Jump to content

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


Ecaton

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As I have a Cron 50 and an Elmarit 90... I thought it would be kind of luxury to get the Cron 75...... so after reading Sean's review I ordered a CV75 :-)

 

Hope you were right and if your were not, thanks for "letting me play" with a 75 for so little money :rolleyes:

 

Eric

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).

 

Well this is very scary to know that you may spend US$ 2K or 3K and you may be buying the lens that does not meet the quality level Leica promises....

 

I had back focusing problems with a Lux35 and when I read all the problems people had with 1.4 in general I come to the conclusion that it is not a pool problem. Some lenses are just NOT made to work well with the M8. Leica stopping the 75Lux is surely one of the reasons. It is easier to stop selling a lens than saying don't buy it if you plan to use it with an M8.

 

I think Leica is going to work on a complete re-design of their lenses to work with digital bodies.

 

Eric

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have a Cron 50 and an Elmarit 90... I thought it would be kind of luxury to get the Cron 75...... so after reading Sean's review I ordered a CV75 :-)

 

Hope you were right and if your were not, thanks for "letting me play" with a 75 for so little money :rolleyes:

 

Eric

 

Hi Eric,

 

The review is "right" in so much as it is an accurate description, to the best of my ability, of those two lenses. I'll try another 75 Summicron to confirm but I think the copy I tested is probably fine.

 

Just a reminder to all -- the 75 Summicron did extremely well in that review, in most respects. But, naturally, no lens is perfect. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I think we should entertain the possibility that the Summicron simply shows more resolution on center and the Heliar shows more resolution in the corners. That may just be the nature of the beasts.

 

Speaking generally. I've seen more sample variation in the SLR lenses I've tested (and owned, returned, etc.) than I have in the rangefinder lenses. That includes some very expensive Canon L lenses. Of the three RF lens makers, I've seen the least sample variation in the Leica and Zeiss lenses. There is sometimes sample variation in the CV lenses (not surprising given the costs) but even that has been pretty rare.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Link to post
Share on other sites

This was moved to the Digital Forum but started out in the Consumer Forum as a review of two lenses. As a former Newspaper Photographer for a Midwestern daily(Wisconsin State Journal), I'd like to bring a professional viewpoint here.

One (at least I don't) does not purchase cameras and lenses based on the percieved or measured picture quality. After a certain level, the percieved difference really doesn't matter. What is important is the 'Art' in your photography. Individuals that produce photography as an occupation don't suceed based on using the lens or lenses with the highest resolution or whatever optical quality you want to use as a criteria. They succeed because they are able to imploy these tools better than others.

What the Professional wants is equipment that will work, work well and continue to work. That is why Nikon, Canon and Leica systems are used, the cameras and lenses are mechanically better built and to higher standards than competing brands.

For photojournalism I used two systems, the Nikon and Leica, starting out with Nikon F's and an M3. I could care less that another brand of a lens had a higher rating in some test. The lenses that these two companies produced were/are more than adequate for any job ranging from portraits, spot news to Weddings I occasionally did. The latest Leica M system Aspherical lenses I have acquired are the sharpest lenses I have used for my M6 and M7. The 75mm AA is simply stunning for portraits eclipsing my long time favorites, the 135mm f2.8 Nikkor/90mm Summicron. I have the latest 90mm A Summicron also but much prefer the 75mm AA. I also have a full set of RF lenses for my M3 and they are still sharp enough to do any job that is needed.

I read these types of discussions in many technical areas where the debate/discussion over minutia completely over shadows the intended purpose of the equipment.

It's not my intent to disparage anyone's testing or any equipment of any manufacture, but to add another opinion about what's important to photography.-Dick

Link to post
Share on other sites

This was moved to the Digital Forum but started out in the Consumer Forum as a review of two lenses. As a former Newspaper Photographer for a Midwestern daily(Wisconsin State Journal), I'd like to bring a professional viewpoint here.

One (at least I don't) does not purchase cameras and lenses based on the percieved or measured picture quality. After a certain level, the percieved difference really doesn't matter. What is important is the 'Art' in your photography. Individuals that produce photography as an occupation don't suceed based on using the lens or lenses with the highest resolution or whatever optical quality you want to use as a criteria. They succeed because they are able to imploy these tools better than others.

What the Professional wants is equipment that will work, work well and continue to work. That is why Nikon, Canon and Leica systems are used, the cameras and lenses are mechanically better built and to higher standards than competing brands.

For photojournalism I used two systems, the Nikon and Leica, starting out with Nikon F's and an M3. I could care less that another brand of a lens had a higher rating in some test. The lenses that these two companies produced were/are more than adequate for any job ranging from portraits, spot news to Weddings I occasionally did. The latest Leica M system Aspherical lenses I have acquired are the sharpest lenses I have used for my M6 and M7. The 75mm AA is simply stunning for portraits eclipsing my long time favorites, the 135mm f2.8 Nikkor/90mm Summicron. I have the latest 90mm A Summicron also but much prefer the 75mm AA. I also have a full set of RF lenses for my M3 and they are still sharp enough to do any job that is needed.

I read these types of discussions in many technical areas where the debate/discussion over minutia completely over shadows the intended purpose of the equipment.

It's not my intent to disparage anyone's testing or any equipment of any manufacture, but to add another opinion about what's important to photography.-Dick

 

Given that perspective, you might be surprised to find out that my site is really about photography, not minutae.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean (another working pro for the past 23 years, as are many on this forum)

Link to post
Share on other sites

This was moved to the Digital Forum but started out in the Consumer Forum as a review of two lenses.

 

Actually, it started in the Digital forum, was moved briefly to the customer forum by Andy and then came here (where it probably belongs). The review is not within the thread but the thread began by discussing the review.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hope you were right and if your were not, thanks for "letting me play" with a 75 for so little money :rolleyes:

 

Eric

 

Hi Eric,

 

I was thinking about this post today as I was working on something. What is it exactly that you hope I'm right about? I'm curious.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, I just posted a shot using the 75MM summicron with the M8 on the Photo Forum (People) call Central Park Wedding. This was a 6mb JPEG file originally. No changes were made in PP except that It's been cropped and reduced in resolution to fit the site. You can still see the level of dynamic range and detail available. Please bear with me, folks, this is my first picture post. Hope it works. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/24794-central-park-wedding.html#post259345

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.

 

I was thinking about this point again today as I was working on the review of ultra-wides. There's usually a lot of ground covered in a good lens review and only some of the aspects discussed would, potentially, be likely to be affected by sample variation. Some examples of a given lens may show a little less corner resolution than other examples, etc. but the overall impressions one forms of a given lens aren't necessarily dependent on finding "perfect" examples of each lense. When a CV lens is off (and most have not been), the tell-tale signs are usually quite clear: one side will be slightly out of focus or one corner will be soft, etc. Among the Zeiss lenses, the 15 I tested (which shows no signs of rough handling) is the first ZM lens I've tested that makes me want to double-check a second copy (for corner resolution). The only Leica lens samples I've seen that gave questionable performance also showed noticeable wear and tear, scratches on the front element, etc.

 

There may also be certain relationships between the M8 and certain lenses that we don't fully realize or understand yet. To be sure, the camera (and digital workflow) is more relentless (with respect to revealing any technical weaknesses) than film cameras (and the chemical workflow) usually are.

 

Lastly, and again, the nature of the Internet (and forums) sometimes seems to encourage certain kinds of fixations that can make it harder for one to see the whole forest rather than one tree. It's true that the 75 Heliar showed better resolution in the corners than the 75 Summicron but the latter performed beautifully in many respects and did very well, overall, in the review (as the first post in this thread points out).

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sean, first of all thanks for the review. I found it really interesting. I will admit I was a bit surprised. I have the 75mm summicron and 75mm summilux and both are among my best lenses. But I was curious about the differences so I set them up for a test. In normal use, I have not noticed any resolution difference between the two lenses, but the 75 cron is definitely contrastier wide open and that gives it more "pop". But when I did the old boring newspaper test, I was pretty surprised. My 75mm summilux was decidedly sharper in both the corners and the center at f/2 and f/5.6. I did the test a few times and the results were the same. I used the 1.25x magnifier as well. My 75 cron is coded, my lux is not. I did the tests with lens detection off and no filters. Anyway, it's weird. The MTF of the summilux is definitely behind the summicron yet there is no question that my summilux is sharper. The summicron has more contrast wide open, but still.

 

Anyway, I am wondering if the longer focus throw of the 75mm summilux is giving it an advantage. Mechanically, though the 75mm summicron is extremely smooth, the 75mm summilux just feels more solid. In any case, I bought the 75mm summicron new, and I have never dropped it, banged it or abused it. It's very odd...I am wondering whether I should send it in for a check-up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guy_mancuso

Stuart i would at least try a focus test first to see if the Cron is off. No doubt the Lux is one sharp lens but your M8 and Cron just might have a slight miss. My lux is getting coded right now but when it comes back i will run a focus test on all of them again. I have had to tweak my cam's a couple times to get what i want. i pick a spot at about 15 to 20 feet away and adjust to that and in practical terms just about dead on everything. I don't worry about infinity if i ever shoot wide open on infinity it would be extremely rare indeed , it will always be stopped down but from 25 ft in i want to be dead on and that is what i adjust for since that is the area i would most likely shoot wide open. i think folks need to think about adjusting to your shooting than some abritary infinity mark that really makes no difference anyway. When was the lasty time i shot wide open at infinity and i can firmly say never. This is strictly my point of view and some may think i am nuts but it works brillantly and i am rarely off the mark.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sean, first of all thanks for the review. I found it really interesting. I will admit I was a bit surprised. I have the 75mm summicron and 75mm summilux and both are among my best lenses. But I was curious about the differences so I set them up for a test. In normal use, I have not noticed any resolution difference between the two lenses, but the 75 cron is definitely contrastier wide open and that gives it more "pop". But when I did the old boring newspaper test, I was pretty surprised. My 75mm summilux was decidedly sharper in both the corners and the center at f/2 and f/5.6. I did the test a few times and the results were the same. I used the 1.25x magnifier as well. My 75 cron is coded, my lux is not. I did the tests with lens detection off and no filters. Anyway, it's weird. The MTF of the summilux is definitely behind the summicron yet there is no question that my summilux is sharper. The summicron has more contrast wide open, but still.

 

Anyway, I am wondering if the longer focus throw of the 75mm summilux is giving it an advantage. Mechanically, though the 75mm summicron is extremely smooth, the 75mm summilux just feels more solid. In any case, I bought the 75mm summicron new, and I have never dropped it, banged it or abused it. It's very odd...I am wondering whether I should send it in for a check-up.

 

Hi Stuart,

 

Thanks for the article comments. Contrast can tend to mask differences in resolution. I pay no attention to MTF charts and the like (and never have). The Summicron 75 that I have here shows excellent resolution on center and somewhat softer resolution in the corners. That said, it certainly isn't bad in the corners, it just isn't as good as the Heliar in that part of the frame. I'll test another copy but that may just be how the lens performs on the M8. Every lens has its design compromises. As you know, I focus bracket, etc.

 

If you've been happy with your 75/2.0 so far, I wouldn't send it anywhere. Just shoot with it.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard Bud, don't let Mr. Reid snub you. I can understand that he feels stingy about 'minutiae', but you are nevertheless right. Would any picture by, say, Cartier-Bresson, Capa or Gene Smith have been more interesting if the lens had exhibited five percent higher MTF at nine millimeters from the optical axis?

 

A lens is a tool. It does a job. That job is to record the detail that the photographer wants recorded, with the definition that the photographer thinks desirable. Period. There is also the question of what the medium can carry. A newspaper photographer has no need to produce pictures with a higher technical quality than the printers can print. Spending money on more quality is misspending. He or his employer would do better to spend money on other things, like reliability, convenient file transfer, whatever.

 

Lenses are made for taking pictures, not for furnishing debating matter. That said, Mr. Reid is doing us valuable services – but some that use them use them for trivial purposes.

 

The old man from the Age of Three Lens Anastigmats

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a practical matter most cannot give an extensive personal trial to every lens that they might consider purchasing. So lens reviews and examples that give a good sense of a lenses signature and performance are very useful. The Leica 75 has a reputation as a harsh lens but the images of both 75's in Seans reviews had very appealing rendering and OOF areas, a bit of a surprise to me. The high level of resolution of the CV was a surprise and the amount of CA in the CV and complete lack of the same in the Leica would be important for some.

 

It can be very expensive buying and selling lenses until you arrive at a satisfactory kit. Seans site certainly is not a replacement for using a lens yourself for an extended period. But it certainly helps in making an informed decision in what you might like, perhaps saving some trial and error and wasted expendtiture. No MTF charts, shots of resolution targets or newspapers but a lot of real world examples that give a much better sense of what the lens will be like in use. Right now I'm still settling my lens choices for the M8. I expect once I have the 2 or 3 lenses that I am satisfied with I'll have a lot less interest in this sort of thing. I shot with a 35/1.4 L and 135/2 L for several years with the Canon 1Ds and had little interest in lens reviews and discussions as I was completely satisfied that the duo met my needs. I'm almost there with the M8 but not yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you, Hank, about the great reviews Sean provides. They are thoughful and articulate. Clearly the product of a practitioner as well as reviewer. I like the fact that they bring out the distinctions different lenses have without falling into the "better or worse" argument.

 

From what I've seen of the 75 Cron, it doesn't come across to me as harsh. Maybe that is just my taste. That's why I posted an example earlier in this thread showing it's performance in the field (literally). Have a look. I'd be interested in your views.

 

Doug

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Sean

 

Thank you for replying - I was hoping that I hadn't offended in anyway, so it's good that you've answered.

 

I was thinking about this point again today as I was working on the review of ultra-wides. There's usually a lot of ground covered in a good lens review and only some of the aspects discussed would, potentially, be likely to be affected by sample variation.

 

I completely agree - and perhaps this is even more the case with rangefinder lenses where the level of quality is generally so high.

 

The only Leica lens samples I've seen that gave questionable performance also showed noticeable wear and tear, scratches on the front element, etc.

 

Well - my new 90mm macro elmar was certainly wrong - leica agreed and are doing something about it.

 

I've also read with interest the message from Richard Budd - and of course, he's right, no great picture was ever ruined by a lens (or made by one). On the other hand it's important to understand the characteristics of a lens, and I think that all the information here about focus shift and sample variation, together with your excellent reviews, combine to give more information, which helps to take better photographs.

 

Incidentally, I carefully read your review on the 75mm lenses, and as a result I spent some time with the CV lens before deciding that I really did want the summicron . . . . superficial tests certainly don't seem to suggest softer edges, but I'm afraid that's as far as I really need to go!

 

Thanks again

Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard Bud, don't let Mr. Reid snub you. I can understand that he feels stingy about 'minutiae',

 

Richard was not snubbed and I have no idea what you mean about "he (Mr. Reid) feels stingy about 'minutiae'". Care to clarify these two comments, including the insult?

 

Richard, your "professional point of view", as you describe it, restates a general feeling about lenses that has been discussed for many years, including on this forum. It's a cliche and yet a good point to be made nonetheless and, for that reason, is one that has indeed been made very often. Since you clearly haven't read the review in question (nor has Lars, to the best of my knowledge) you don't realize that much the same point was made several times in that review.

 

As you spend more time on this forum you may come to see that A) There are a lot of experienced professional photographers here, each with his or her own "professional point of view" and that B) You're largely preaching to the choir in your argument.

 

Rather than speaking about "the Professional", which borders on patronizing us, you might want to consider simply speaking for yourself - one former professional photographer among millions. That singular perspective, presented as such (no more, no less) is worth hearing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Sean

 

Well - my new 90mm macro elmar was certainly wrong - leica agreed and are doing something about it.

 

Thanks again

 

Hi Jono,

 

It's always possible with any lens but, historically, I've found Leica lenses to be very consistent from example to example. But maybe things are a little different right now - I don't know.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a practical matter most cannot give an extensive personal trial to every lens that they might consider purchasing. So lens reviews and examples that give a good sense of a lenses signature and performance are very useful. The Leica 75 has a reputation as a harsh lens but the images of both 75's in Seans reviews had very appealing rendering and OOF areas, a bit of a surprise to me. The high level of resolution of the CV was a surprise and the amount of CA in the CV and complete lack of the same in the Leica would be important for some.

 

It can be very expensive buying and selling lenses until you arrive at a satisfactory kit. Seans site certainly is not a replacement for using a lens yourself for an extended period. But it certainly helps in making an informed decision in what you might like, perhaps saving some trial and error and wasted expendtiture. No MTF charts, shots of resolution targets or newspapers but a lot of real world examples that give a much better sense of what the lens will be like in use. Right now I'm still settling my lens choices for the M8. I expect once I have the 2 or 3 lenses that I am satisfied with I'll have a lot less interest in this sort of thing. I shot with a 35/1.4 L and 135/2 L for several years with the Canon 1Ds and had little interest in lens reviews and discussions as I was completely satisfied that the duo met my needs. I'm almost there with the M8 but not yet.

 

Thanks Hank. A lot of people who comment on my reviews without ever having read them (and there seem to be legions of them) some times do not realize that I'm writing from the perspective of an experienced working photographer. I'm not a gadget guy and I have no interest in MTF graphs, etc. I do examine lenses side by side, and in detail, though because thats the only way for me to be able to write meaningfully about them. Otherwise, one is left with vague generalizations and those are already a dime a dozen on the web.

 

You're also right that this is a time in which many people are building and changing their M8 lens kits. That will settle down somewhat over time but right now lots of us are making decisions and good, detailed, information about the options is particularly useful. Many of the photographers who read my reviews of cameras and lenses me are working photographers (many of them very accomplished, some famous), photo editors for major newspapers, etc. They understand what's what in photography (that the picture matters more than the lens, etc.) but they still need to make equipment decisions and good information is important for that. As you say, we aren't able to try everything ourselves all the time.

 

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...