Anyone who like to share his/her experience of using this lens ? This lens,like its bigger brother 90 2 ASPH, also has a sharp image at f2. To me, I have nothing to criticise at all. I got virtually everything from this lens. This lens is the most expensive in my Leica collection.
75mm f2 Summicron ASPH
- Thread starter wang
- Start date
laurent_ldp
Well-Known Member
I have experience with, now the old version, the f1,4. For me the best small tele, the only problem is his weight. My question is why they don't continue with the 1,4.? Is it a technical problem.? is it what the market want.? or is it an error in the evaluation of the market needs.?
Thanks. Laurent
Thanks. Laurent
I don't know, but I can give you a good guess.
I play with my Contax 85 1.4 by putting a second aperture in front of the lens. It is basically black cardboard paper covering the most peripheral part of the lens. The area covered is half of the original total area. This way the lens is effectively changed to a 85 2.0.
I tested my "new" toy and found that the new 2.0 is a lot better than the uncovered version. It is so much better that you can even see a clearer picture in the viewfinder because it is an SLR. The "old" one has poor performance at 1.4, in fact, so poor that I never use it. You might try this little trick on your Summicron 75 1.4 and found a much improved f2.
What now I believe is that it is easier to make a 75 2 with happy customer. In the 1.4 version, the making of 1.4 will poorly affects the performance of the lens at f2 and other f
nos.
.
I play with my Contax 85 1.4 by putting a second aperture in front of the lens. It is basically black cardboard paper covering the most peripheral part of the lens. The area covered is half of the original total area. This way the lens is effectively changed to a 85 2.0.
I tested my "new" toy and found that the new 2.0 is a lot better than the uncovered version. It is so much better that you can even see a clearer picture in the viewfinder because it is an SLR. The "old" one has poor performance at 1.4, in fact, so poor that I never use it. You might try this little trick on your Summicron 75 1.4 and found a much improved f2.
What now I believe is that it is easier to make a 75 2 with happy customer. In the 1.4 version, the making of 1.4 will poorly affects the performance of the lens at f2 and other f
nos.
.
Allow me to add some small amount of information concerning the new Asph 75/2.0. I believe that Leica made the news 75 summicron in the "image" of the newer design for both the M 50/1.4 and the R 50/1.4. These lenses have a floating element of some sort ( I am hardly a lens designer, and my terminology and understanding are probably both in error ), and the arrangement of the lens elements and types of glass used are similar. Both of these lenses, i.e., the new 50 M and 50 R 1.4 produce a wonderful image that is noticeably "different" from their predecessors. The images are "sharper", and have a much different almost "pastel" rendering of the colors with very accurate and detailed gradations between shades. It is this "look" that the new 75 summicron has. Indeed, a very knowledgeable Leica photographer and camera store owner told me that the 75/1.4 might be used as a more "portrait friendly" lens for photos of one's wife, wherein the 75/2.0 would be too sharp. Although the focal lengths and platforms are different, another rough comparison might be between the rendering of a face using the R 80/1.4 ( portrait friendly if you will ), and the M Asph 90/2.0 ( portrait unfriendly using the same terminology ).
Incidentally, I have read that the "new" M Asph 90/2.0 has been discontinued by Leica. Is such information accurate?
Elliot Puritz
Incidentally, I have read that the "new" M Asph 90/2.0 has been discontinued by Leica. Is such information accurate?
Elliot Puritz
Well, different people have different views. I am the newer generation of photographer who likes sharp images for portraits. This is why I sold my pre-ASPH R902 and obtained a R90 2.8. This is also why I put a second aperture to my Contax 85 1.4 and tell other people to do so. I photograph my wife with sharp lenses. I don't mind details of the face being seen, but I do mind if the eyes are not sharp enough. The other thing I mind very much now is astigmatism. Lenses with astigmatism renders the skin less pleasing than non-astigmatic lenses.
M75 2 do have a very complicated system of floating elements, I am impressed by the engineering design although I am no expert in this. There are two groups of lenses in M75 2 and they are moving front and back in diferent pace, so the lens has two different rotating systems. It seems to be more complicated than my Contax 85 1.2 in which one group stay still and other moving. My 85 1.2 is my most expensive lens, second being my 75 2.
The current M50 1.4 Asph has a very good 1.4. I do not have this lens because I believe it is not so good in other f nos. Indeed it is a general rule that the smaller is the first f no., the lens will not perform well in second and others. I see this phen. in many situations such as R35 2 /R35 2.8, M50 1, M50 1.4, M50 2, M75 1.4/M75 2, Pre-ASH R90 2/ R90 2.8. The only exception to this rule is the pair R90 2 ASPH/ R90 2.8 where the former is better than the latter at all f-nos.
I heard rumours saying that the chrome version of M90 2 ASPH will be discontinued but I can find no confirmation to this.
M75 2 do have a very complicated system of floating elements, I am impressed by the engineering design although I am no expert in this. There are two groups of lenses in M75 2 and they are moving front and back in diferent pace, so the lens has two different rotating systems. It seems to be more complicated than my Contax 85 1.2 in which one group stay still and other moving. My 85 1.2 is my most expensive lens, second being my 75 2.
The current M50 1.4 Asph has a very good 1.4. I do not have this lens because I believe it is not so good in other f nos. Indeed it is a general rule that the smaller is the first f no., the lens will not perform well in second and others. I see this phen. in many situations such as R35 2 /R35 2.8, M50 1, M50 1.4, M50 2, M75 1.4/M75 2, Pre-ASH R90 2/ R90 2.8. The only exception to this rule is the pair R90 2 ASPH/ R90 2.8 where the former is better than the latter at all f-nos.
I heard rumours saying that the chrome version of M90 2 ASPH will be discontinued but I can find no confirmation to this.
I have started using the summicron 75 and I am stunned by its quality at F2.and also at other F values. It gives images of a new quality to me, I never had before.
It is pleasantly sharp and creamy (in the out of focus area). It gives a pleasant perspective and really gives the people photographied their very best look. No distortion, 3D effect, you are not too close to your subject, you have DOF, even wide open...
Also this lens is very quick to use (minimal effort and duration to cover the whole distance range), and quite discreet.
It does not look like a big lens on your camera.
It is pleasantly sharp and creamy (in the out of focus area). It gives a pleasant perspective and really gives the people photographied their very best look. No distortion, 3D effect, you are not too close to your subject, you have DOF, even wide open...
Also this lens is very quick to use (minimal effort and duration to cover the whole distance range), and quite discreet.
It does not look like a big lens on your camera.
mmagid3005
New Member
I always thought that depth of field was a mathematical thing, that it was the same for Leica and, e.g., Zeiss, etc. Does the Leica f/2 Summicron actually have a wider dof than other lenses?
I mean DOF compared with a 50 mm and 90mmm.
To me, to take pictures of people, the 75 mm offers a perspectve and a DOF very different of that of a 50 mm or a 90 mm. I find the results more charming and people friendly.
When you see the results of a portrait taken with a 50, a 75 and a 90 mm, for the same size of the visage on the print, the perspective and DOF of the 75 mm is the most charming. With a 50 mm you would have to come closer to your subject, wich would distort a bit more (nose looks more far from the ears, visage abit as an inflated balloon)) and it is the opposite with the 90 mm, whith which you would have a more flat picture (nose closer to the ears, as if you had a flat visage)...
Also with a 50 mm, you would need to be more intrusive and close to your subject, the opposite with the 90 mm, but due to the additional distance, you would be too far to obtain a close contact with your subject.
I hope this is clearer.
Best regards.
To me, to take pictures of people, the 75 mm offers a perspectve and a DOF very different of that of a 50 mm or a 90 mm. I find the results more charming and people friendly.
When you see the results of a portrait taken with a 50, a 75 and a 90 mm, for the same size of the visage on the print, the perspective and DOF of the 75 mm is the most charming. With a 50 mm you would have to come closer to your subject, wich would distort a bit more (nose looks more far from the ears, visage abit as an inflated balloon)) and it is the opposite with the 90 mm, whith which you would have a more flat picture (nose closer to the ears, as if you had a flat visage)...
Also with a 50 mm, you would need to be more intrusive and close to your subject, the opposite with the 90 mm, but due to the additional distance, you would be too far to obtain a close contact with your subject.
I hope this is clearer.
Best regards.
Attached was shot with an M7, 75mm f1.4 at 1.4, on 200asa Fujicolor. Scanned with an Epson perfection 3200.
This lens is my favourite, and I confess shyly to having tried all from 21mm to 135mm, plus one of those silly 12mm Voigtlanders. (Second choice is f1.4 35mm for general work.)
The attraction of f1.4 is the very shallow DoF which makes the subject "swim" in front of the background. And I love the bokeh too. I could not see myself going to the f2.0 75mm. The better definition, if one could notice it, would nowhere compensate for the loss of a stop and its "swim" factor.
Cheers - LCL
This lens is my favourite, and I confess shyly to having tried all from 21mm to 135mm, plus one of those silly 12mm Voigtlanders. (Second choice is f1.4 35mm for general work.)
The attraction of f1.4 is the very shallow DoF which makes the subject "swim" in front of the background. And I love the bokeh too. I could not see myself going to the f2.0 75mm. The better definition, if one could notice it, would nowhere compensate for the loss of a stop and its "swim" factor.
Cheers - LCL