75mm 1.4 Summilux ( a few images with it)

[pensacolaphoto]

<p>I like the results from this lens. Focusing can be very challenging when used wide open, but with extra care, this should be manageable.</p>

<p>I took these two photos wide open with ASA100 film.</p>

<div></div>

[pensacolaphoto]

<p>This is a second image,also at 1.4 hand held.</p><div></div>

[pensacolaphoto]

<p>The third image was taken at 2.8 outdoors.</p><div></div>

[pensacolaphoto]

<p>Here are smaller sized images shown directly.</p><div></div>

[pensacolaphoto]

<p>Here is the second image smaller</p><div></div>

[pensacolaphoto]

<p>... abd here is the third image as small.</p><div></div>

[pensacolaphoto]

<p>I may have picked images that are not very sharp. No excuses here, but people move, and I have sharper images on the same roll. I like these.</p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>Well, congratulations, you got the Summilux 75/1.4. It is truly a beautiful lens. If you don't have a magnifier I suggest getting one for critical wide open focus. </p>

[pensacolaphoto]

<p>Thank you, Alex. I need glasses for my eyes anyways, so focusing such a lens is a challenge.I have a magnifier,and your advice is a good one. I should use it.</p>

[jerry_lehrer1]

<p>Raid,<br>

The plane of focus is wafer thin. But it IS sharp. Observe the one stray hair close to the face in the first photo. The magnified image shows its sharpness.</p>

 

[pensacolaphoto]

<p>Hi Jerry. Thanks for your input. I was in the past challenged by the Canon 85/1.2L when used wide open, and now this lens will make me take more care in focusing. In the first two images, the light was dim, and with ISO100 film and at 1.4, I was using a speed of 1/30 with this heavy lens. My eyes may be not totally bad.</p>

 

[pensacolaphoto]

<p>These shots are from the second roll.</p><div></div>

[pensacolaphoto]

<p>Same image is shown smaller. There was window light on the top of the head,which made a balanced exposure difficult.</p><div></div>

[pensacolaphoto]

<p>This is another image from the second roll (small)</p><div></div>

[charles_freeland]

<p>You may now have a beautiful lens, Raid, but you've always had a beautiful family. Congratulations on both counts!</p>

 

[pensacolaphoto]

<p>Thank you, Charles. This is exactly what I was also thinking. I view them as beautiful anyways.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>congrats, it truly is a beautiful lens. at minimum focus distance and f1.4, it is difficult to to get sharp results if you focus and recompose, but not impossible.</p>

[pensacolaphoto]

<p>Hi Ty,<br>

I was at the minimum distance, by the way. I recall having to lean back to be able to get the len to focus. Difficult, but not impossible, as you have said.</p>

[brucecahn]

<p>Very nice. I may have to get one of those.</p>

[pensacolaphoto]

<p>Thanks, Bruce. I sold several lenses to buy this lens.</p>

[markus maurer]

<p>What a nice way to remind me to use my SMC Takumar 85mm F1.8 fully open, I seem to use my primes at MFT F5.6-8 most of the times and really could use them more creative with some DOF play like you did.</p>

[pensacolaphoto]

<p>Hi Markus,</p>

<p>Thanks.<br>

I encourage you to use the SMS 85/1.8 between 1.8 and 2.8 and in open shade when you can.I have the same lens, and I love it.</p>

<p> </p>

[pensacolaphoto]

<p>I meant to write SMC and not SMS. There is a reason why the 85mm lens is held in high regard.</p>

[joe_faust]

<p>Nice window light.</p>

[michael_dimarzio]

<p>Hi Raid, allow me to post a picture. I had this lens briefly, and the results can be stunning, no, as you see, more then stunning.</p>

<p>The image is resized from a 1800 pixel wide Wally World scan, the first shot from the lens. The pooch's ear is cropped, it was taken on a new used RF and I confused the 50/75 bright lines. A setup that requires practice, but looking at the very the first photo, as you have found, it's pretty unique. The acceptable focus at minimum is less then an inch. The line on the nose is a scar barely wider then a hair.</p>

<p>Well, "test" shots are rarely interesting, other then as a test, but I do have a semi OT question for you and the rest of the community.</p>

<p>There was a comment made here about the quality of OOF areas of pre vs. ASPH lenses. The observation was that ASPH OOF tended to be harsh and less pleasing. In my limited experience, I'm finding that to be true. I wish I could have compared a 35 pre and post ASPH Lux, and the modern 135 3.4 vs a 135/2,8. What are your experiences?</p>

<p>Cheers-michael</p>