cron is the one to get but if you want 2 for different things than maybe what i did

makes sense 75 lux and 90 apo.