Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi L Camera users,

 

I have got help from you many times before and now it is time again.

 

I have following equipment today:

M9, 28mm cron, 35mm lux FLE, 90mm Tele-Elmarit

I am shooting mostly landscape and portraits and would like to shoot more portraits of my daughter now when I am leaving for three months parental leave.

I am thinking of 50mm Lux or 75mm Cron (current ones). In my opinion 90mm is too tight.

 

I have tried them both several times but are pending back and forth. I like them both but can only afford one right now. I like the focusing knob on the 50mm and the closeness of the 75mm. I do not like getting too much into the frames of the 50mm but I also do not like the focusing frame lines for the 75mm etc. etc. etc. But I like very much the 1.4 on the Lux and the distance to your subject for the 75mm etc. etc.

:)

 

For those of you that have used those two lenses much more than I have, what is your experience? What are your pros and cons? How would you do?

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really depends upon the kind of "portraits" that you intend to do. That said, you've indicated that your 90 is "too tight" so I'll hazard a guess and suggest that a 50 might be more useful to you than a 75.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1. You miss a 50 between 35 and 90 imho and i would reconsider the tightness of 90 for portraiture but it's just me. The 75/2 is a superb lens though but you will find it taller and heavier than your Tele-Elmarit 90/2.8 by a non-insignificant margin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+1. You miss a 50 between 35 and 90 imho and i would reconsider the tightness of 90 for portraiture but it's just me. The 75/2 is a superb lens though but you will find it taller and heavier than your Tele-Elmarit 90/2.8 by a non-insignificant margin.

 

On the other hand the f/2.5 Summarit is extremely compact. I'd probably go with the 50mm though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me a fast 75-85mm lens makes hands down the best portrait lens. A 50 is good for people photos of all kinds, but in the specific application of portraiture I'd find a 75 more useful. The slight perspective compressions very naturally draws your viewer to the subject, but it doesn't compress so much like a 90mm or longer that your subject starts to look fatter than he or she really is.

 

Also, given you already have a fast 35, I think a fast 75 (like the cron) will complement it better. You can always get a cheap 50 like an Elmar-M or a vintage 50 as I think it is an extremely useful focal length, but you won't need the most speed there because of the 35 lux and 75 cron you'll already have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have 50, 75 & 90 lenses and cannot make the decision about which I'd recommend - all get used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have the 50 lux (asph) and 75 summarit. I almost never use the 75, I find it works well for small children and domestic pets but it's probably got a lot to do with the distance I like to maintain between myself and the subject!

 

You should get a 50mm of some kind anyway, it's a great focal length. The 75 1.4 is a great lens though, it draws so well and the results always catch my eye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is all personal but if it was me I would go with the 50 without doubt.

 

35mm used to be my main lens but I've migrated to 50, with 28 my second most used focal length. 50mm is far more versatile than 75 - it can be a normal or short telephoto lens and is still fantastic for portraits. 50 is excellent as a single lens as a change from 35. 50 also pairs fantastically as a two-lens kit with the 28.

 

I have the 75 Summicron and 75 Summilux but 50 is just so versatile[/i].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm seriously considering parting ways with my 50 1.4 and going with the 75 AA - I love the 75mm focal length, where 50 doesn't do a lot for me.

Prefer it for portrait and for landscape.

 

I've had the 75 1.4 which I sold because I grew to prefer the modern lens rendering, and the CV 75 2.5 which is actually pretty damn stunning .. just again a more classic look (though it seems better corrected than the 75 1.4 was).

 

I also found that with the 50 I felt like I wanted to stop it down when shooting across-table portraits, because otherwise I'd only get one eye in focus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I go through phases with my 50. There are periods when I don't use it much, but then I'd come back. It's so good for that back to basics look especially for B&W. I think it's a worthwhile focal length to have in the arsenal, but I decided for myself a cheap Elmar-M serves my need plenty enough!

 

The fast mid tele (eg. 75-85) for me serves a very different use. I use it almost exclusively for portraits. I may or may not take it out on travels, but when I'm doing a portrait session it's the first (and sometimes only) lens I'd grab.

 

The fast mid tele is an important member in the lens lineup of any camera system. The 85 1.2 or 1.4 is always a big seller due to portraiture use and is featured prominently in any catalog. Recall when Zeiss launched their primes for the various SLR systems the 50 and 85 were almost always the first lenses to be launched, where the 50 is sold as the universal prime and the 85 the portrait prime. I feel that in the M system, the mid tele is somehow downplayed in importance because of the frame line situation.

 

 

I'm seriously considering parting ways with my 50 1.4 and going with the 75 AA - I love the 75mm focal length, where 50 doesn't do a lot for me.

Prefer it for portrait and for landscape.

 

I've had the 75 1.4 which I sold because I grew to prefer the modern lens rendering, and the CV 75 2.5 which is actually pretty damn stunning .. just again a more classic look (though it seems better corrected than the 75 1.4 was).

 

I also found that with the 50 I felt like I wanted to stop it down when shooting across-table portraits, because otherwise I'd only get one eye in focus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First shot is 50/2 Summicron-R (on Fuji Provia F 100 pushed to 400). This is when I'd use a 50 for a portrait, when I'm trying to include the a bit of the environment.

 

Second shot is with 75AA (on the cropped APS-C sensor of the Ricoh GXR M module). The 75 is to me more suited for typical portrait situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you get 50mm you will need 75mm for close up portraits. 50mm @70cm is just not close enough.

maybe on M240 with macro adapter and evf you can get closer with a 50 but that won't be a comfortable solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For children up to 8yrs I would certainly recommend a 75, although I do not know the 75AA out of own experience, I would say the Summilux for the bo-keh and selective focus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tough question!

 

My first lens on the M240 was a 35 Cron, and then added a 75 Cron, which I felt gave me great coverage for a '2-lens' system. I found the 75 Cron to be a really wonderful, sharp and surprisingly versatile lens, which gave me interesting opportunities to include 'background context' when using it for portraiture - my only personal niggle was the lack of a 'knob' on its focus ring..

 

I've since added a 50 Lux, which is just a beauty in every respect, as well as the new 90 Macro-Elmar. However, I do go back to the 75 on a surprising number of occasions, and not just for portraits; sometimes the 50 Lux just feels a bit too 'obvious' if I want to do something different - if that makes any sense - and looking through the 75 often gives me a different perspective on the World.

 

Although you certainly wouldn't be disappointed with the 50 Lux, In your situation I think I'd try the 75 Cron...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't find the 75mm frame-lines anywhere near as easy to use and accurate as the 50mm. So therefore they are less versatile for broad use. Of course, with digital one can use trial and error when shooting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said you can't afford both, but have you considered this option.

1. 50/2 Summicron (non APO of course)

2. 75/2.5 Summarit

The 75/2.5 is supposed to be a fabulous lens.

You could pick up both of these for the same price as the 50/1.4...

 

But on your original question, I would choose 75 if you are looking for more intimate portraits (i.e. less background context) and also you will be able to stand further away and be less intimidating to your daughter...

Good luck...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the M9 I would get the 75mm Summilux. I go 75 when I can't make up my mind 50/90... The Summilux gives that extra stop, which is nice. It is my portrait goto lens, and stopped down its as sharp as the M9 can handle. It's drawback is size and weight, plus you really need to practice with it because of the narrow DOF and long focus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, i have both those lenses which i have been using with a sony A7r but now also have the M240 yay :-).

The 50lux is my favourite lense for a portrait where i want some body in the shot and want to be kind if it is a female sitter. The 75cron is razor sharp and works well for closer head and head and shoulder shots. If i only had to have one, i would keep my 50lux.

Happy to do a sample shot with both and put them in a drop box for you if that helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By jonoslack
      Hi There
      Several people have asked me about this, and so it seemed to be worth doing it! 
      All the files were originally shot on DNG - the sharpening and noise reduction sliders in Lightroom were all zeroed. The SL2 files were opened in Photoshop and the Image size reduced without any noise reduction help. They were then exported as 100% jpg quality 12 jpg files. I've then done an XY comparison zoomed in to approximately 100% and taken a screen shot. I'll put this on to the Review thread as well, but I thought it was worth putting it up as a separate thread.
      As you would expect - downsizing the SL2 images does help with the noise - but even so, at higher ISO there is still at least a stop difference. In each case the SL2-S is on the left. To me this is a little like angels dancing on the heads of pins, and it's also open to methodology questions - and anyway, why would you not use noise reduction?) 
      First of all, the Scene:

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!  
      100 ISO: 

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! 400 ISO

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! 1600 ISO

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! 6,400 ISO

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! 12,500 ISO

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! 25,000 ISO

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! 50,000 ISO

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! Finally 100,000 on the SL2-S and 50,000 on the SL2

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!  
       
    • By onasj
      I obtained a customer-release—not pre-release/beta—M10-R and compared it side-by-side with the M10 Monochrom (hereafter referred to as the M10-M) on a test scene at high ISO values.  The firmware version for both was the latest firmware currently available to the public: 10.20.27.20 for the M10-R (upgraded from the initial released 10.20.23.49 firmware that was pre-installed in the new camera), and 2.12.8.0 for the M10-M. 
      Methodology: all shots were taken on a tripod with a 2-second delay to minimize vibration.  The same Leica 50 APO lens was used for all tests.  The aperture was set to f/5.6 for all tests, at which the resolving power of the 50 APO is about as high as possible among commercially available 35-mm format lenses.  The ISO value and shutter speeds were as follows:
      ISO 6400, 1/60 s
      ISO 12500, 1/125 s
      ISO 25000, 1/250 s
      ISO 50000, 1/500 s
      ISO 100000 (M10-M only), 1/1000 s
      To the best of my ability, the M10-R and the M10-M were treated equally.  The test shots were taken in one sitting, with the same tripod position 2.2 m from the target, and under the same lighting.  The images were focused by rangefinder and confirmed by live view for each camera.  The subject distance (2.2 m) was farther from the test scene than my earlier M10-R tests (1.3 m) because I anticipated that the M10-M might have no trouble resolving all the details of the scene from 1.3 m, even at absurdly high ISOs.
      To keep the test as pure as possible, all the test shots were taken as DNG files, then transferred and opened in Adobe Photoshop 2020 with Camera Raw 12.3 (which has native M10-R support) with no corrections or adjustments to the default image settings, other than clicking “B&W” to convert the M10-R images to monochrome.  Therefore, this test does not really answer the question of how the performance between the cameras compares if one were to bring the full power of modern post-processing, noise removal, AI-driven scaling and sharpening, etc. to bear on the images.  It also does not exploit the important ability of adjusting the levels of different colors when converting color files to monochrome files—arguably the largest advantage of using the M10-R to generate monochrome photos instead of the M10-M.  Instead, the purpose of this test is to compare the acuity and noise level of the two cameras at ISO 6400 to ISO 50000.
      Overall, both cameras take remarkably good monochrome photos, even at ISO levels such as 12500 that would previously be considered out-of-reach.  Here are 100% crops from a small portion of the center region of both cameras (M10-R on the left, M10-M on the right).  Click on the image below to view it at 100% to avoid scaling artifacts.  I would have no hesitation using ISO 12500 monochrome images from either camera for virtually any application.  But of course there are substantial performance differences.

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! Finding #1: The M10-M captures higher acuity levels than the M10-R across the ISO range tested (6400 to 50000).
      As expected, given the lack of a Bayer color filter array (CFA) and no need to de-mosaic the red-, green-, or blue-filtered pixels, the M10-M offers significantly higher acuity than the M10-R.  To my eye, the advantage persists even if you give the M10-R an advantage of one or two stops: compare the sharpness of the fine features of the scene as captured by the M10-M at ISO 25000 vs. the M10-R at ISO 6400, or the M10-R at ISO 25000 to the M10-M at ISO 100000—a remarkable testament to the M10-M’s ability to capture a scene down to the smallest details, even zooming in to 100%.  Notice also that at the same ISO level, aperture, and shutter speed (chosen by each camera’s auto-shutter speed setting to be the same at all ISO levels!), the M10-M images are only modestly brighter than the M10-R; I was surprised that the Bayer CFA didn’t dim the M10-R images more strongly.  Perhaps the M10-R firmware partially compensates for the loss of light due to the Bayer CFA.
      Finding #2: The M10-M offers about a 1- to 2-stop advantage in high-ISO noise levels over the M10-R.
      Compare the M10-M at ISO 50000 to the M10-R at ISO 12500, or the M10-M at ISO 25000 to the M10-R at ISO 6400. The M10-M continues to blow me away with its high-ISO performance.  Indeed, Bill Claff’s measurements at https://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm rank the M10-M’s high ISO performance as fourth among all cameras tested to date, behind the Phase One IQ4, the Phase One IQ3, and the Fuji GFX-100—three current or recent top-of-the-line medium format cameras.
      Overall, Leica has created in the M10-M and the M10-R two current-generation sister cameras with outstanding overall performance.  If acuity or high-ISO performance is more important than color for your particular application, than the M10-M outperforms the M10-R and is among the very best cameras to my knowledge, even joining some medium-format monsters.  And if color is needed, either in the final image or to enable creative conversion to black and white images that allows easy sky darkening, face lightening, etc. during post-processing, the M10-R remains an option worthy of its current flagship status among Leica M cameras.
    • By Stick
      What is the benefit to shooting JPEG and RAW?
      I am starting to get overwhelmed by having doubles of all pictures, not to mention the additional space requirement.
       
      Does anyone shoot only JPEG? Why?
      Does anyone shoot only RAW? Why?
      Thanks!
    • By elmars
      I was a Betatester of the M10-P. I wrote a little review fin the German forum:
       
      https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/287695-m10-p-the-sound-of-silence/?p=3576276
       
      Sorry, but my English is not good enough to translate it. Because of that I restrict myself here to the little film of my shutter noise comparison between the M10 and the M10-P.
       

       
      The pictures of a sound analysis of our forum-friends Mathias („schattenundlicht“) and Uli („UliWer“) You can find here:
       
                  #3            
    • By Fauxtog
      So should I dump my venerable M9?
       
      To try and help decide, I tried a quick, rough and dirty (i.e. non-scientific) shootout in a camera store. Using my own lens on each body, and then taking a quick snap as I would normally shoot and in difficult store shop lighting (against the light, mixed light - interior and exterior).
       
      The short answer is I'll be standing by the M9.
       
      But if you're interested in why, well the details and comparison images, unscientific and personally biased as they are, you can find on my FB page which you can visit by clicking HERE

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!
×
×
  • Create New...