Luka, excellent shots. I really like all of your shots with the 75 Cron
In fact some of the shots, near MFD for portraits of Dan's are outstanding IMO. This will be my primary need, so I am looking forward to my 75 Cron.
As Carsten, suggested the 75/1.4 and 50/1 would have similar artistic feel you may be looking for.
denoir wrote:
My conclusion so far is that: <<related to the 75mm Summicron>>
-I like it at infinity and stopped down.
-I like it at medium distances wide open when converted to B/W.
-I can tolerate it at medium distances wide open in color.
-I dislike it close up and wide open.
A case can be made for the 75mm Summarit over the Summicron. It has been linked, in design, to the Nikkor 105/2.5 and I believe a Zeiss Conterex mid-tele design. The Nikkor 105 alone caused me to switch to Nikon, from Canon years ago. It has been observed the 75mm Summarit may have more contrast, but lacking the close .7 meter MFD. You've come this far with the 2 Leica and Zeiss top dogs, give the Summarit a shake...
carstenw wrote:
I don't know the Rokkor, but the three M lenses I have tried which sometimes produce funky boke like that are the 50/1, 75/1.4 and 35/2 IV. However, they also often produce the smooth boke you don't like...
Thanks Carsten, I've looked at the old nocti and the 75 lux but I'm not crazy about either of them with regards to drawing style. I thought of the Voigtländer 50/1.1 as an alternative as well, but there again I find that I don't like it very much.
thrice wrote:
I think we get it Luka, you don't like the 75 Cron. For such an expensive lens to only work for two kinds of shots (medium distance with large aperture and infinity stopped down), and even then, only sometimes, seems like an awful waste of money and you should really return it while you reconsider.
No Dan, I don't think you quite get it. What I'm doing is analyzing the drawing style of the lens in different types of scenarios, for my own benefit but also for the benefit of someone that might consider getting the lens. Information about it is relatively scarce so it might be useful.
None of that changes the fact that the 75 Cron is and remains the only tele lens that I've found acceptable for the M9 when all parameters are considered. I've ruled out the Zeiss 85/2 (which would have been my natural choice) because it is as big as a medium sized DSLR prime (not much smaller than the 100 MP). The 90 Cron AA is too big as well. Had I intended the M9 to be my only camera then the situation would have been different, but my purpose is to have a system that is as compact as possible. The 75 and 90 Summarit lenses are OK in size but I did not like their build and I did not like the rendering style.
So while I may not be head over heels in love with the 75 Cron there is really no other choice as I do need something longer than 50mm if I want on occasion to bring the M9 as an only camera.
I would be interested to know which shots you saw that gave you the impression you would like this lens, or did you just like the idea of the lens and had money burning a hole in your pocket.
There are a bunch of shots there that I like. The 75 Cron was in fact the only Leica lens apart from the 0.95 nocti whose rendering style I liked (based on flickr and other samples).
Incidentally, I'm the one who has posted about 90% of the 75 Cron shots in this thread. Your own ratio is something like 10:1 Zeiss to Leica, so I'm guessing it's not your favorite lens.
charles.K wrote:
Luka, excellent shots. I really like all of your shots with the 75 Cron
In fact some of the shots, near MFD for portraits of Dan's are outstanding IMO. This will be my primary need, so I am looking forward to my 75 Cron.
As Carsten, suggested the 75/1.4 and 50/1 would have similar artistic feel you may be looking for.
Thanks Charles!
Yes, I liked those portraits as well. I have not done many portraits with the 75 yet so it might be an application where I like it. I'm pretty sure you'll like it as your favorite is the 50 lux asph and the two seem to have quite a bit in common. I'll be very interested to see what you make of it.
JimBuchanan wrote:
A case can be made for the 75mm Summarit over the Summicron. It has been linked, in design, to the Nikkor 105/2.5 and I believe a Zeiss Conterex mid-tele design. The Nikkor 105 alone caused me to switch to Nikon, from Canon years ago. It has been observed the 75mm Summarit may have more contrast, but lacking the close .7 meter MFD. You've come this far with the 2 Leica and Zeiss top dogs, give the Summarit a shake...
Jim, it's possible. I tried the 75 & 90 Summarit briefly but I was not crazy about the focus ring on either. Plus I have not really seen any samples with the two that I liked. The 90 Summarit was my original candidate as it's 90 mm, reasonably fast and reasonably priced. Had the 90 Summarit been as good as the 75 Summarit then I would have probably accepted some of the shortcomings and gotten it. As it was the 75 Summicron seemed like the best compromise and I still think it is.
denoir wrote:
Thanks Carsten, I've looked at the old nocti and the 75 lux but I'm not crazy about either of them with regards to drawing style. I thought of the Voigtländer 50/1.1 as an alternative as well, but there again I find that I don't like it very much.
Agreed about the Nokton. I was excited about it before it came out, but once it was out and I saw the samples, I lost my interest.
No Dan, I don't think you quite get it. What I'm doing is analyzing the drawing style of the lens in different types of scenarios, for my own benefit but also for the benefit of someone that might consider getting the lens. Information about it is relatively scarce so it might be useful.
Leica photos are relatively scarce around here, because traditionally this forum has been fairly Leica-hostile. Only recently have a few people started to post regularly. I used to hang out here exclusively, but when I sold my 5D and bought the M8, the vitriol drove me to leave for l-camera-forum for a few years. People around here just love to repeat, over and over, how Zeiss and all kinds of other lenses are much superior and that the Leica is not worth the money. It gets old really fast. There are some of us who love the results from Leica and it is not pleasant to come to your forum every day and have to read through all the criticism, much of it from people who have never given the system a fair shake. You have at least done that, but given the ZMs' inferiority to ZF/ZE, and that you don't like the Leica rendering style, it is still a puzzle to my why you spent so much money on this. I know you want a compact system, but there are others out there.
Incidentally, I'm the one who has posted about 90% of the 75 Cron shots in this thread. Your own ratio is something like 10:1 Zeiss to Leica, so I'm guessing it's not your favorite lens.
Maybe teles just aren't his favorite or most used focal lengths. If you look over his shots, it is mostly wides for landscape.
I'm pretty sure you'll like it as your favorite is the 50 lux asph and the two seem to have quite a bit in common. I'll be very interested to see what you make of it.
The 75 Cron's design was based on the 50 Lux ASPH. They are nearly identical, but with the 75, they were able to correct more aberrations at the cost of f/1.4 and some character.
carstenw wrote:
You have at least done that, but given the ZMs' inferiority to ZF/ZE, and that you don't like the Leica rendering style, it is still a puzzle to my why you spent so much money on this. I know you want a compact system, but there are others out there.
The thing is that there are no other compact FF cameras out there. The M9 is a choice by necessity. I'm however not complaining about the camera itself - I knew its shortcomings and they are IMO overcome by the compactness of the system, the user experience of it and of course the image quality. Also this is not my only camera system - it fills a specific niche. I still have my 5DII + ZE glass for when I want it. Right now I'm just using the M9, but that's only because it's new and I want to learn it. Later I'll try to strike a reasonable balance and use each system where it works best. (Which is also why I insist on compactness.)
As for the 75 Cron, I realize that I'm annoying some people here with the extensive comments on the by me perceived shortcomings of the lens. However, if you take a closer look you'll see that I've said at least as many positive things about it as negative. There may be some Leica hostility here in this forum, I don't know, I have not noticed. I have noticed however that some Leica users are very sensitive to criticism of Leica gear. I'd like to stress "some" here, it's far from universal but enough to matter.
You can go to the Zeiss thread and show for instance that the 85/1.4 Planar is complete crap at MFD wide open due to the excessive spherical aberrations and nobody will be insulted. On the contrary, chances are very good people will thank you - especially if you can show it through images. I've done it a bunch of times for various Zeiss glass and I've never encountered any resentment. With some Leica users on the other hand.. even if the tone is civil you definitely see that they resent any criticism directed against Leica.
It's too bad. I've always found discussions and analysis of lens performance to be interesting. I've learned a lot about how to use Zeiss glass that way and I was hoping for a similar open discussion about Leica lenses but it turns out that it is far more difficult (and not just in this forum).
As far as look and results, it's my favourite lens, If I could afford all Leica primes I would have all Leica primes. I appreciate the Zeiss 'look' and sharpness, but I don't appreciate the CA, inaccurate/inconsistent colour and the high contrast - this is not a ZM only thing.
I don't post every picture I take, I am primarily a landscape shooter and therefore that is what I share. Most of my 75 cron pictures are of personal friends and I feel no need to splay generic portraits that are for personal enjoyment on the internet. Neither I, nor my equipment, have anything to prove. ...Show more →
Fair enough.
What you are criticising about the 75 cron is not any optical flaw, it is the look, which I'm sorry to say is plainly obvious by searching 75mm summicron on flickr. And you yourself said you don't like the Leica 'look', so forgive my impatience and intolerance for your 'testing'. I have no qualm with discussions or analysis of lens PERFORMANCE, but when it's "oh I was forced to buy this lens for $3000 because there are no other options ( ) which is known to produce a look I don't like and boohoo it actually does that, and that's not good" I quickly lose patience....Show more →
So, if I was saying "wow I love the rendering style" for each example, then it would be OK?
It's this kind of fanboy attitude that I find difficult. I have expressed both positive and negative opinions about the lens but you seem to have a problem with anything negative being said about it. Even though I make it perfectly clear that it's my opinion and that I don't claim that the opinion is universal.
As for the flickr samples, they were one of the main reasons why I settled on this lens. I've repeated this a bunch of times now: there are two Leica lenses whose rendering I've liked from seeing samples: the 0.95 nocilux and the 75 Cron.
If you want a compact 75 get the CV Heliar 75/2.5, it is much smaller than the cron and sharper into the corners at equivalent apertures (see Reid reviews). Most CV glass has quite a bit of microcontrast and a more distinct in/out of focus 'step' more Zeiss-like than Leica-like. Or if you want creative bokeh get a screw-mount 75/1.5 Biotar(probably too big), or and 85 Nikkor (f/1.5 and f/2.0), or if you want zeiss look - a 90/2.8 G-Sonnar or Hexanon. There are also the Thambar, Hektor, Canon 85 (1.5, 1.9 and 2.0 admitted hard to find samples), and a host of other exotic glass out there....Show more →
Thanks for the list. I'll check it out. The reason why most of those were not an option is that I wanted to buy a new lens (new as in not used). I am however in addition to my other lenses interested in getting a 'creative bokeh' lens.
So all that I see here is self-inflicted buyers remorse. I'm referring to 'tone' and language in the repetition and written analysis, the multitude of pictures of course is always appreciated.
I have more or less systematically tried the lens for different types of photography and provided my commentary. On some occasions I liked the rendering and on some occasions I did not. The only thing I'm blaming Leica for is that I got two new front focusing copies. Optically, as I've stated a number of times now, the lens is close to perfect. The other things are just my opinions according to my personal taste.
Buyer's remorse? Not likely or I would just return it and get another lens. I have an offer from the store to exchange it for a brand new Zeiss 85/2 but I'm pretty sure I'm going to keep it. Does it mean that I'll pretend that I like every aspect of it? Of course not. Jut like I won't pretend that one of my favorite lenses ever, the Zeiss 100 MP doesn't have a LoCA problem or that I don't particularly like the bokeh of the Zeiss 35/2. I'm not a blind Zeiss fanboy, so why should I be a blind Leica fanboy?
Having said that, I know people can be sensitive about their lenses. I have however tired to make it perfectly clear that both my likes and dislikes of aspects of its rendering style are my personal opinions.
Again Dan, based on the samples I saw (including your portraits), I did like the rendering. The 75 Cron and the 0.95 nocti are the only two Leica lenses whose rendering really appealed to me. (based on samples here and on flickr and other places)
In practice now after buying it, I do have some reservations - there are situations where I'm not crazy about the rendering. There are other situations where I really like it. So my series of images and comments are part of a process of learning the lens and how I should best use it.
thrice wrote:
One last tidbit, I think you should reconsider the 85 Sonnar, here it is compared to the 75 Cron and 100MP (which you said it resembles in size) accurately scaled.
Also, the weight compared is 430g (Cron) and 450g (Sonnar) and a similar optical configuration so the balance should be near identical. But I guess I haven't seen one in real life and you have?
The weight is not so much a problem as the width and the length. I have seen one IRL but I have not held it myself.
I really don't get the idea of having numerous lenses for a second camera that is supposed to be a lightweight kit. I'd stick with a 35 mm and be happy with it. Teles aren't ideal on a rangefinder anyway. Just use the 5D for those shots instead.
denoir wrote:
It's too bad. I've always found discussions and analysis of lens performance to be interesting. I've learned a lot about how to use Zeiss glass that way and I was hoping for a similar open discussion about Leica lenses but it turns out that it is far more difficult (and not just in this forum).
Luka, there is a lot of people that enjoy reading other's analysis, poin of views and images. I personally thank you for your contribution.
If I were to get a Leica-kit, it would pretty much be my "travel/day to day in the bag"-kit, as opposed to "sports-kit" or "in the rucksack for skiing, I need AF"-kit or "I need a long tele"-kit.. etc. For me, that would mean a 30-ish, 50-ish and 80-ish lens. Why no wider than 30-ish? well, I like to be able to _see_ what I photograph and focus in the same viewfinder, can't help it, and anything longer than 80 is hard, especially without a magnifier... So my solution was to not get the M9 and hope for a fullframe EVF/OVF-hybrid that would make wider lenses possible, longer lenses possible and be more versatile in general. But I guess this is pretty much a rehash of what many here think..
Luka, to some extent I am there too whilst building my NEX5 system. I am tempted to buy a Zeiss 16-80, a Zeiss Biogon 25, a Planar 50, etc... to get "the most" out of this setup
Then I sit back and think: "hey, this was supposed to be a light, walk-about, go-everywhere, shoot-anything approach. Not a perfectionist system by any means, otherwise I might as well stick to my DSLR-only lineup of today...
So I am getting the Sony kit zoom because I can't get a body without it, and converting my Contax 25mm to NEX, as a one-size-fits-all 37.5mm lens, and then nada!
Makten, you are right of course. The thing is that on occasion I will need the M9 to be my only system for an extended period of time. That special case is when I travel but don't have the time or opportunity to use a full DSLR system.
Ulrik, I agree. A rangefinder is best between 28-75 mm (some would say 90 at the long end). UWAs are a hassle as you need an external viewfinder and longer tele lenses simply don't work.
Joakim, great shots!
Anyway, two shots from today. I was pleasantly surprised by the rendering in both cases
Perhaps not a great picture per se, but superb rendering. This I like very much:
philber wrote:
Luka, to some extent I am there too whilst building my NEX5 system. I am tempted to buy a Zeiss 16-80, a Zeiss Biogon 25, a Planar 50, etc... to get "the most" out of this setup
Then I sit back and think: "hey, this was supposed to be a light, walk-about, go-everywhere, shoot-anything approach. Not a perfectionist system by any means, otherwise I might as well stick to my DSLR-only lineup of today...
So I am getting the Sony kit zoom because I can't get a body without it, and converting my Contax 25mm to NEX, as a one-size-fits-all 37.5mm lens, and then nada!...Show more →
Yes I agree, a compact system should be kept compact. The rangefinder lenses are however really tiny - you could stuff a jacket pocket with four of them and then forget them. My original limit was 4 lenses max, but I had to alter it to 5 lenses. I'm just waiting for my 18/4 to arrive and then I'm done with M9 lenses. I promise
) which is known to produce a look I don't like and boohoo it actually does that, and that's
