RustyBug
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
1bwana1 wrote:
I have the VM 75mm Nokton. Wonderful portrait lens, and sharp enough stopped down. But even cropped to the 1
3 digital zoom on my M11 I find it too short for the long landscape shots I like to make. My 50mm with digital zoom is close enough to 75mm. So I am trying out the 90mm to see which way I prefer.
The 21mm Super-Elmar has become my second favorite M lens. It is amazing.
Steve,
I had the 75 Nokton, now I have the 75/2.4 ... so, I'm a fan of the 75 FL. But, for long landscape shots, the 135/3.4 is the one for me. Imo, the bump to 90 from 75 isn't of any real consequence that 75 needs a lens change for that little bit of gain, particularly with the IQ of the 75/2.4 and the cropability of an (your) M11 / (my) M10R. In my former kit, I carried an adapted M645 150/2.8 A for long landscape and liked what I got from my Mamiya glass for longer FL landscape.
The thing about the 135/3.4 APO is that is was specifically designed for long distant shooting, spec'd / designed for the U.S. Navy, so it is optimized in that regard. If you haven't tried one yet ... I'd HIGHLY RECOMMEND you do so before you settle in on a 90 for long landscape vs. the 75. Besides, a Leica lens made for the Navy ... shooting in a Navy town. 
90/75 = 1.2x
135/75 = 1.8x
Imo, I don't want to carry the extra size, weight, $$$ of the 90 for a mere +20% in FL. The only place that the 90 makes sense for me, is if you add the 90/4, so you can get the macro functionality ... which obviously isn't in the direction of long landscape, but Helimat does make a good showing of the 90/4. But, if you're gonna replace your 75, that's different, too.
Of course, it might depend if you goal is to REPLACE your 75 Nok, or ADD TO your 75 Nok ... whether you want the 90 or the 135. I don't see a lot of reason to add the 90 to your 75. You said the 50 / 75 was kinda close together, the 75 / 90 is even closer together.
The other piece of the equation is the rendering of the 75 Nok ... such a lovely rendering that it is (I miss mine at times) ... is you relinquish it for a 90. If you're gonna keep the 75 Nok, then the 135 is the way to go for long landscape. If you don't want to go the 135, then the 75/2.4 (closer mfd than the 75/2.5) is something to consider, even though it is the same FL as the 75 Nok. The 75/2.5 is a $$ bargain these days if the mfd doesn't matter that much to you.
From where you're at, I'd still recommend the 135/3.4 for long landscape. Even if you decide to later move off the 75 Nok to the 90, the 90 / 135 jump is still 1.5x. One last thing about the 135/3.4 ... it is the longest M lens out there. Imo, that makes it the bookend. Once you have that bookend in place, then you'll always know the limits of your reach. Then, may something like the 50 / 90 / 135 makes more sense than a 50 / 75 / 135. But, even there, if the rendering of the 50 / 75 is different enough, then the focal length isn't such that much of a diff concern.
Currently, I'm on Q2 / 35 / 75 / 135 ... with my vintage 40 Cron in the mix, too. I don't pull out my 135 a lot, but when I do ... I never think, gee I wish I would have used a 90, but dang I've only got a 75. BTW, the 135 stitches well, too (even handheld).
HTH
|
