edward_sharon Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 Just wondering which lens you guys suggest of the two mentioned above. I only have money for one and I already have a 50mm lux. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward_sharon Posted July 16, 2003 Author Share Posted July 16, 2003 Meant to say 90mm f2.0...andb both would be the Aspherical versions. Sorry for any confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shambrick007 Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 I've rented the 90/2.8 and it was the sharpest of any rangefinder lens I've ever used (admittedly, I've not used that many). 75 is too close to 50 for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_zevnik Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 I gave into reality and got a used pre apo asph 90 summicrom, because I could afford it and couldn't afford the 75 summilux Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerry_szarek Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 90 F2.8, it's light, small, and the money saved can buy a lot of film and processing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulr Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 I just ordered a 75lux from Don Chatterton. Little on the high side but I trust him. $1725. There is one on ebay now where I think the person wants about $1500. I have used an 85 1.4 on my F5 and really like the speed. Marc Williams has posted some beautiful B&W photos taken with the 75 lux. www.fotografz.com I understand the lux behaves like a 90 2.0 APO at 5.6. I'll have to give it a try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 <<Just wondering which lens you guys suggest of the two mentioned above. I only have money for one and I already have a 50mm lux>> I've owned two 75 Luxes, each for about a year, during which time I came to the same conclusion: that it is a magnificent lens totally wasted on the M body. It is nose-heavy, needs a pipe-wrench to turn the focus ring, and obscures a full third of the viewfinder frame. The minute number of keepers I got with it were beautiful, but most of my shots were either missed or out of focus...not because of rangefinder limitations but because of the awkward ergonomics. If Leica would have issued that lens in R mount (the 80/1.4-R is *nothing* like it despite that Erwin lumps them together)I would have one permanently mounted on an EOS Rebel body and use it strictly for portraits in low light. Although you mention that you really meant the 90/2AA rather than the 90/2.8, unless you specifically want the lens for low-light shooting, I would strongly encourage you to try both lenses, and I believe you will choose the Elmarit. It is almost a clone of the AA, performance-wise, and the ergonomics are more tailored to the M body. If you already have the 50 Lux and don't mind its shortcomings in terms of corner sharpness, it should do you just fine for the times f/1.4 is essential. But IMO there is only one Leica lens faster than f/2 worth the price of admission, and that is the 35/1.4ASPH. Take one stride closer than with a 50, and you've got stunningly crisp imagery right out to the corners even at f/1.4 (assuming the entire subject field is within the shallow DOF of course). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary_ferguson1 Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Jay, if you criticise the 75mm for intruding into the frame lines why do you favour the tri-elmar? They look about the same to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_piper2 Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Edward: It was a Freudian slip - your subconcious was telling you that you REALLY want the 90 f/2.8! 8^) IMHO either of your intended choices turns the compact M body into something heavier and harder to focus than many a nice small SLR (e.g. Nikon FM3a or Contax Aria with 85 f/1.4s). And thus the 90 f/2.8 really would be a good (non)-choice. However, since you obviously want speed (and you're not alone...) - > With either of these lenses I'd strongly recommend a .85x body - the only time I ever got sharp pictures with borrowed 75s at f/1.4 was after I got my .85x. > The 75 is NOT an ASPH/APO design - it dates from 1980 or so. > The 90 f/2 APO is sharper optically from f/2 to f/4 - whereupon the 75 catches up. The 75 is infinitely sharper at f/1.4, obviously. > The 75 is pretty close to the 50 in focal length. It probably 'pairs' better with a 35, but will provide tighter framing and much softer backgrounds than the 50 in close-up shots. By comparison the 90 will give you more reach and more large-aperture sharpness for less weight and less money. And about the same amount of background blur, but perhaps not as delicate tonally, as the 75. My bet is that if you go with the 75, it will eventually replace your 50 and you'll end up adding something wider - or you'll find out you prefer the compact 50 and dump the 75. I won't make your decision for you - but there's some input to help your own choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 When I added a 75 to a set already including a (pre-asph) 90/2 and 50/1.4, the 90 eventually got sold due to lack of use. I find the 75 view significantly different than that of a 50 but very similar to that of a 90. Somewhere buried in "Leica Adventures" archive, there's a post comparing the angles of view of the 50, 75, and 90. The biggest differences will be the size and extra stop. How much do you shoot in the dark? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freusen Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 <html> <body>Gary Ferguson, please think before you write on this forum. There is a big difference in dimensions and weight between the f1.4/75mm Summilux and the f4.0/28-35-50mm Tri-Elmar. Probably you have never put one of these lenses on your Leica otherwise you had known! <BR><BR>Specs:<BR>The f1.4/75mm Summilux weights 560grams, the length is 80mm and the diameter is 68mm.<BR>The f4.0/28-35-50mm Tri-Elmar v.1 weights 340grams, the length is 70mm and the diameter is 58mm.<BR>The f4.0/28-35-50mm Tri-Elmar v.2 weights 340grams, the length is 68mm and the diameter is 55mm.<BR></body> </html> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_w. Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 The 75 is CHEAPER from the auctions I have seen. I got mine for ~$1000, is a full stop faster, ~same size and weight (big), and I challenge anyone to see a difference in performance at 1/60, 2.0, low light for what it's made for. You want to shoot at f8.0 buy a CV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 <<Jay, if you criticise the 75mm for intruding into the frame lines why do you favour the tri-elmar? >> Valid question. The first version 3E was a real intruder, and with the shade (made for the 21 and 24 ASPHS and Leica grabbed the frontpiece from those lenses out of the parts bin for the 3E) was even worse. I sold mine. The second version is nowhere near the length and diameter of the 75 Summilux, and its shade is of the vented type. The only significant intrusion is in the 28mm frame and I always use an accessory finder for 28mm anyay because the M's finder doesn't look anything like the effect of a 28mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d._kerry_crenshaw Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 I have the 75 and the Noct, and both are fantastic lenses. I once had a 90, and I got rid of it because there is such a small frameline in the viewfinder that I could never mentally visualize how the picture was going to come out from looking through that little bitty frameline--and that was with an M3, which has the largest magnification finder that Leica has made. The 75 has a more useable frameline. I find that the 75 is great for weddings and portraits. I used to have Contax cameras, and the Zeiss 85 f1.4 is also a fantastic lens. I would say that they are comparable, with the edge going to Leica when you don't want to make a lot of noise taking a picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david11 Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 I must disagree with Steve's assessment on both points. From what I have encountered, the 75 Summilux is more expensive in the preowned market than a like condition 90 SAA lens. I use both lenses: the 75 more frequently; the 90 is preferred for tighter head shots or greater reach. At F2, the 75 has marginally increased DOF, but is not as "crisp" as the 90 SAA (some say too crisp) at F2. They are both great lenses, each with its own signature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainer_viertlb_ck Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 i love the 75 together with the 0.85 viewfinder, no problem wideopened to have sharp pictures. with the 0.72 it is much more difficult to use the lense ................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary_ferguson1 Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Frank Reusen, and you should read the post correctly before you fire-off such an ill tempered piece of nonsense. If you did you'd appreciate that my question (ably answered by Jay) concerned intrusion into the frame lines, and had nothing to do with your tedious, anal ramblings on lens weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freusen Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 <html> Gary,<BR>Look, this was the original subject: <b>90mm f2.8 vs. 75mm Lux!</b><BR> and this is what you wrote: <i>"Jay, if you criticise the 75mm for intruding into the frame lines why do you favour the tri-elmar?<BR> <b>They look about the same to me.</b>"</i><BR> If you put the 75mm Summilux & the Tri-Elmar on your Leica you will agree that you cann't compare these lenses, not for intruding into the framelines, not for the size and weight. Please stay at the subject to keep this forum as clean as possible, thanks. </html> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now