50 lux (last but not asph) OR cv 75 for portraits

[misha]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

hi guys, i know this is a bit apples and oranges, but which of these two would you rather have as your ONE portrait lens?

 

thanks

m

[Advertisement]

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

[chris_tribble]

Aargh ... I have both and use both. If I was pushed I'd stay with the 50 as the portrait lens on the M8. You have to get in a bit close, but it's a VERY versatile lens. The 75 I love - and it's also a very useful short tele for a lot of other jobs, but it's heavy and, I find, slower to focus than my 50.

 

Hope this helps.

[lars_bergquist]

Apples and oranges indeed – two different lenses of different ages, and of different focal lengths! But yes, none of them uses aspherical optics. So let's try:

 

The second version 50 mm Summilux (1962–2004) is really a remarkable lens. Leica had to pull out all available stops to improve on it, and this after 42 years! This old glass wide open produces a medium contrast image, with very good definition on center, with a discernible fall-off in the direction of the corners. Fine detail is discernible however all the way out. There is a bit of curvature of field; resistance to flare and internal reflexes is remarkably good, better than with the current Summicron. As with all older lenses, contrast and resolution improve gradually on stopping down, with a maximum around f:8. I would still use this lens if the current Summilux ASPH had not existed; but it does exist.

 

The C/V lens exhibits a classical fingerprint, but a good one. I.e. sharp center, somewhat softer edges and corners. It is however better at 2.5 than any of the Tele-Elmarits at 2.8, and these are lenses that I love on a film M. Definition increases with stopping down, and the image is brilliant at 5.6. All 75 and 90 mm lenses are of course pretty well alike at that f-stop of course, the practical differences are found at wider apertures.

 

For me, the Voigtländer 75 mm Color-Heliar is the obvious successor of the classical 90 mm lenses. This means that it is a natural portrait lens, if by 'portrait' you mean 'head and shoulders'. (But remember Holbein on Henry VIII, Titian on Emperor Charles V, and van Dyck on Charles I!) For 'head-and shoulders', the 50 at an equivalent M8 length of c. 68 mm, is still a bit short as it tempts you to get in too close. No person should ever be photographed at a closer distance than c. 2 m or 6–7 feet, as this gives rise to perspectival caricatures, with over-large noses and vanishing ears. This is true no matter which focal length you use. This does only define cropping. Perspective, i.e. the spatial representation and the relations between the objects in the image field, is governed only by the object distance. A moderate wide angle lens can be fine for 'portraits-with-environment', and these are often the most interesting people pictures! So, ask yourself how you would like to work, and the answer to your query will be clear.

 

The old man from the Age of the M3

[misha]

Aargh ... I have both and use both. If I was pushed I'd stay with the 50 as the portrait lens on the M8. You have to get in a bit close, but it's a VERY versatile lens. The 75 I love - and it's also a very useful short tele for a lot of other jobs, but it's heavy and, I find, slower to focus than my 50.

 

Hope this helps.[/quote

 

interesting, thanks.

 

cv 75 heavy? its .5 pounds and i think thats lighter than the 50m lux, no? is there rational for keeping both. to me, the big advantage of a 50 lux is .7 minimum focusing distance vs 1m on cv 75, and of course 1.4 vs. 2.5. but what can the cv 75 do that 50 lux cant?

 

cheers

m

[misha]

Apples and oranges indeed – two different lenses of different ages, and of different focal lengths! But yes, none of them uses aspherical optics. So let's try:

 

The second version 50 mm Summilux (1962–2004) is really a remarkable lens. Leica had to pull out all available stops to improve on it, and this after 42 years! This old glass wide open produces a medium contrast image, with very good definition on center, with a discernible fall-off in the direction of the corners. Fine detail is discernible however all the way out. There is a bit of curvature of field; resistance to flare and internal reflexes is remarkably good, better than with the current Summicron. As with all older lenses, contrast and resolution improve gradually on stopping down, with a maximum around f:8. I would still use this lens if the current Summilux ASPH had not existed; but it does exist.

 

The C/V lens exhibits a classical fingerprint, but a good one. I.e. sharp center, somewhat softer edges and corners. It is however better at 2.5 than any of the Tele-Elmarits at 2.8, and these are lenses that I love on a film M. Definition increases with stopping down, and the image is brilliant at 5.6. All 75 and 90 mm lenses are of course pretty well alike at that f-stop of course, the practical differences are found at wider apertures.

 

For me, the Voigtländer 75 mm Color-Heliar is the obvious successor of the classical 90 mm lenses. This means that it is a natural portrait lens, if by 'portrait' you mean 'head and shoulders'. (But remember Holbein on Henry VIII, Titian on Emperor Charles V, and van Dyck on Charles I!) For 'head-and shoulders', the 50 at an equivalent M8 length of c. 68 mm, is still a bit short as it tempts you to get in too close. No person should ever be photographed at a closer distance than c. 2 m or 6–7 feet, as this gives rise to perspectival caricatures, with over-large noses and vanishing ears. This is true no matter which focal length you use. This does only define cropping. Perspective, i.e. the spatial representation and the relations between the objects in the image field, is governed only by the object distance. A moderate wide angle lens can be fine for 'portraits-with-environment', and these are often the most interesting people pictures! So, ask yourself how you would like to work, and the answer to your query will be clear.

 

The old man from the Age of the M3

 

hi lars,

 

thanks for the elaborate response. i couldnt agree more with what you said about moderate wide angles.

that being said, i feel there is also room for an occasional head & shoulders situation, and this is where my original question comes in. i dont doubt that both lenses are great at f5.6 and such, but for me the appeal in such lenses is still wide open. obvious advantage of the 50 is f1.4 vs. f2.5 and minimal focusing .7m vs. 1m. while, cv 75 is about $1,000 less, and like you said, is a more natural choice for portraits.

personally, i like to shoot portraits at somewhere between .7 and 1m (perhaps thats a bit too close), but if standing about 2-3m away and still wide open, which of the two lenses would be your natural selection?

 

thanks

m