75mm Summicron APO or 90 Summicron APO

[33 Avenue]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi everyone!

 

I only have one lens (35mm Summicron ASPH) and am contemplating adding another one. I'm debating between the 75 or 90 Summicron APO. The problem is no boutique I've been to have both focal lenghts to compare (doesn't matter if used or older models as I just really want to test for myself which distance I prefer). I did try checking the frames of the viewfinder but it's not the same as testing the actual lens (for me, at least) and comparing the pictures.

 

Does anyone have both 75 and 90? Can you kindly share the pros and cons? I was able to test an older 90mm Elmarit but am unsure ... might be too close. I'll mostly use the lens for travel and to capture everyday life (not necessarily just portraits but I like close-ups as I've been cropping my 35mm pictures more and more).

 

Thank you for your help.

[Advertisement]

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

[likalar]

If you already had a 50, I would have suggested a 90. But since your only lens is a 35, my preference would likely be the 75. But that's just my preference. If you are planning on getting a 50 at some point soon, maybe the 90 makes more sense. Now that I've answered, I realize that only you can answer your question. Okay, time is up! What did you decide? ;-)

[Printmaker]

I agree. If I had to do it over again, I'd go with 35 and 75 Summicrons rather than the 35/50/90 kit I now use. The 50 sits in my bag most of the time and the 90 is often too long or not long enough.

 

However, the 35/90 combo is great for travel.

 

Tough choice.

[33 Avenue]

Thanks! I would like to just keep my set to two lens. Great point on the 75 as a better fit to my 35. Maybe that's why I felt the 90 I tried was too close. But it seems that 75 is quite hard to come by for me to see. I've been to four Leica shops and, so far, nothing.

[bocaburger]

I've been cropping my 35mm pictures more and more.

 

Have you been cropping them closer to a 75mm FOV or 90mm? That would be one way to decide which lens to get.

[33 Avenue]

Have you been cropping them closer to a 75mm FOV or 90mm? That would be one way to decide which lens to get.

 

I never thought of it that way, thanks for the tip. The next time I take pictures, I'll make a mental note then of the 75 frame lines and compare to how I crop the photo.

[asmith]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When I bought my first Leica - an M4, I was advised to get just two lenses 35 and 90. Within a few months I felt the need for something between and was back at the shop buying a 50. Now, my most carried combination is 35 and 50 with either a 24 or a 90 if i add a third lens. If I were younger and could easy carry more I would probably go for 18, 24, 35, 50, with either 75 or 90 and 135. I own all these but could not possibly carry them all. When deciding what lenses to own cost is the main consideration: when deciding what to carry your back will decide for you.

Alwyn

[tom0511]

I own both 75 and 90 and...mostly use 50

If you like more compressed images and concentrate on details 90 is the one and the 90 Elmarit would be my favorite.

If you like to use it more like a "long" normal lens I find 75mm more flexible.

If I had 35 and wanted a 2 lens kit I would add a 75mm lens.

The 75/2.0 has also a nice min focusing distance.

If you cant decide there is the Zeiss 85mm/2.0 in the middle

[IWC Doppel]

Sounds like you need a 50 if your cropping 35

[darylgo]

The 75mm will give less tunnel view in the viewfinder although many don't like the framelines. The difference may not be that critical, a 75mm + a few steps forward = 90mm + a few step back. Perspective should be very close with either lens. Camera movement should be slightly less magnified with the 75mm. Btw- The 75mm is the best of the Summarit lenses.

[wda]

I have both focal lengths (Summarit and Elmarit( and like both. But I do prefer the clarity of the 90 frame compared with the 75 which is a bit more 'hit and miss'. While doubling 35 to 75 appeals to many, I think I would go with the 90 for more selective telephoto effects. As lenses are difficult to find, don't rule out either the Summarit or Elmarit which are excellent for most everyday subjects.

[Ib M]

For portraits the 75/2.0 is better with the focusing distance ón 70 cm. and brigger magnication, beside the focusing distance on 100cm on the 90/2.0

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[hoppyman]

They are both very fine lenses of course and there are other options in the range too.

Each has strengths and there are more factors than just where the focal length fits in your two lens set as I'm sure you know.

I have the APO 75. and use it much more than my 90 (Elmarit M)

The 75 is smaller (and a bit lighter) than the APO 90. It hardly intrudes into the viewfinder at all.

It focuses closer (.7m vs 1m) and so actually has a higher reproduction ratio. Its performance remains just as good in the closer ranges too.

Green shell ginger blossoms photo - Geoff Hopkinson photos at pbase.com

 

But be aware you can induce some less flattering perspective on faces at very close distances (eg filling the frame)

 

The longer (than 50) working distance can be better keeping your subjects more comfortable perhaps.

I think that it is the perfect choice for say half length to head and shoulders.

.

Window lit and focused photo - Geoff Hopkinson photos at pbase.com

Natascha brushing back hair photo - Geoff Hopkinson photos at pbase.com

 

It doesn't focus shift which is great if you commonly work around f/4 as I do for the DoF I want.

It uses smaller and cheaper filters

 

On the other side of the ledger the truncated frame lines are not as convenient.

The working distance of the 90 can be better where you are looking to fill the frame with a face, for example. The 90 gives you a bit more 'reach' for travel too.

[thighslapper]

I found the 90/2 a real problem focussing accurately wide open. It's big and heavy.

 

The 75/2 is a much more versatile lens and I seem to have much less trouble getting consistent in focus images, particularly at portrait distances.

 

For 90 I prefer the 90/4 which is a terrific little lens and has macro capability as a bonus.

[biglouis]

You'll always know when you are carrying around a 90/2 but you'll be surprised at how little the 75/2 weighs in comparison. I've owned both but I sold the 90 because it was too bulky and heavy. The heaviness was more of a problem because getting a sharp shot in low light was always difficult.

 

LouisB

[erl]

All comments have been pretty definitive about how the poster uses whichever lens they prefer and I agree they have worked out their priorities.

 

Now the O.P. needs to make a personal assessment based on what/how he wants to work. No one else can do that for him.

 

I own and use the 75/2 APO and the 90/2 pre-Apo. I would not be without either, but find the 75mm on my camera more than any other lens. This is entirely driven by what and how I shoot. I align myself with Hoppy's comments above. However, this may be of no help to the O.P. unless he works exactly the same way as me. Final decision is in his hands. I wish him luck.

[IkarusJohn]

I started with a 35/2, and then added the AA 75/2. It is a great combination, and I really like the 75/2 - size, weight, heft.

 

I then added 135, 50, 28 & 21

 

In terms of carrying around combinations, I find I prefer 28 & 50, 35 & 75, or 50, 35 & 21. If you just want two lenses, I found the 35 & 75 combination really good.

[j.henry]

As others have said, it really depends on what your style is and what focal lengths you "see." For me, 35mm and 75mm are a great combination, but I don't usually "see" 50mm.

 

I have the 90mm APO and it is a great lens. Big, yes, as far as rangefinder glass goes. I also have the new Voigtlander 75mm f/1.8 Heliar Classic. I love the Voigtlander. It is an incredible lens. Don't know if it is better or not than the 75mm Summicron, but at USD 759 vs USD 3,759, I'll take the cash and 90-95% of the quality and go on a nice vacation to use the lens.

 

The last few trips I've made, I've taken the 35 and 75mm combination, plus 25mm and 15mm. It's all I need.

 

Good luck. And, remember, the benefit is that even if you don't like what you choose you can always sell it at little or no loss.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[algrove]

I know we are all trying to help, but so many combo ideas on the low end and middle range tell me there's a WATE or MATE in someone's life. When I travel I am never without a 90 since it's reach better fits my world. I use the 90 more than I ever imagined. Yes, often a few steps can create a 90 or 75, but I find not being able to take those steps in many situations is what drives me to use the 90 a lot. I leave the 75 at home more than I leave the the 90 at home, but that's me OP, not you.

 

Let us know what you decide in the end.

[Guest]

Let us know how you decide + 1 .

Suggest the 75 Summarit.

 

Please don't start wasteing your time with buying and exchangeing lenses, instead of photographing. I write to you because I like it, that you put a lot of thought into it, before you get a second lens. My advise would be to get the small Leica-Billingham bag. Not only are the latches the "right" way around, but it fits imo your absolutely correct view, that less is more - since results are your first objective.

The concept of a second M9 body (like mint, maybe after the M10 appears?) could be a very good alternative to thinking about a third lens. This would still make it into the small Leica bag.

 

Wishing you from Germany a couple of photo hours with GUT LICHT during this week-end!

 

Cheers,

Simon

 

PS: Oh, a lady with a Leica . Welcome!

I'm afraid, the small Leica bag is not the most chic choice.

There are endless threads about this topic, but this was not your question, nor my idea, compactness AND M9 quality being your wise criteria.