Mahesh Posted October 17, 2016 Share #1 Posted October 17, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) The first picture with my 80 lux-r, on Sony A7ii Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/265611-80-lux/?do=findComment&comment=3130559'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 17, 2016 Posted October 17, 2016 Hi Mahesh, Take a look here 80-Lux. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Hugh 38 Posted October 19, 2016 Share #2 Posted October 19, 2016 Well nice ! I like the way the subject has been separated from the back ground ,and he is sharp all over. What is the lens like to handle ? Only ever tried one in a shop and it was quite a lump on the camera . 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jip Posted November 1, 2016 Share #3 Posted November 1, 2016 I wrote an article about this lens. You can read it here if you're interested: http://jipvankuijk.nl/summilux-r-80-leica-r8-m-typ-240/ 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sc_rufctr Posted November 1, 2016 Share #4 Posted November 1, 2016 It's the one lens I'll never part with. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/265611-80-lux/?do=findComment&comment=3140034'>More sharing options...
farnz Posted November 4, 2016 Share #5 Posted November 4, 2016 The first picture with my 80 lux-r, on Sony A7ii To be frank (and no offence intended) but the eyes don't look as sharp as I would expect for the 80 Summilux, which suggests a little motion blur perhaps? (I can't tell what shutter speed was used.) Pete. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
masjah Posted November 4, 2016 Share #6 Posted November 4, 2016 I'm not one to talk Mahesh, because with my slight tremor I'm hopeless at hand-holding, but I tend to agree with Pete.I realise that with an 80 (or 90) mm lens depth of field is very limited (just for example, about a 50mm range at f/2) but, looking at the first image, I don't see a part of the face, front to back, that seems completely sharp. So I too would be interested in the exposure details. There is though a very nice transition to further unsharpness in the background. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
masjah Posted November 4, 2016 Share #7 Posted November 4, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm not one to talk Mahesh, because with my slight tremor I'm hopeless at hand-holding, but I tend to agree with Pete.I realise that with an 80 (or 90) mm lens depth of field is very limited (just for example, about a 50mm range at f/2) but, looking at the first image, I don't see a part of the face, front to back, that seems completely sharp. So I too would be interested in the exposure details. There is though a very nice transition to further unsharpness in the background. When I say 50mm Ishould add that I mean at a presumed distance of 2 to 3 metres. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mahesh Posted November 17, 2016 Author Share #8 Posted November 17, 2016 To be frank (and no offence intended) but the eyes don't look as sharp as I would expect for the 80 Summilux, which suggests a little motion blur perhaps? (I can't tell what shutter speed was used.) Pete. I much check the shutter speed, though I did set the correct focal length setting for stabilisation on the camera. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mahesh Posted November 17, 2016 Author Share #9 Posted November 17, 2016 I'm not one to talk Mahesh, because with my slight tremor I'm hopeless at hand-holding, but I tend to agree with Pete.I realise that with an 80 (or 90) mm lens depth of field is very limited (just for example, about a 50mm range at f/2) but, looking at the first image, I don't see a part of the face, front to back, that seems completely sharp. So I too would be interested in the exposure details. There is though a very nice transition to further unsharpness in the background. but then Jip's photos don't look sharp either. Is it possible that there is some variance between various units? I certainly noticed that the case with Canon FD 85/1.2 I had one brilliant sample which I let go away and the following 2 purchases had to be returned as none was as good as the first I tried. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
masjah Posted November 17, 2016 Share #10 Posted November 17, 2016 but then Jip's photos don't look sharp either. Is it possible that there is some variance between various units? I certainly noticed that the case with Canon FD 85/1.2 I had one brilliant sample which I let go away and the following 2 purchases had to be returned as none was as good as the first I tried. Mahesh, that is always possible. I think it's a question of eliminating various possible causes one by one. On the subject of shutter speed, Brian Bower, in his book Leica Reflex Photography, voices the opinion that the oft quoted minimum hand-held shutter speed equal to the reciprocal of the focal length is hopelessly optimistic, and that four times this figure is nearer the mark. This would suggest 1/320 or faster for hand-holding this lens. Of course a tripod would be an even better bet. Could you try out some test shots using a tripod or a high shutter speed to see of the results are any better? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jip Posted December 7, 2016 Share #11 Posted December 7, 2016 (edited) The 80mm lens is not sharp at 1.4, not when compared to the 90mm APO summicron at F2 for example, the lens is however plenty sharp from 2.8 and smaller. Also note that my images are mostly shot on film, which to my feel always looks less sharp than digital, but not less nice in my opinion. I'm not a big sucker for sharpness anyway, hence I let go of my 90mm APO and kept the 80mm 1.4. Edited December 7, 2016 by jip 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
a911s Posted December 9, 2016 Share #12 Posted December 9, 2016 I use this lens at f1.8 or f2. That's the sweet spot for best character and decent sharpness. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locutus Posted December 10, 2016 Share #13 Posted December 10, 2016 I use mine at f/1.4 mostly to shoot things like concerts on pushed Tri-X, motion blur far outstrips lens limitations at that point. But the bokeh rendering is to die for wide open :-) f/2 and down and my copy is nice and sharp. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveclem Posted December 12, 2016 Share #14 Posted December 12, 2016 Canon FDn 85mm 1.2 is the king of them all. IMO; -) 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 13, 2016 Share #15 Posted December 13, 2016 With Nikon 1.4/85 as president and Contax 1.2/85 as emperor? Maybe test the 80mm with Leitax first. Find it easier to focus than with an EOS adapter. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jankap Posted December 28, 2016 Share #16 Posted December 28, 2016 The Minolta 1.2, 50mm as duke? Jan Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentShutter Posted December 28, 2016 Share #17 Posted December 28, 2016 I wrote an article about this lens. You can read it here if you're interested: http://jipvankuijk.nl/summilux-r-80-leica-r8-m-typ-240/ Very nice article and great pictures. I owned the lens in my Leica R7-R8 times and loved the way it rendered the background wide open. For normal (fast) use and travel I prefered the Vario-Elmar 4,0/80-200 which will be my all-time-favourite. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan.y Posted January 2, 2017 Share #18 Posted January 2, 2017 but then Jip's photos don't look sharp either. Is it possible that there is some variance between various units? I certainly noticed that the case with Canon FD 85/1.2 I had one brilliant sample which I let go away and the following 2 purchases had to be returned as none was as good as the first I tried. I've used two copies of the 80 (both 32xx, from 1983 or so) and neither was sharp wide open on the A7R. But in general it's definitely true that these old lenses are likely to be a bit out of spec. I didn't like the FD85/1.2 ergonomically at all, whereas the R80 just feels great. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentShutter Posted January 2, 2017 Share #19 Posted January 2, 2017 I didn't like the FD85/1.2 ergonomically at all, whereas the R80 just feels great. I own the R80 for a while and used it together with my R8 so I agree. Still have some Nikkor 1,4/85 AIs and Nikkor H 1,8/85 Pre-AI which I use on my Nikon DSLR. I am a sucker for old glas and the way it renders - so sharpness and resolution is not the main topic for me in this case. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.