newyork wrote:
How are you guys feeling between this and the 75 1.5 for general walk around use and portrait, paired with a 35 1.5 ?
Here are my thoughts which are very compatible with Phillip's. I am a real fan of the 75 f/1.5. Stopped down to f/2.8 it really is a very modern lens in having very few aberrations. Chromatic aberrations are well controlled, coma is well controlled. Vignetting is pretty mild, and there is virtually no spherical aberrations. Stopped down it makes a wonderful landscape lens or just any time you want a lot of clarity in the image.
Wider than f/2.8 and the lens has a bit more character, but in a way that I really like. It is a mix for portraits that works well for what I like. Reasonably high resolution with very nice bokeh and still quite low CA. I like this lens enough that when I got it an used it for awhile I sold my Leica R 80 lux, which is really high praise as I liked that lens a lot for portraits.
For me it has that dual character. Really sharp and clean stopped down, but with a very nice rendering at wider apertures.It is one of my favorite lenses and pairs well with a 35mm.
I of course haven't had the CV 90 f/2 APO, almost no one has except Fred. I have had the Leica M 90 f/2 AA, however, that Fred compares to the CV 90 f/2 APO in this review and it was one of my favorites as well. The CV 90 f/2 APO seems to be similar and if anything even cleaner in having less aberrations. It appears to have a really strong modern rendering right from wide open (so about a stop sooner than the 75 f/1.5). You would lose the rendering with more character that you would have with the 75 f/1.5 at wider aperture, but you would get modern rendering at wider apertures. So, it depends on what you want.
Personally, I like both types of rendering but for different things. I like to pair the 75 f/1.5 with a 35 with more modern rendering at wider apertures--something like the CV 35 f/2 APO, and I think I would like to pair the 90 f/2 APO with something that has more character wide open like the CV 50 f/1.2 or maybe the Thypoch 50 f/1.4. That gives me more versatility in the looks I can create. Pairing the 90 f/2 APO with the 35 f/1.5 would give you that versatility, but 35 to 90 is a pretty big gap, so I think you would need to be comfortable cropping the 35 f/1.5 to 50 f/2.2 frequently. If you are then that pairing might work well too.
I think maybe the 75 is the one for me for now then. Thank you for all your help and taking your time to offer it.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Here are my thoughts which are very compatible with Phillip's. I am a real fan of the 75 f/1.5. Stopped down to f/2.8 it really is a very modern lens in having very few aberrations. Chromatic aberrations are well controlled, coma is well controlled. Vignetting is pretty mild, and there is virtually no spherical aberrations. Stopped down it makes a wonderful landscape lens or just any time you want a lot of clarity in the image.
Wider than f/2.8 and the lens has a bit more character, but in a way that I really like. It is a mix for portraits that works well for what I like. Reasonably high resolution with very nice bokeh and still quite low CA. I like this lens enough that when I got it an used it for awhile I sold my Leica R 80 lux, which is really high praise as I liked that lens a lot for portraits.
For me it has that dual character. Really sharp and clean stopped down, but with a very nice rendering at wider apertures.It is one of my favorite lenses and pairs well with a 35mm.
I of course haven't had the CV 90 f/2 APO, almost no one has except Fred. I have had the Leica M 90 f/2 AA, however, that Fred compares to the CV 90 f/2 APO in this review and it was one of my favorites as well. The CV 90 f/2 APO seems to be similar and if anything even cleaner in having less aberrations. It appears to have a really strong modern rendering right from wide open (so about a stop sooner than the 75 f/1.5). You would lose the rendering with more character that you would have with the 75 f/1.5 at wider aperture, but you would get modern rendering at wider apertures. So, it depends on what you want.
Personally, I like both types of rendering but for different things. I like to pair the 75 f/1.5 with a 35 with more modern rendering at wider apertures--something like the CV 35 f/2 APO, and I think I would like to pair the 90 f/2 APO with something that has more character wide open like the CV 50 f/1.2 or maybe the Thypoch 50 f/1.4. That gives me more versatility in the looks I can create. Pairing the 90 f/2 APO with the 35 f/1.5 would give you that versatility, but 35 to 90 is a pretty big gap, so I think you would need to be comfortable cropping the 35 f/1.5 to 50 f/2.2 frequently. If you are then that pairing might work well too....Show more →
newyork wrote:
I think maybe the 75 is the one for me for now then. Thank you for all your help and taking your time to offer it.
The 75/1.5 is nice ... my only "nit" about mine (traded for my Leica 75/2.4) was the amount of focus shift I had with it at certain aperture / distance combos. Not a deal breaker, just something to be aware of, so it doesn't frustrate you. For me, it was my "learning curve" lens regarding focus shift, so it took me a minute to better understand what / why it was happening.
Even though I've got my M 75/2.4 ... the rendering of it isn't the same as my Vintage series, 75/1.5 was. I've since picked up the "little brother" of the 75/1.5 in the form of the Vintage 50/1.5 II (still haven't shot it much) to sit between my "modern" 35 Cron and 75/2.4 with their ASPH elements, for when I want more of that vintage SA look and less of that modern ASPH look. And, I've got my truly vintage 40 Cron, as well.
I’ve thought about that lens but thought maybe that’s too close and similar to my 35 1.5. Also thought about Fred’s 50mm skopar suggestion which looks excellent.
35/75 sounded great but this 90 distracted me.
RustyBug wrote:
The 75/1.5 is nice ... my only "nit" about mine (traded for my Leica 75/2.4) was the amount of focus shift I had with it at certain aperture / distance combos. Not a deal breaker, just something to be aware of, so it doesn't frustrate you. For me, it was my "learning curve" lens regarding focus shift, so it took me a minute to better understand what / why it was happening.
Even though I've got my M 75/2.4 ... the rendering of it isn't the same as my Vintage series, 75/1.5 was. I've since picked up the "little brother" of the 75/1.5 in the form of the Vintage 50/1.5 II (still haven't shot it much) to sit between my "modern" 35 Cron and 75/2.4 with their ASPH elements, for when I want more of that vintage SA look and less of that modern ASPH look. And, I've got my truly vintage 40 Cron, as well.
newyork wrote:
I’ve thought about that lens but thought maybe that’s too close and similar to my 35 1.5. Also thought about Fred’s 50mm skopar suggestion which looks excellent.
35/75 sounded great but this 90 distracted me.
I can relate ... this 90 looks like a dandy. Kinda hard to ignore.
Kinda like having a beautiful (inside and out) girlfriend and Naomi Campbell walks by.
It doesn't mean you're gonna dump the one you love, but it sure is hard to not notice.
Are you saying 75 is a little long to be paired with 35?
philip_pj wrote:
The 75/1.5 is a lens with a strong visual signature with very few flaws outside nitpicking which would include softness wide open at near distance, breathing noticeably even from 2m to MFD, some slightly retained blade shapes in certain bokeh balls, highlights may get out of hand easily at times.
So they are both very proficient, and the general walk around test for the 90/2 could see it being more similar to, than different from the 75/1.5. Are you are 75-80mm fan or a 90/100mm (many of them breathe that much)? You will very likely find 90mm pushes you into certain types of images, in crowded streets you can't be fussy. I used a 100mm for years, which narrowed down to portraits, still very enjoyable if narrow focus.
The 75mm is more of a long 58mm backed up by both brightly flavored contents in the focus fade areas and really good deep bokeh from say, 10m. It permits decent cropping by f4-f8, it's very high performance there. Colour is vibrant and lively, there is a touch of vintage about its character.
I think it's their best lens for the aesthetics (personal of course) which is why I suggested you look into it enough to see how it strikes you. Some prefer the 75/1.9, but I am after a more strident look at 75mm.
..and look closely at the portraits in the video, stop the play to see how a stills image would look. That way you can see how it shapes peoples' heads and faces in 3D, and the fade to the ears, hair.
It has the Otus formula of one asph element at the rear that (I believe) is responsible for the distinctive signature. It's their longest lens with any aspherics, from memory.
I wouldn't hazard a guess about the 90/2 APO beyond the basics - it just takes time to get to know them well. But there will be a number of YT influencers taking it in hand, I'm sure, and it all adds to your basis for choosing. Short teles are specialist lenses to my mind, it's hard to choose the right one.
To the QU, the 75mm is a much better companion lens to a 35mm lens. You don't want too big a gap in the middle in a two lens setup, and a 75mm is about as longer from 50mm as a 35mm is shorter than 50mm, on the wider side. Just my take....Show more →
newyork wrote:
Are you saying 75 is a little long to be paired with 35?
I am sure Phillip will answer in due time, but I thought I would chime in and say that for me 35mm and 75mm make a very nice pair, but that's me and I have a 60MP sensor camera and I don't mind cropping. If I crop 35mm to 50mm I still can have a very nice image. When I had a lower megapixel 24MP camera, I was less happy cropping and preferred a 28, 50, 90 trio to a 35/75 pair. I think this is a subjective decision and what works for me might not work for you.
I’ve gotcha. I have a 24mp and my only lens is a 35mm 1.5
I don’t crop too much other than aspect ration changes etc. depending on the image anyways.
35/75/90 or even 35/50/90 might work
Steve Spencer wrote:
I am sure Phillip will answer in due time, but I thought I would chime in and say that for me 35mm and 75mm make a very nice pair, but that's me and I have a 60MP sensor camera and I don't mind cropping. If I crop 35mm to 50mm I still can have a very nice image. When I had a lower megapixel 24MP camera, I was less happy cropping and preferred a 28, 50, 90 trio to a 35/75 pair. I think this is a subjective decision and what works for me might not work for you.
50mm is the central focal length we are all used to, in our manufactured reality at least - 43mm is the true 'scientific' normal. So for many two lens kits you need one wider lens and one longer lens than normal to have balance.
Some movies are shot this way - they will use an 'immersive' wide lens for 80%, then add in 'inserts' of footage shot with a portrait lens. They even use a specific FL for each actor because some faces look better with a longer or shorter lens.
But the further you go from that middle, images appear less 'normal' in both senses of the word.
35/85 works for many non-Leica people because they have no shorter telephotos to choose from that are longer than 50-58mm. And ability to crop works very well for focal lengths closer to normal.
In a two lens kit, the other lens chosen exerts a pulling pressure on you to choose a lens with less of a gap. So a wider lens drags down your best other lens - so a 28/50 set or 40-90 works well but a 35/50 does not, nor does a 50/75. If you take a 24/110 you will miss a lot of opportunities, to use an extreme example.
These are for average use photography. You might want two close lenses for some settings, like 21/28 for landscapes in tight environments. Three lens kits are traditional choices, for example 28/50/100 was common for SLRs last century, with OVFs and poor wide angles.
Between those two, you can cover a lot. Even if you're only on 24MP ... there's always the ability to uprezz with today's software. For perspective, I had a 14MP file, that I had to crop down to 5MP, and it is now hanging permanent in a restaurant for the last 10 years or so (about 32-36" wide, iirc).
40 / 50 as mentioned are the nearest to "normal", so a bit on either side puts you at the 35 / 75 readily.
Way back when, I rolled with a 28 and 75-150 zoom. Had a 50, but dang near never used it. Pretty much my head already knew if I was shooting wide or long, and was a "no brainer" to decide between wide vs. long.
Classic three lens setups can be something ling 35 / 85 / 135 ... just depends on how big you want your steps to be. 28 / 50 / 90 is another setup that some roll with. Plenty of ways to skin the cat, but mostly it is a matter of understanding "how YOU think" in your approach.
Basically, if you are just trying to "cover your bases" ... alternatively, just focus on what you USE, vs. the "what if's" for the in between. If the in between becomes a strong use case ... well, cross that bridge down the road.
There is another aspect to things ... are you using only one body, or do you carry two bodies? That can influence how you want to roll, too.
Imo, 35 / 75 is about the simplest two lens you can roll with. 28 / 50 is another one if you aren't short tele inclined.
Well said. I’d be carting one body. 35 for probably 80-%.
75 or 90 will be my choice and I think 75 is it.
RustyBug wrote:
35 / 75 makes a nice pair.
Mover your feet (forward / backward)
Crop
Between those two, you can cover a lot. Even if you're only on 24MP ... there's always the ability to uprezz with today's software. For perspective, I had a 14MP file, that I had to crop down to 5MP, and it is now hanging permanent in a restaurant for the last 10 years or so (about 32-36" wide, iirc).
40 / 50 as mentioned are the nearest to "normal", so a bit on either side puts you at the 35 / 75 readily.
Way back when, I rolled with a 28 and 75-150 zoom. Had a 50, but dang near never used it. Pretty much my head already knew if I was shooting wide or long, and was a "no brainer" to decide between wide vs. long.
Classic three lens setups can be something ling 35 / 85 / 135 ... just depends on how big you want your steps to be. 28 / 50 / 90 is another setup that some roll with. Plenty of ways to skin the cat, but mostly it is a matter of understanding "how YOU think" in your approach.
Basically, if you are just trying to "cover your bases" ... alternatively, just focus on what you USE, vs. the "what if's" for the in between. If the in between becomes a strong use case ... well, cross that bridge down the road.
There is another aspect to things ... are you using only one body, or do you carry two bodies? That can influence how you want to roll, too.
Imo, 35 / 75 is about the simplest two lens you can roll with. 28 / 50 is another one if you aren't short tele inclined....Show more →
newyork wrote:
I’ve gotcha. I have a 24mp and my only lens is a 35mm 1.5
I don’t crop too much other than aspect ration changes etc. depending on the image anyways.
35/75/90 or even 35/50/90 might work
I've been thinking about the same things. I also have and like the 35 1.5 (though I've got an LLL 8E on the way, we'll see which wins) but I want a longer lens to pair with it (and possibly wider?)
I've got the m11 though, so cropping 35-50 feels pretty reasonable for me. Might be the 90 (and maybe a 21?) that makes its way into my bag.
Adamwilbert wrote:
I've got the m11 though, so cropping 35-50 feels pretty reasonable for me.
+1
I find this to be true for just about any MP camera these days.
I don't think in terms of cropping 35 > 74 (200%) as it pertains to MP count, only 35 > 50 (150%).
Leica advocates in their literature and crop modes for the Q2 at 35 / 50 / 75.
My experience has been that even starting as deep as the Q2 with its 26mm ... 50mm (200%) is reasonable when you need to. I think 75 (while doable) is a bit of a marketing stretch, all the way from 26 (i.e. 300%). Up through 40 (150%) ... all day long.
Extrapolating a shift, to start at 35 ... 35 > 50 all day long. The difference between 50 > 75 is going to be the lens change, and/or move your feet. Imo, the key to cropping isn't the MP ... it's the quality of the glass. This was something I noticed when I got my first Leica lens (28/2.8 Elmarit ASPH) ... I could crop down to 300% (and posted examples of such in the boards) like never before. My previous glass, pretty much tapped out around 150-200% before it gave up the ghost.
So yeah, great glass can easily cover 35 > 50 (150%) with crop, imo.
Likewise, 75 > 105 is a snap.
Imo, having a 150% wiggle room in your approach isn't "stretching" things very much, and one can have full confidence in doing so.
I reckon that's where the 35 > 90 combo leaves things a bit more of a stretch, in that 35 > 70 is 200% (en route to 90), and that puts me in a bit more of a 200% territory for cropping. Now, my MP's start to matter more if I'm gonna play in the 200% range on a regular basis. Of course, what you're gonna do with you pixels does impact how many you need to wind up with in the end.
But, 35 > 50 (great glass) ... any MP, all day long.
I'm good all day long at 150% on any of my rigs: M246 / SL2-S (24MP) / M10R (40MP) / Q2 (47MP)
That's just what another part of what good glass can do for you.
If a lens can resolve well down to 40 llpm, and we crop > enlarge to the same size needed, where does that land our 40 llpm after 200% crop. Not sure, if that simply becomes 20 llpm.
Sticking with that premise, a lens that resolves well only down to 30 llpm, a 200% crop lands the final at 15 llpm.
So, a 40 llpm with a 150% crop, leaves us 27 llpm (almost 30 llpm), and a 300 llpm with a 150% crop leaves us around 20 llpm.
Not totally sure that this is the right math ... but, I think you get the gist of quality of glass + crop / enlargement = final resolution (also relative to viewing distance, etc.). Sticking with good glass and 150% crop keeps things in the 30 llpm. So, when folks think about tossing MP's it's also "stretching" llpm.
Feel free to correct my math, but I think the principle is viable. At least, I hope it is.
Completely depends on what your desired output resolution is and which part of system resolution will be limiting first. You can still do a lot with 6mp output so a 2x crop from a 24mp sensor is probably fine for many if the glass is „good enough“.
The notion that „great glass“ somehow plays a bigger role than the sensor seems odd as system resolution is multiplicative (basically lens MTF x sensor MTF). So both are equally important or rather it’s a question of the weakest link in the chain.
