nixland wrote:
Fall in love more and more with my Summilux 80 .. the color is superbly gorgeous .. I like it a lot. Perfect color in the first shot, no need for PP
Nixland, great skin tone. I really like my Summilux 80 too but lately was using 28-90mm Leica zoom. This zoom is amazing but nothing beats Summilux 80 for portraits.
In a weak moment those days, I was contemplating about selling all my lenses and get all R glass instead. It is this thick and creamy rendering that you hate as far as I remember, but I love it . Those are all OOC btw, I think I never published any image that did not need any PP.
No, I love it, I think denoir doesn't like it, or at least didn't once upon a time. I still think I prefer my Leica glass slightly to my Zeiss glass, in general, but there are specific Zeiss lenses which are awesome, and I don't want to sacrifice everything to get an M9 right now. I will leave that for the M10
nixland - could you compare/contrast the 85LII and the 80 Summilux more? I'm familiar with the 80 Summilux, by way of the 75 Summilux M, but am curious how you think the two lenses differ.
nixland wrote:
If only Lux 80 is as sharp as Zeiss/Samyang wide open with no glow, I will sell both
I think if the 80 were sharp wide open, it would lose some of it's appeal as a portrait lens. A friend of mine wouldn't let me take her picture unless I was using "the crow's feet eraser." And with my copy, I found it was sharper in the center than my 85LII when both were shot at f/2. By f/2.8, it was razor sharp across the frame.
kidtexas wrote:
nixland - could you compare/contrast the 85LII and the 80 Summilux more? I'm familiar with the 80 Summilux, by way of the 75 Summilux M, but am curious how you think the two lenses differ.
OK. I'll try to post comparison photos later. Which object do you prefer for me to shoot, such as portrait, flower or else? I'll do my best
nixland wrote:
Could it be that my lens is the first version of Lux 80? (Leitz Wetzlar name on the front ring instead of Leica)
I haven't tried it at f/2 or f/2.8 yet because I always shoot at wide open But I tried once at f5.6 and it's very very sharp (see below).
Forgive me for saying so, but that doesn't look sharp at all. If I had ANY lens that looked like that at f5.6 I'd either return it or send it in for repair.
nixland wrote:
Could it be that my lens is the first version of Lux 80? (Leitz Wetzlar name on the front ring instead of Leica)
I haven't tried it at f/2 or f/2.8 yet because I always shoot at wide open But I tried once at f5.6 and it's very very sharp (see below).
The only difference between the early and late versions is the coatings.
nixland wrote:
OK. I'll try to post comparison photos later. Which object do you prefer for me to shoot, such as portrait, flower or else? I'll do my best
Oh whatever you want. I was more interested in your thoughts on the matter, but if you want to shoot some shots for me, that'd be cool too.
freaklikeme wrote:
...I think if the 80 were sharp wide open, ...
The Lux is sharper (wide open) at distance than at close range which is kind of ironic for a 'portrait lens. It's actually quite sharp wide open around the centre but sharpness drops off a fair bit at the edges at any distance. And then there's the glow (SA), which is nice in a portrait but possibly not so nice in general use. I think it is a great portrait lens as a result.
freaklikeme wrote:
...I think if the 80 were sharp wide open, it would lose some of it's appeal as a portrait lens. A friend of mine wouldn't let me take her picture unless I was using "the crow's feet eraser." And with my copy, I found it was sharper in the center than my 85LII when both were shot at f/2. By f/2.8, it was razor sharp across the frame.
Although I've never compared the Lux to the 85LII I found the same results as yours with the FD 85 SSC Asph. and the 85L(I). The Canon 85's are sharpest wide open but this advantages is gone just one stop down so is it worth it unless you always shoot wide open?
