50mm Lux or 75mm Cron?

[lars_bergquist]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is one of those totally subjective "what is best, chocolate or strawberry ice cream?" questions. Some of us lean in one direction, some in another.

 

And then someone will say "walnut-and-maple-syrup, numbskulls".

 

The thread is actually a good illustration that we do not have many serious issues to discuss about the M9. This is just good; remember the noise during the first year of the M8? The M9 is a camera that just seems natural, and it works, as advertised.

 

But I find that I am reverting to the lens kit I used with film Ms. Both the 75mm Summarit and the 28mm Summicron, though being wonderful lenses in themselves, are getting little or no use -- I bought both just for the cropped format of the M8, to replace the 90 and 35mm lengths, respectively. I found little or no need for them on the full format. On the other hand I will dig out my 135mm Elmarit and try it out as soon as the wet gray blanket over northern Europe lifts and lets through some shooting light.

 

The old man from the Age of the M4-P

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest mc_k]

...can I ask for some feedback about the selective focus. For me I find it distracting that one eye is in focus and the other is not. Would a smaller aperture not have been slightly better?

 

It's a longstanding convention. Maybe this focus makes the picture stronger on an instinctive level, too; I would love to know.

 

I would like to think it is NOT o.k. to throw the near eye out, far eye in, but I have just read another thread in which everyone thought that was just fine.

[doug_m]

"Re: 50mm Lux or 75mm Cron?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tashley

50 lux. I know it fits less neatly but it is still the best lens I have ever used, on any system, period. I may not use it as often these days now I have a range of focal lengths from which to choose, but if I had to only ever have one lens, this would be it. It has a certain kind of magic!

 

t

It does, it does . . . but so does the 75 'cron . . . pretty much the same magic I'd say. I don't think I could live without either of them."

 

I agree with what Jono has said above but also agree with tashley and think Jean-Luc's rose shot is great. The 50 lux ASPH and 75 cron both have that magic not present in many other lenses. You pretty much can't ever go wrong with the 50 lux ASPH - and the 75 cron probably also has a magic in how it draws which pushes it over the 90 AA for those that want a longer lens. For example, I'll bet jean- Luc's rose shot would not be as appealing if taken with the 90 AA.

[Guest mc_k]

I have used the 50 lux asph for a year and have one comment. At f/2, f/2.8 it has star-shaped, not circular highlights, which I think are annoying...I'm not sure why this never rates a mention. Other than that, the lens is wonderful. The 75 1.4 is a classic portrait lens. As the posted photo shows, the 75 2.0 will go as shallow as you need it to. You may want a lens on the soft side if it's just for portraits.

[elgenper]

...... as soon as the wet gray blanket over northern Europe lifts and lets through some shooting light.

...

 

Indeed, the weather in Stockholm these last weeks has been one of the few consolations during this interminable wait.... No sensible outdoor shooting possible, even if the camera had been here.

 

As for lenses, I´ve read with interest what Thorsten Overgaard writes about beautiful old lenses with the M9. I had decided to start with my old lenses for my ´59 M2 and see what they could do before even thinking of something newer. I may be in for some pleasant surprises...

 

In any case, I don´t quite see how a 50 and a 75 are really alternatives. Depending on your other lenses, it will be one OR the other (and both are very good). 75 goes with 35 and 90 with 50 as a "normal" lens as a useful two-lens kit. My personal preference for portraits is a somewhat shorter lens than the traditional ones (I had 120 for my Rollei and Hasselblad gear, and 50 with my APS Nikon), so 75 would probably suit me personally. YMMV....

[James R]

I have a 35 Cron ASPH as my standard lens on my M9. I'm considering one more lens for portraiture, etc.: a 50mm Lux ASPH or 75 Cron ASPH. They seem to be of very similar design and performance level and similar minimum DOF. Which does the forum suggest?

 

I was in the same situation and finally decided on the 90 APO Summicron ASPH. Great for portraits.

[cheewai_m6]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The 75 1.4 is a classic portrait lens.

 

I thought a 90mm was the 'classic' focal length for portrait? not that it matters i guess.

[Guest mc_k]

I thought a 90mm was the 'classic' focal length for portrait? not that it matters i guess.

 

..."classic" referring to continued popularity, not focal length.

[lars_bergquist]

[ ... ] In any case, I don´t quite see how a 50 and a 75 are really alternatives. Depending on your other lenses, it will be one OR the other (and both are very good). 75 goes with 35 and 90 with 50 as a "normal" lens as a useful two-lens kit. My personal preference for portraits is a somewhat shorter lens than the traditional ones (I had 120 for my Rollei and Hasselblad gear, and 50 with my APS Nikon), so 75 would probably suit me personally. YMMV....

 

As I said before, this is completely subjective -- or personal, if you prefer. Some focal lengths fit some people, who make them fit the subject, not the other way around.

 

But if you are thinking of 75mm, then do not forget the Summarit. It is a great lens in itself, probably the best of the Summarit range. Actual image quality is not really inferior to the Summicron. You do just lose 2/3 of an f-stop, and the sacred Summicron name, of course. But lenses, not names, take pictures.

 

The old man from the Age of the M4-P

[adan]

As to the original question, my solution was to get a used 75 f/1.4, which gave me both Summilux speed and the "portraity" focal length. I also have a 50 'cron, for when I'm carrying the 135 as my long lens but want a little light-weight speed in the bag - a whole different shooting mode from situations where I'd want the 75, though.

 

As to the thread drift on 90 vs. 75 - remember that to Leica there really wasn't all that much difference. In the late 1970's Leica perceived a need for an f/1.4 short tele to counter the Canon 85 f/1.2 (on the drawing board) and Nikon 85 f/1.4. They tried it as a 90 and found out that it was just too big - blocked the rangefinder. So they dialed back 20% to 75mm to get the speed in a package usable on an M. But from their point of view it was just a "short faster tele" to complement the 90 'cron "short fast tele".

 

The difference between a 75 and a 90 is 17-20% (depending on which way you want to do the math), whereas the step up from a 50 to a 75 (or 90 to a 135) is a 50% jump.

[tom0511]

As to the original question, my solution was to get a used 75 f/1.4, which gave me both Summilux speed and the "portraity" focal length. I also have a 50 'cron, for when I'm carrying the 135 as my long lens but want a little light-weight speed in the bag - a whole different shooting mode from situations where I'd want the 75, though.

 

As to the thread drift on 90 vs. 75 - remember that to Leica there really wasn't all that much difference. In the late 1970's Leica perceived a need for an f/1.4 short tele to counter the Canon 85 f/1.2 (on the drawing board) and Nikon 85 f/1.4. They tried it as a 90 and found out that it was just too big - blocked the rangefinder. So they dialed back 20% to 75mm to get the speed in a package usable on an M. But from their point of view it was just a "short faster tele" to complement the 90 'cron "short fast tele".

 

The difference between a 75 and a 90 is 17-20% (depending on which way you want to do the math), whereas the step up from a 50 to a 75 (or 90 to a 135) is a 50% jump.

 

Personally I get along pretty good with 75, a little less compressed and very natural look IMO (on M9).

If I want more compressed I take 135 lately, so in my case 90 I dont use that often right now. But I agree totally a matter of taste.

 

Also with a rangefinder I find myself often cropping a little bit since 100% accurate framing is not possible. With the M9 there is enough room for cropping and a 75mm image might end up with a 80-90mm FOV anyways.