80-Lux

[Mahesh]

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!

[Hugh 38]

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 .

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jip]

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/

[sc_rufctr]

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!

[farnz]

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.

[masjah]

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.

[masjah]

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.

[Mahesh]

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.

[Mahesh]

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.

[masjah]

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?

[jip]

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

[a911s]

I use this lens at f1.8 or f2. That's the sweet spot for best character and decent sharpness.

[Locutus]

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.

[steveclem]

Canon FDn 85mm 1.2 is the king of them all.

IMO; -)

[Guest]

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.

[jankap]

The Minolta 1.2, 50mm as duke?

Jan

[SilentShutter]

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.

[alan.y]

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.

[SilentShutter]

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.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear