Jump to content

75/1.4M Vs 80/1.4R


antistatic

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm considering either of these classic lenses primarily for portraits.

 

It seems that for less than the price of the 75 summilux M, I could get the 80 summilux R and a R6.2 in good condition.

 

If I went for the 75 I would be using it on either my MP or M9.

 

I don't yet have an R body but have had a R6.2 on my wanted list for a while.

 

Does anyone have experience with both lenses? Does the R combination handle better than the M combination? Is the R easier to focus wide open and frame than the M?

 

I realise that if I went with the R combination I would be stuck with shooting film.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have both. I use the 75 with the M9, the 80 with a Leitax Sony Alpha mount on the Sony A900, and both on the NEX-7. Focusing wide open with either the 75/M9 or 80/A900 is an issue for my eyes, and my hit rate is about one in three or so. Of course that depends on one's eyesight. The NEX-7 with focus assist and peaking is a different story. I get almost all shots in focus. However, I am not sure I like the crop frame equivalent focal lengths for portraits. As for the IQ, I slightly favor the 80 for portraits. It seems to be smoother with a special creaminess which you may or may not like. Hope this helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 80 on a SLR is much easier to focus critically, optically they are pretty much the same, with the 80 being designed after the 75 had been in the market place for a few years.

 

It is possible the 80 may be an improved design, maybe higher performance glass or coating, however the "look" is essentially the same. Both are superb BTW......highly recommended.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference, I think, is due to the difference in volume. A M lens is always severely constrained by the need not to block too much of the finder, and never to block the rangefinder. A SLR lens can grow to much larger dimensions because it can never block your view – it is not past the lens, but through it. And available volume is a severe restraint on lens design, which I think not all critics are aware of.

 

The old man from the Kodachrome Age

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies.

 

R cameras and lenses look to be so much better value compared with the hyper inflated M lens prices.

 

The down side of buying an R camera of course will be wanting a 21 and a 35 and a 50 and a macro and a super tele to go with the 80.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn’t the 180mm/2.8 Apo Telyt enticing? I vow to restrain my self and live with the Nikon 180mm/2.8 AIs, but it is fun to think about the Leica version.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They're both phenomenal Mandler-era "portrait" lenses, and very similar.

 

On the M9, the 75 is superb, and with the improved framelines (compared with the M8) the 75 is nice to use, I find.

 

I prefer, very slightly, the 80R Summilux though. I currently use it on a Canon 5d3 with manual and AF confirming adapters, and it's one of the best lenses of its type. You can also get lens mount adapters (as in you need to remove the original mount) for Nikon bodies.

 

No need to be stuck with film if you want to use many R lenses. Some won't work with adaptation--they run into mirror issues and such. But the 80R works just fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 80mm is a fantastic lens, but don't forget the 60mm macro also. Before I bought

a R6.2, I'd look for a R8 or R9 for not too much more money. I've used the 80mm on

a Canon 5dMkII and couldn't be happier with the results. Either way, you could buy

the lens and the camera for less than the M 70.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...