Question regarding 75mm summilux sharpness wide-open

[uhoh7]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you have M9, this also works:

 

Canon Superspeed 85 by unoh7, on Flickr

 

Very good deal, but far more rare. 1800 copies made. I paid 500USD.

 

VERY under-rated:

 

Hudson Hood by unoh7, on Flickr

 

L1024393 by unoh7, on Flickr

 

L1024438 by unoh7, on Flickr

 

on a stock A7r:

Canon LTM 85/1.5 @1.5 by unoh7, on Flickr

 

It weighs even more than the Lux

 

It's also extremely strong stopped down.

 

Canon System2 by unoh7, on Flickr

 

It's new price in 1952 is about 2150 today. Murders the Summarex, technically. I very much doubt the famous Nikkor of same vintage is better, but it is worth far far more.

[Advertisement]

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

[phongph]

Let's compare F/1.4 to 5.6L1026621 by unoh7, on FlickrWhite House by unoh7, on FlickrThese are all full size on flickr so you can take a very close look if desired.At 1.4 it's "Glowy" some sort of color aberrations, somebody can remind us exactly what (Adan notes it too, I see. By F/2 it's basically searing, and arguably too sharp for portraits. F/4 it's ridiculous. And at 5.6 it is the equal of the 90AA.Of course 1.4 is only usable for a portrait like my second one up there, unless you like fuzzy noses. For portraits a Nikkor LTM 85/2 is alot sweeter than the Lux, or the pre-asph 90 cron is better too. This is why Put's at first said, "well if you need it, you need it". Later he became more affectionate to the lens.OOF is very nice, that's for sure :)In very bright conditions WO seems softer. Above, it's "cooking". Soft? Do they look soft?Erwin:"At full aperture the lens exhibits a medium to high overall contrast, with extremely fine details quite visibly recorded. Very fine details are clearly resolved with some softness at the edges. Some astigmatism is visible in the outer zones, which softens the finest possible textural details. This performance holds over most of the image field, with a detectable reduction in the outermost zone. The corners, although much softer, still record very fine details with good visibility."In the context of such a fast speed, that does not describe a soft lens, nor do my samples show one---IMHO ;)Puts on F/2:"Stopping down to f/2.0 achieves the high overall contrast needed to record extremely fine details with clarity and crispness. Higher contrast generally gives the fine details more clarity and sharper edges. The outer zones now also improve and only the extreme corners lag a bit beyond this performance."You certainly see this striking difference, at f/2. That is true with many many great lenses. In fact which is the lens that does not get alot better 1.4 to F/2?By 2.8 the 75 Lux can compete with anything:"At f/2.8 the contrast is slightly higher yet and now the micro contrast is at its top, allowing the clear and crisp rendition of exceedingly small details. Now a tripod is most needed to record the finest possible details. We are talking about small details with a diameter of about 0.3mm in the image, photographed at a distance of 7.5 meters! You need to view the real object at really close distances to see what the lens/film combination can record. This performance level is maintained from f/2 and f/2.8 to f/8 and the choice of aperture needs only to be justified on depth-of-field arguments."I believe at f/4 it beats the 75 APO, from there on down. At F/2 the APO is better for sure. There are many beat up copies and used 75/1.4s are notorious for calibration issues. Stories of trying 3 or 4 and all are off, are not unusual. CLA is not for the faint of heart. It's glued together. I would not let anyone touch mine, outside DAG. Even then I cringe at the risk.75 Luxy by unoh7, on FlickrThe price of such performance: it's a monster. ;)The M9 is so bad over ISO 800, I have to have it. But the APO is much more practical and alot cheaper. For M10 it would be smarter. I have a 75 Summarit which is what I actually carry in daylight when I want a 75.Oh! by unoh7, 75 Summarit.Summarit has richer colors, like most of the post Y2K lenses. But it does purple fringe, and the Lux is sharper on the edge, without a doubt. I was completely ignorant of how strong the 75 Lux really is when I bought it, I find it hard sometimes.Sign of Aggression by unoh7, 75 Lux WO M9Color signature very similar to 50 cron v4, 135/2.8 and TE 90 thin of same general era. Very true to reality, unlike the rich Karbe lenses.Some people think you want EVF for a shot like that. I have news: if calibration is good, or you know to compensate, no EVF can equal RF for accuracy in very thin DOF. Shooting A7.mod beside M9 for years now, M9 always wins.

Hi Uhoh7!

Many thanks for your advice!

I have got SL 601, SL 24-90/f2.8 - 4.0 ASPH and M Apo 50 f2.0. I plan to get M Lux 75 f1.4 to shoot the portrait and low light!

Have a good day!

Thanks again!

[Paul J]

I find no real faults of the 75mm Summilux. It's "flaws" are the things that contribute to it's overall look, a look that I want when I reach for this lens which is often. When I use it wide open I do move the aperture around alot from 1.4 to 2.8. Some surfaces and textures appear more sharp than others at 1.4 and it also varies with different lighting. The more you use it the more you learn how things will work best. Stopped down it is a beast in terms of sharpness. I would almost call it a Jeckl&Hyde lens, but that would sound too untameable. Once you've spent time with it it's not hard to predict, use or focus.

 

I would be afraid that an updated APO-Summilux would make it something else and likely kill off the magic of it. I think it's great having the Summicron on offer too which offers higher correction and often contemplated buying it but never did as I've been contented with the Summilux, for which I have the best of both lenses in one.

[pico]

That is a great lens. I had one, sold it long ago, could not find another and ended up getting the 75 Summilux.

[uhoh7]

I find no real faults of the 75mm Summilux. It's "flaws" are the things that contribute to it's overall look, a look that I want when I reach for this lens which is often. When I use it wide open I do move the aperture around alot from 1.4 to 2.8. Some surfaces and textures appear more sharp than others at 1.4 and it also varies with different lighting. The more you use it the more you learn how things will work best. Stopped down it is a beast in terms of sharpness. I would almost call it a Jeckl&Hyde lens, but that would sound too untameable. Once you've spent time with it it's not hard to predict, use or focus.

 

I would be afraid that an updated APO-Summilux would make it something else and likely kill off the magic of it. I think it's great having the Summicron on offer too which offers higher correction and often contemplated buying it but never did as I've been contented with the Summilux, for which I have the best of both lenses in one.

Excellent post. People buy the Lux, like me, after seeing some WO shots and sweet bokeh. Nothing can prepare you for the DOF at 75/1.4. I think it's less than the nocti. Just nothing.

 

DSC09498 by unoh7, on Flickr

 

I was an idiot to shoot this WO. Of course I had no idea what the lens was like at 5.6. Like Paul says this thing will x-ray your chest at 5.6 and reveal microscopic cancer nodules. It's known as a portrait lens. At 75 or 85, for portraits, high speed shots only take you so far. So really what wold be smart is to find something that is very sweet from F/4 to F/11. I'm not sure what that would be honestly. But I'm sure there must be something between 75 and 90. In truth at those apertures very few lenses, even today, are more technical than the 75 Lux. It's clinical.

 

But you can't fight romance with reality.

 

At this shoot, I preferred the CV 35/1.2:

Checkin it by unoh7, CV 35/1.2

 

They are checking out the shots from the famous lux. But the CV 35/1.2 is superior for portraits. No I am not kidding.

 

Garbo by unoh7, CV 35/1.2

 

At 35 everybody looks thinner, for one thing. Even superspeed, you have DOF. But you do need to get close. 50 is killer for portraits. 75/85/90 far more difficult and often unforgiving. No matter what, faces are fatter than real life.

 

"Wide Angle", "Normal", "Portrait". These are very old terms for 28-50-85. They have nothing to do with what lens will make a good portrait of a human face, or that's what I've come to believe.

 

Now when there is no light, I have no choice if I want to stand back a bit. I don't have any camera which is very good over ISO 1600. So then I rise to the demands of the 75 Lux bolemic DOF. And if it works I do like the OOF rendering very much

 

DSC09441-3 by unoh7, 75 Lux

 

I think really the 75 Lux is meant for a photojournalist. A real expert, who is going to need something to "get closer" to his subjects, soldiers, politicians, and steal every detail. It can go to 1.4, if the situation gets dim. At the reportage range the DOF is enough that at least the noses are not fuzzy. It's at heart a documentary lens.

 

Few use it that way--myself included

 

Man and Machine by unoh7, on Flickr

 

But it's impressive in that mode and it's one of the greatest Leica landscape lenses.

 

Fall Afternoon by unoh7, on Flickr

 

Nothing beats it except maybe the 50 APO, and even then I'd wonder if the Lux has less astig, at the classic landscape apertures. From f/2 this is the Leica Otus, and though it's Otus sized, who knew?

 

Walter Mandler did, I expect his pride was for a lens very technical yet also beautiful when not in focus. Nothing to do with the dreamy myths which mark the 75 Lux "brand". That's his F/1.