Jump to content

Summicron 75mm versus CV 75mm-Sean Reid's new review


Ecaton

Recommended Posts

Sean,

 

Me, l just want to say thank you for all that you do for us. The thirty odd dollars a year is the best money l've ever spent.

 

 

regards ..... philip

 

I'll second that! I've avoided wasting time an d money trying out some of the lenses thanks to Sean's work. Unfortunately it's also created significant lens lust also :eek:

 

Graham

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks Sean, another fabulous review; I am once again sold... One question if I may: do you think we might see (in the not so distant future) a faster 75mm by Cosina?

 

Hi Gilles,

 

Thanks, I haven't heard any suggestions that one is coming.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Gilles,

 

Thanks, I haven't heard any suggestions that one is coming.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Thank you very much, Sean, I thought I would ask... Cosina has some wonderful fast lenses and the Heliar is not a recent introduction. I was planning to buy the Heliar, and your review has definitely convinced me, exactly the same way as with the VC28/1.9.

 

All the best,

 

Gilles

Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, I don't think we will see another 75 mm/1.4. (In fact, I wonder if we will see another 1.4!) I would not be surprised however if Leica brought out a 75 mm Elmarit.

 

This said, a prime 16 or 18 mm lens with a practical one-focal length accessory finder is of course the prime (!) requirement. Listen, ye gnomes of the caves of Solms!

 

The old man from the Age of the Hologon (sounds positively Tolkienesque, that)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Martin,

 

Thanks. The Leica at F/2.8 and the CV at F/2.8 produce files with similar middle grey "densities" as we'd say with film. The F/2.5 setting on the CV does indeed let in more light. F/2.5 isn't quite a half-stop faster than F/2.8 so one can't quite stay even by slowing down a half-stop of shutter speed. Is the lens actually an F/2.6? Maybe, maybe not but the distinction would largely be splitting hairs.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sean,

I just finished reading your excellent review. I was surprised at the less than stellar corner performance of the Summicron, which is the opposite of Puts' findings in that respect. I am not attacking your review but I can't help but noticing the difference in the results. What is the likelihood of the copy you tested did not perform according to specs, BTW? Yes, I realized that it came as a loaner from Leica but are we ruling sample variation possibility out? You described the focusing ring of the Summicron as smooth with any noticable resistance. I bought a copy of this lens before and the focusing ring had a definite resistance at about 1m but the second copy I ended up getting/using was silky smooth. Yes, there are sample variations among Leica lenses and no, I am not in denial either as I am happy with my Summicron but I just would like to know whether sample variation is the likely cause of this. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Joshua,

 

I was very surprised as well (as I wrote in the review), so I checked and re-checked and re-tested, etc. but the results were real. Did Erwin test on film or the M8? Yes, it is always possible that a given lens might be a bad sample and if I get a chance to test another 75 Summicron I certainly will. Some of the Leica press lenses have lived a hard life and show it. This 75, however, looks like new.

 

I'll ask Leica for a second copy to test and if that's available and the results turn out better, I'll add an update to the review. Otherwise, of course, I can only judge from whatever examples I actually have in my hands. As I recall, that slight corner softness was the only real weakness the lens showed (other than the flare into the light at smaller apertures). On-center was excellent, lack of CA was essentially perfect, etc.

 

There's going to be similar discussion when the Zeiss 15 test results come out. <G>

 

added: Just called Leica and they will send me a second test copy of the 75/2.0 once another example comes back in.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sean,

Thank you for your reply. Erwin Puts tested that lens in April 2005; so, well before the M8 was available. I am not holding my breath but I'd like to see the results of the second copy you will be getting from Leica.

 

Thanks again,

Joshua

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Joshua,

 

Some of the Leica press lenses have lived a hard life and show it. This 75, however, looks like new.

 

HI Sean - as you aren't going to give me a lens rebate, I thought I'd better post something sensible:o

 

With reference to pool lenses, I bought a brand new 90mm macro elmar around 6 weeks ago, it back focused quite badly, and I sent it to Leica in the UK, who agreed that it was bad - too bad for them to fix. They then tested the pool lens as they were trying to help me out with a lens for a trip . . . . . and that seemed to be bad as well.

 

Of course, I haven't the faintest idea about the summicron you tested, but there is definitely sample variation, and, it seems, there is no particular reason to believe that a pool lens is up to spec.

 

I guess it's what always worries me about lens reviews (yours included). Whenever I've had more than one copy of the same lens (not just Leica - in fact especially not Leica) they've all been different - I remember Bjorn Rorslett (I think) checking a whole pallet of 17-35 Nikon f2.8 lenses (a bit of a classic) and they were all quite different. When I got in to Leica, I assumed that at least there would be consistency in lens quality, but there obviously isn't (I have to 50 'crons, and they behave quite differently).

 

Please don't take this the wrong way - I really enjoy your reviews, and I find them extremely valuable - but as an absolute arbiter of the quality of a lens I don't think they can be more than an intelligent guideline.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really enjoy your reviews, and I find them extremely valuable - but as an absolute arbiter of the quality of a lens I don't think they can be more than an intelligent guideline.

 

Jono, I think that you have to extend that idea to "all reviews of everything".

 

If in fact a lens behaves badly -- for reasons of sample variation rather than design -- that is useful to know as well, no?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jono, I think that you have to extend that idea to "all reviews of everything".

Hi Joe - of course, I hoped I'd made that clear

 

 

If in fact a lens behaves badly -- for reasons of sample variation rather than design -- that is useful to know as well, no?

 

I think that there is a perception that lenses are 'okay' (in which case they'll be roughly the same) or 'not okay'. But my experience is that there is a whole continuum of 'okay' running from 'not that good' to 'excellent'

 

My 90mm macro elmar is a case in point - it arrived backfocusing badly 'not okay' I sent it to Solms, and now it doesn't backfocus - but it isn't very sharp either,and I've seen the results from Tim's which ARE very sharp. Presumably Leica were happy with my 'fixed' lens, and i think I'm going to have trouble getting them to replace it, but both my lens, and Tim's probably now come under the 'okay' heading, but they're not the same!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it's what always worries me about lens reviews (yours included). Whenever I've had more than one copy of the same lens (not just Leica - in fact especially not Leica) they've all been different - I remember Bjorn Rorslett (I think) checking a whole pallet of 17-35 Nikon f2.8 lenses (a bit of a classic) and they were all quite different. When I got in to Leica, I assumed that at least there would be consistency in lens quality, but there obviously isn't (I have to 50 'crons, and they behave quite differently).

 

Please don't take this the wrong way - I really enjoy your reviews, and I find them extremely valuable - but as an absolute arbiter of the quality of a lens I don't think they can be more than an intelligent guideline.

 

No offense taken at all. No reviewer should ever be seen as an "absolute arbiter", of course. With respect to lens variation -- of course its always possible although the variation among different samples of the same Leica lens model is less than I see in other lenses from other makers. If I get a lens to test that really seems "off", I ask for a different example but that doesn't happen very often. One tell-tale sign of a bad lens copy is that it performs differently on one side than on the other, for example.

 

We'll see what the case is with the 75/2.0 (which, remember, showed no CA at all and very high res on center) but, generally, I think that lens quality variations among the RF lenses is not necessarily a huge problem. My guess is that there's nothing wrong with the 75/2.0 I tested but I'll confirm that more empirically.

 

So, indeed, its always possible that a given copy of a lens reviewed is better or worse than average (and I've discussed that point in several articles) but, most often, other examples of a given lens tend to perform much as a given review lens did.

 

As Joe said, this is true of almost anything one reviews (excepting maybe software). Short of testing ten or so examples of every lens or camera, its impossible to avoid completely.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

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.

×
×
  • Create New...