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.
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.
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.
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 think I\'ll take a break from the forums for a few weeks and take more pictures.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 think I\'ll take a break from the forums for a few weeks and take more pictures.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 think I\'ll take a break from the forums for a few weeks and take more pictures.
) 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.