In rangefinder terms, 50 and 75 really aren't so similar.
If you think about the closest focusing distance, you really can't get a 50 to be a headshot lens, whereas the 75 has an easy time being a headshot lens. So in reality a 75 isn't that close to a 50 if you're shooting people.
Denoir, one 75mm lens you may want to try, just so you can "test" the FL would be the 75 1.8 CV, I tried it the other day and I was pretty shocked at it's performance to price ratio. At $700 it's a steal of a lens, and it'll allow you to try the FL while the 90cron and the 75con come back in stock. Then once you've decided you can sell the 75 for either the leica version, or if you find you don't like the FL you can pickup the 90cron. At least this way you're loosing a hundred on resale, rather then almost a thousand.
thrice wrote:
18mm ZM Distagon, single frame ND1.8, B+W Linear polariser.
This is the Tarawera River, very clear water! Especially considering it's source is a waterfall bursting through a wall of solidified lava flow about 60m high... Yes I have a picture of the waterfall, it's on the way
Incidentally the nearby town of Kawerau is one of the worst smelling places I have ever been. Lots of intense geothermal activity in the area.
Amazing shot!!
Really makes carrying around a polarizer worth the effort.
h00ligan wrote:
So this evening I was doing some lens testing and I realized something I had stupidly missed before. My genetic tremor is a major part of the issue ihave with sharpness. I'm very disappointed to see this is apparently quite an issue. I know it sounds like a no brainer to consider that but for most purposes my tremor is, at this point in my life, not a really invasive thing..it's very minor even when shooting at the gun range. Unfortunately I learned that trying to use the inverse focal length method is..well..not enough.
Given that I like low light people photography, this is a pretty disheartening bummer. Mft with ibis and legacy lenses won't work due to crappy iso...primes on 7d, same thing. I may simply have to go full frame for the best high iso support..or call it a day.
I shot the x1 with a timer, in low light, resting on something with a long exposure..and I get it now..I was really silly for not figuring this out earlier.
charles.K wrote:
Dan, really nice shot! Did try and go for swim in the pool?
Haha no, I didn't have a wetsuit (it's still spring in NZ, I wouldn't want to swim in one of their rivers in spring). Incidentally I walked through the 'Siberia' river barefoot in NZ, and it is one of the few flowing rivers with water below 0. That was probably the most pain I have ever felt in my limbs.
All my photos are done now, so I will start posting, but I'll try not to double post or go overboard. All up about 84 images (a few of which I've already posted).
adamdewilde wrote:
In rangefinder terms, 50 and 75 really aren't so similar.
If you think about the closest focusing distance, you really can't get a 50 to be a headshot lens, whereas the 75 has an easy time being a headshot lens. So in reality a 75 isn't that close to a 50 if you're shooting people.
While I agree with the 2nd part (a 50 won't give you a headshot at .7m), the first one strikes me as odd.
50 and 75 are just as far apart (or close) on rangefinders as they are on SLRs, or any other 35mm sized format.
I subscribe to the practice of spacing most of my lens choices by a rough doubling of focal lengths. So take what I say with a grain of salt. Not only does it suit the way I see/work better, but I get to spend less money and carry around fewer lenses. If you are one that likes closer spacing, then 50 and 75 probably would work nicely for you. But then, you probably will need a 90 and a 35 and a 28 and a...
I know for me, the following is true:
1. I can't afford both the 75/2 AA and the 50/1.4 A
2. I'd rather have the extra stop
3. I'd rather have the smaller lens
4. I'm not a big fan of super tight head shots - I like a bit more space
5. If I had both, I would hardly ever take them both out at the same time - too much overlap
6. While the 75 does give you a higher reproduction ratio (something often mentioned online) giving you tighter headshots amongst other things, it
- does not give you the extra reach that a 90 does. If you only shoot headshots, not a problem. If you can't physically get closer to get the framing you want, it could be a problem.
- will give you the same POV (not FOV) as a 50mm from .7m, which might have a bit too much perspective distortion to make portraits pleasing to you (not a problem in my book)
7. I just like 50 more than 75
Here's the kind of portrait shots I typically get with the 50. I don't know if this was at .7m but it probably was. I was probably stopped down a stop or two as well, not that I have had any problems focusing wide open.
I don't know if it's a telephoto or a Leica thing (surprisingly haven't shot much Leica on my digital M) but my 75mm Cron has WAYYY more highlight headroom than any of my ZM or Voigtlander lenses do.
kidtexas wrote:
While I agree with the 2nd part (a 50 won't give you a headshot at .7m), the first one strikes me as odd.
50 and 75 are just as far apart (or close) on rangefinders as they are on SLRs, or any other 35mm sized format.
I subscribe to the practice of spacing most of my lens choices by a rough doubling of focal lengths. So take what I say with a grain of salt. Not only does it suit the way I see/work better, but I get to spend less money and carry around fewer lenses. If you are one that likes closer spacing, then 50 and 75 probably would work nicely for you. But then, you probably will need a 90 and a 35 and a 28 and a...
I know for me, the following is true:
1. I can't afford both the 75/2 AA and the 50/1.4 A
2. I'd rather have the extra stop
3. I'd rather have the smaller lens
4. I'm not a big fan of super tight head shots - I like a bit more space
5. If I had both, I would hardly ever take them both out at the same time - too much overlap
6. While the 75 does give you a higher reproduction ratio (something often mentioned online) giving you tighter headshots amongst other things, it
- does not give you the extra reach that a 90 does. If you only shoot headshots, not a problem. If you can't physically get closer to get the framing you want, it could be a problem.
- will give you the same POV (not FOV) as a 50mm from .7m, which might have a bit too much perspective distortion to make portraits pleasing to you (not a problem in my book)
7. I just like 50 more than 75
Here's the kind of portrait shots I typically get with the 50. I don't know if this was at .7m but it probably was. I was probably stopped down a stop or two as well, not that I have had any problems focusing wide open. ...Show more →
Umm... Sorry maybe I didn't word it right. Because all rangefinder lenses I've encountered seem to have a min focusing of .7 or .9 you're not able to get closer with your 50, but yet with a 75 you're able to hit min. at .7, so as I mentioned a 75 allows you a tighter crop which a 50 couldn't give you. Now in the DSLR world I have a 50 that'll let me macro, I also have a 50 that'll let me shoot chin to top of head.. So do I need a 75? Not really, but I do like the 85 for it's ability to isolate my subject (and the 100 even more!)... But within the rangefinder world, a 75 is far different from a 50. Do you understand what I meant now?
Anyway, I'm more of one to go for 28-50-90 because I feel those three lenses cover the world the way I see it.. I was just bringing up the fact that I think there really is use for a 75 in the rangefinder world.
The two real reasons being:
1) It allows tight headshots (I shoot people).
2) It's easier to focus then a 90mm on RF (I've found in my test runs).
Thrice - Your 75cron seems like it has really shallow DOF, the 75lux shots I've seen don't seem like they offer up a shallower DOF.. I'm pretty surprised.
adamdewilde wrote:
Umm... Sorry maybe I didn't word it right. Because all rangefinder lenses I've encountered seem to have a min focusing of .7 or .9 you're not able to get closer with your 50, but yet with a 75 you're able to hit min. at .7, so as I mentioned a 75 allows you a tighter crop which a 50 couldn't give you. Now in the DSLR world I have a 50 that'll let me macro, I also have a 50 that'll let me shoot chin to top of head.. So do I need a 75? Not really, but I do like the 85 for it's ability to isolate my subject (and the 100 even more!)... But within the rangefinder world, a 75 is far different from a 50. Do you understand what I meant now? ...Show more →
I understood what you meant. That argument is used quite a lot to justify the 75. I just wouldn't classify that a 'far different'. It is a higher reproduction ratio, but not *that* much higher. You can invert it though and make the argument for the 90 - it gives you true reach that you don't get with the 75. Which one is more compelling depends on your tastes and needs.
Like I said above, I find the 50/1.4 more compelling - its faster and gives a close enough crop for the portraits I like. If I shot a lot of head shots, I'd probably get a 90, 100, or 135 and shoot on an SLR. To each his own though. If a 75 works for you, its a great lens! Common advice in rangefinder land is 28, 50, 90 OR 21, 35, 75. Seems to make sense to me.
Personally I find that subject to camera distance can be as important as cropping when it comes to portraits. Especially at large apertures. I just don't go for the perspective distorted out of focus nose look that some people seem to like. I'd rather take a step back and use a longer focal length.
I've found, for my tastes, that .7m is a good distance for portraits at 50mm or less (35, 28, etc). Sure, features are just as distorted as they are at 75 or 90 at that distance, but less emphasis is put on them because they don't take up the whole damn frame. Furthermore, I just don't find portraits at smaller distances than somewhere around .7m very flattering, though it does work for an effect if thats what you want.
thrice wrote:
I don't know if it's a telephoto or a Leica thing (surprisingly haven't shot much Leica on my digital M) but my 75mm Cron has WAYYY more highlight headroom than any of my ZM or Voigtlander lenses do.
That's probably because of better transmission in the ZM:s and Voigtländers.
I solved my dilemma today. They had the Cron AA as well as the Summrit(es? ii?) in the shop and I played around with them a bit. The summarit lenses may be very good optically speaking but the build quality is sub par. The focusing ring feels like it's made of very cheap rubber. So I bought the 75 Summicron AA.
The story doesn't end there though. I spotted that they had an old Leica Leitz Wetzlar Elmarit-M 90mm f/2.8 Chrome for sale....very old from the 60's. It was pretty cheap - about $350 and I thought it would be an easy way to try 90mm. The lens looked good on inspection but unfortunately when I afterwards inspected it more carefully I noticed something that looks like fungal growth. So it's going back to the shop tomorrow. Too bad as the lens was otherwise in pretty good condition.
thrice wrote:
I don't know if it's a telephoto or a Leica thing (surprisingly haven't shot much Leica on my digital M) but my 75mm Cron has WAYYY more highlight headroom than any of my ZM or Voigtlander lenses do.
I see two possible factors, other than Makten's fairy tale One is that the camera exposes more accurately with the 75AA. I don't know why this should be true, but it could be. The other, more likely reason, is that the Leica look doesn't rely so heavily on high contrast, offering instead a softer, but at least as sharp, look. Zeiss lenses, god bless them, are quite contrasty, which IMO matches Nikon and Canon CMOS sensors better than the M9's CCD.
Congrats on the Lux Joakim! Who did you kill to get it?
I didn't know you were here in Stockholm - I thought you lived somewhere down south. I bought the Cron and the Elmarit in Rajala photo shop at Herkulesgatan in City in Stockholm.
I have not really had a chance to shoot anything with it, just a couple of quick snapshots. Now it's dark, but I'm considering going out with a tripod and shoot some of my standard night scenes.
Anyway - here are three most unremarkable shots:
1) The silly looking 90 Elmarit next to the Zeiss 50 Sonnar:
2) Closeup test (high ISO):
3) Focus at distance test (almost nailed it):
Focusing is more difficult than I thought, so from that point of view I'm pretty glad I chose 75mm rather than 90mm.
denoir wrote:
Congrats on the Lux Joakim! Who did you kill to get it?
I didn't know you were here in Stockholm - I thought you lived somewhere down south. I bought the Cron and the Elmarit in Rajala photo shop at Herkulesgatan in City in Stockholm.
No one, but I ordered it in May so it took almost six months to get one. I do live down south (in Småland) but my employer is in Stockholm so I'm visiting about once per month. Interesting to see your shots with the 75, although it's not urgent a 75 or 90 mm would be nice to have in the future so I've been following the recent discussion closely. Looking forward to more reports and photos.
I'm not very happy with Leica right now. It seems that my new 75 Cron can't reach infinity at f/2. I need to go up to f/5.6 before buildings at 200m distance get sharp and at MFD it front focuses..
ND1.8, B+W Linear polariser.
One is that the camera exposes more accurately with the 75AA. I don't know why this should be true, but it could be. The other, more likely reason, is that the Leica look doesn't rely so heavily on high contrast, offering instead a softer, but at least as sharp, look. Zeiss lenses, god bless them, are quite contrasty, which IMO matches Nikon and Canon CMOS sensors better than the M9's CCD.
