75mm lens quandaries

[a.noctilux]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hey all, I have a question about selecting a 75mm lens primarily for portrait use.

 

Admittedly, I'm new to taking portraits but I would like to start focusing on this in my photography. I'm considering 75mm since 90mm seemed a bit disconnected when I was taking pictures with any context and 50mm was seemingly invasive...maybe I need to work on that though or just crop.

 

This led me to try shooting with a 75mm Summilux and Summicron, each of which I liked for different reasons:

-The out-of-focus on the Lux is quite lovely, skin tones looked a little cooler than the Summicron (which I'm leaning toward liking).

-The Cron was great ergonomically and the rendering seemed like a cropped 50 Lux asph, maybe a bit sharper wide open.

Depending on the lighting during the day, some photos with the Lux had color fringing on edges, which may be a pain to deal with.

I shoot film and digital, but the test photos I took were strictly digital (m240).

 

However, shooting both lenses in lower light and slightly stopped down produced background lights that were neither round nor polygonal in shape, which was surprising at first until I actually looked at the aperture blade geometry on both lenses. I can post some photos if that is helpful, but I imagine that this is nothing new. This seemed a bit distracting to me in the sample photos I took, but maybe it was just unexpected.

 

While mulling over my test pics to see which rendering I prefer, I started wondering about the 75mm Summarit (f/2.4). Are the aperture blades straight or curved across the range, or do they also have some jaggedness (for lack of a better word) around f/2.8-5.6?

 

Since I often shoot in lower light, I would love to hear people's experiences with either lens and whether they are put off by non-symmetric shapes in background highlights. I've read a number of articles on Leica 75mm lenses (both on this site and others), and looked a pics on Flickr but I don't remember coming across this "issue". Perhaps the photos I saw across the internet were shot wide open at night.

 

I understand there may be other options out there for portrait lenses and it appears that new lenses may also be on the way, so general input/feedback is also appreciated.

 

Thank you for your input,

 

Feras

 

@NB23,

 

Maybe background lights shape is that main question.

Question deluted in long introduction.

[rramesh]

Don't forget the Voigtlander 75 f/1.8 Heliar.

[Advertisement]

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

[Habbable]

I have long considered a 75, but the decisive factor holding me back can be summed up as: framelines.

 

1. Leica cameras previous to the M4-P do not have the required framelines. This includes all my preferred Leica models.

 

2. Cameras since the M4-P have 75mm framelines that to me look vestigial.

 

3. Leica's usual viewfinder magnification 0.71 falls short of what is needed to focus a 75mm f/1.4 properly at full aperture. Workarounds like magnifiers are available but seem a pain.

 

All of the above make the 75mm focal length for the M series appear an afterthought by Leica.

 

I adopted a practical solution a few years ago: got into the R system and tried the Summilux 75's twin brother, the 80 Summilux. A perfect solution to all my issues.

+2, Thanks for the perspective...I was indeed using the EVF on the digital for focusing, and was thinking this would be hard on film. Perhaps a full-R solution may work best for me

[Habbable]

I see what the OP means regarding jagged blade edges. Although I never found this to be objectionable, my 75/1.4 has these.

I also have the Summarit 75/2.5 (and the same should apply to the 75/2.4): no jaggies.

AFAIC, I prefer the Summilux for portraits. I find the Summarit too sharp for this purpose.

In the 90mm FL, the Summicron pre-ASPH is also a great choice IMO.

Other options include the "vintage" 85mm FL. In particular, the Canon 85/1.8 is a wonderful portrait lens, relatively modern for its age.

Thank you for the 75mm 2.4 perspective on the jaggies! I'll consider this moving forward.

 

What's the question exactly?

Yah, I was trying to get some input on the 75 summarit 2.4 OOF highlight shapes, but wasted some white space on the background of what I was anticipating looking for while shooting portraits and the lenses I tried so far

 

I find highlights and the artificial shapes they create to be artificial, unattractive and distracting from the subject of the portrait, whether they are round or polygonal, and so try to avoid them.

Thanks, maybe my composition is the issue here.

 

I'll post some pics (maybe the photo threads are more appropriate) to make this a little more concrete.

[Soden]

The OP mentioned portraits with context, which includes information about environment. A pianist at a grand piano, or a blacksmith in his forge, for example. A 50mm or wider is needed for this type of portraiture.

I would still use a 75 in this situation, just take a step or two back. If there isn't room, use what ever focal length works, but expect distortion. Edited September 2, 2017 by Soden

[otto.f]

I have a strong déja-vu with this topic. Wasn't it quite recently that the question been posted and dealt with? We get the same visions again here; clinical cron vs. characterfull lux

[Ecar]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Déjà-vu-et-revu many times.

I don't think the OP's original question was meant to lead to it - or perhaps only very tangentially - but it's one of those topics that we seem to be irresistibly attracted to here... Mandler vs. Karbe. Rinse and repeat.

Also, with new members joining and the inexorable nature of GAS attacks, rehashing old topics is unavoidable. Forum life as usual, I guess...

[Guest]

News? Quite interesting, specially for film users? An 1.4/85 with IS...errr, not from Wetzlar, sorry

[NB23]

I hope that its Nano-contrast will be sublime.

[otto.f]

Oh yeah, that belongs also to the repetition: "maybe you should look at Zeiss, I myself am very happy with it". To which I respond: could but I don't like their hood philosophy, whereupon lct reacts: hoods are perfect and everywhere to obtain (separately)

 

Maybe the newcomers can use the search function of this forum and perhaps re-awaken existing threads with some remark about this subject. But sometimes I get the impression that people prefer writing above reading.

[Exodies]

A lot of reading is done without much comprehension, judging by the replies people make.

[lct]

[...] whereupon lct reacts: hoods are perfect and everywhere to obtain (separately) [...]

 

Persisting and signing

[bocaburger]

I had a 75 Lux many moons ago. Optically superb, ergonomically a nightmare. Heavy, stiff-focusing, blocked a significant portion of the already-meager 75mm frame. If I must resort to EVF I would certainly consider fine lenses such as the R 80mm and Nikkors 85/1.8 and /1.4.

 

My primary use of a 75 is for a 90mm FOV on 1.5x crop factor digitals. When I had an M8 I bought a used CV 75/2.5, which currently resides on my Sony Nex6. On full-frame I find that focal about a half-stride from a 50, and where a 50 is too wide, go straight to a 90.

[erl]

I don't disagree with above comments, but would slip this comment in for different POV. I frequently use my 75mm in place of my 50mm for walkaround. The philosophy being, I see something in 'standard'(50mm) vision, but when shooting with 50mm it seems to need cropping. My theory is that when concentrating on a motif, we tend to 'see' in tighter vision. 75mm (for me) seems to naturally crop my main subject to the way I first see it. Moving my feet is not, somehow, the same and consumes time. Just another thought bubble.

[lct]

... or your 50mm frame line is not accurate enough which could explain that you need cropping... Do you have the same feeling when you shoot an SLR or a mirrorless camera?

[LocalHero1953]

... or your 50mm frame line is not accurate enough which could explain that you need cropping... Do you have the same feeling when you shoot an SLR or a mirrorless camera?

I agree - with the M I either have to chimp and reshoot all the time for closer subjects, or I have to shoot wider and crop. 

I think I already make some sort of automatic correction when shooting in landscape mode, but the moment I switch to portrait, my framing is screwed up.

With the TL and SL I crop much less often.

[anickpick]

I agree - with the M I either have to chimp and reshoot all the time for closer subjects, or I have to shoot wider and crop. 

I think I already make some sort of automatic correction when shooting in landscape mode, but the moment I switch to portrait, my framing is screwed up.

With the TL and SL I crop much less often.

 

 

same here. I hardly ever need to crop with the SL.  Portraits wide open with the M often need cropping.

[anickpick]

I don't disagree with above comments, but would slip this comment in for different POV. I frequently use my 75mm in place of my 50mm for walkaround. The philosophy being, I see something in 'standard'(50mm) vision, but when shooting with 50mm it seems to need cropping. My theory is that when concentrating on a motif, we tend to 'see' in tighter vision. 75mm (for me) seems to naturally crop my main subject to the way I first see it. Moving my feet is not, somehow, the same and consumes time. Just another thought bubble.

 

To me a 75mm lens is a bit more challenging than a 50mm lens, but often I am more pleased with the results I get with the 75mm...

Edited September 3, 2017 by anickpick

[michaelwj]

If I look at a photo and what I notice is odd shaped "bokeh balls" then the photo is not very good to begin with.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lct]

Hard to help you if you don't you show your pic.