Jump to content

SL 75 or 90?


Timkr

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I spent the weekend at a family gathering and, using my r 80 lux, missed focus more often than I would like to admit. I’m try to decide between getting the 75 or 90 cron and would like to hear pros and cons of each. I like taking head/ shoulder portraits. I am really impressed with the images I have seen from the 75 as they seem to really pop. Any insights would be appreciated. Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you are already used to an 80mm for this use, you might be better served with a 75mm since that's closer.  It's also the better choice on balance for "family gathering" type shots where you may not want quite as tight a crop.  In a pinch, a 75mm can work fairly well as a normal lens, though you would likely find it a bit cramped for that purpose indoors.  You mentioned head and shoulders type portraiture, though, and that would typically be done at 90mm or even higher.  With the 75mm you would likely find yourself cropping a bit or else you would find yourself getting a little closer to your subject than you may want to for that framing.  The 90mm also has the advantage of a bit more compression since the working distance will be greater for a given framing.  

 

I don't happen to own either of these two lenses yet, so I can't tell you whether one is materially better than the other.  I would expect them both to be excellent choices.  My advise is more general to the focal length, though, and not based on any experience with the two new Summicrons.  I can tell you that when I do head shots on the SL (with the 24-90) I find myself consistently using the 90mm focal length.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I spent the weekend at a family gathering and, using my r 80 lux, missed focus more often than I would like to admit. I’m try to decide between getting the 75 or 90 cron and would like to hear pros and cons of each. I like taking head/ shoulder portraits. I am really impressed with the images I have seen from the 75 as they seem to really pop. Any insights would be appreciated. Thanks

 

 

There are minimal differences between both lenses as their optical design, materials used and AF performance are on par if not similar. There were couple of forum feeback on 90 having some level of vibration and noise AF focusing. I tired out both 75 & 90 out in the field shooting (with compliments from Leica Store SG) but I did not notice the noise and vibration from both lenses to be annoying or slow. I eventually decided on the 75 as both lenses did not differ much except one level difference in focal length. Other deciding factor is that I already have the M90corn & M50Noc, so acquiring a SL75 made sense for me. So I suppose your question should include the rest of the lenses you've already owned to be part of deciding factor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion (for what that's worth) this is less about the optical characteristics of these lenses and all about the focal length; your decision should be based on that rather than anything else. This makes it a relatively easy decision. If you have a 50mm lens of any  calibre, then the 75mm is pointless unless your 50 if not AF and you want that capability.

 

If for example you also have the 50SL, then the 75 is pointless (assuming there is some limit to your funds and you're not just collecting lenses) and the 90 is the obvious choice.

 

If you don't have the 50SL, then, in my view, that is the better focal length for your needs as it will frame better for three quarters and shorter portraits and the 50 is more versatile a length than 75. I've had 75 before and it;s a bit of an odd length; I like it but it doesn't do anything a 75 doesn't do and it doesn't do a lot that the 50 can. I think they should have launched a 35 with the 90, I really don't get why they offered the 75 first.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

My everyday travel gear has now been pared down to the 16-35 and the 75/2, which is a fine and flexible combination. The 90/2 is a one purpose lens ...... the 75/2 offers a bit more leeway and personally I don't miss 50mm.

 

I suppose it depends on your own eyes and minds view of the world and what you prefer ........ but if you want a lens just for portraits and nothing else, either would do fine. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

My everyday travel gear has now been pared down to the 16-35 and the 75/2, which is a fine and flexible combination. The 90/2 is a one purpose lens ...... the 75/2 offers a bit more leeway and personally I don't miss 50mm.

 

I suppose it depends on your own eyes and minds view of the world and what you prefer ........ but if you want a lens just for portraits and nothing else, either would do fine.

That sounds like a fine and flexible combo indeed!

I personally find 75mm on full frame to be very good for general use, possibly better than 50mm due to (i) I prefer it for portraits that I do, (ii) more controversially, better for city work (on the basis that 75mm forces me further away from a scene, allowing a higher chance of the camera not being pointed upwards and hence reducing chance of buildings’ keystoning).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My everyday travel gear has now been pared down to the 16-35 and the 75/2, which is a fine and flexible combination. The 90/2 is a one purpose lens ...... the 75/2 offers a bit more leeway and personally I don't miss 50mm.

 

I suppose it depends on your own eyes and minds view of the world and what you prefer ........ but if you want a lens just for portraits and nothing else, either would do fine. 

 

 

My preferred combo as well. For a one-lens use (like long and/or strenuous hiking), I pick the 24-90. Initially I believed the SL+24-90 was too large/heavy, but it is not, fitting nicely into f-StopNavin and similar pouches. If/when I can carry several lenses, the 16-35+75 covers most of the shooting I tend to do. The 75 has the advantage that it adds the Leica fingerprint to the images, particularly wide open, something that the 24-90 to a lesser degree give you, and something I otherwise miss compared to a typical M-based set (say 21 SEM or 28 Cron + 50 APO + 90 Macro-Elmar). Add a light tripod and a few filters, and the possibilities are (almost) endless. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 I like taking head/ shoulder portraits. I am really impressed with the images I have seen from the 75 as they seem to really pop. Any insights would be appreciated. Thanks

 

Shared this link already in the images thread - asked my daughter to act as model for getting to know the new  SL 90: Photowalk with the 90SL in Cologne - I decided intentionally for the 90 since I realized that when taking portraits prior to the appearance of the new primes I either took the 24-90 at the 90-end or mounted the 90-280 immediatly.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My initial idea of getting the 16-35 was to pair it with my 75corn as an alternative to just bringing the 24-90 when I can afford to bring more than one lens on travel. After enjoying the 75corn so much, I've made up my mind to get the 35corn when it is to be scheduled for release later this year (likely Q4,...and receive lens by early 2019 if the new S will be released in 2018 as well). I do not mind bringing along an additional 35corn when I do bring my 16-35 as the application differs for me. Then again, the same money I pay for the 35corn does provide me an alternative of getting the Q instead. Hummmm.....tough choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My initial idea of getting the 16-35 was to pair it with my 75corn as an alternative to just bringing the 24-90 when I can afford to bring more than one lens on travel. After enjoying the 75corn so much, I've made up my mind to get the 35corn when it is to be scheduled for release later this year (likely Q4,...and receive lens by early 2019 if the new S will be released in 2018 as well). I do not mind bringing along an additional 35corn when I do bring my 16-35 as the application differs for me. Then again, the same money I pay for the 35corn does provide me an alternative of getting the Q instead. Hummmm.....tough choice.

Silbeers, does your spellcheck change “cron” to “corn” ? :)

 

Roy

Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 for the 75. I use a 50mm for corporate headshots, because I like the perspective of this focal length. As long as you don't go closer than 1 meter, distortion is minimal. Also my headshots aren't true headshots. They include a part of the upper body as well. The 75 SL is quite brilliant for headshots and I much prefer this perspective to the more compressed look of a 90. Again, this is al very personal.

I've tried the 75: http://joerivanderkloet.com/leica-apo-summicron-sl-752-0-apsh-review/

Good luck.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

These are 

 

Shared this link already in the images thread - asked my daughter to act as model for getting to know the new  SL 90: Photowalk with the 90SL in Cologne - I decided intentionally for the 90 since I realized that when taking portraits prior to the appearance of the new primes I either took the 24-90 at the 90-end or mounted the 90-280 immediatly.

 

Lovely photos regarding composition and, of course, the subject.

 

The lens is clearly optically outstanding however, to my eyes these are very sharp/harsh for portraits. You get away with it because of your daughter's flawless young skin but they may not have been so flattering wiht an older subject.  Have you sharpened them?

 

​These would have been stunning with a 75 Summilux-M.

 

Regards,

Mark  :-)

Edited by MarkP
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Lovely photos regarding composition and, of course, the subject.

 

 

Thank you:)

 

The lens is clearly optically outstanding however, to my eyes these are very sharp/harsh for portraits....   Have you sharpened them?

 

 

Disagree to a certain extent...

(1) - I think I have applied in LR my standard (slight) sharpening set-up - without thinking too much about it. As much as I like the Adobe Spark functionality to build quickly nice pages, the way how Adobe compresses the pics and makes them accessible via the web is a big black box, and my impression is that they come generally a little over-sharped/compressed.

(2) despite this, my view is that the sharpness of the lense is not a disadvantage at all. Yes, at a first glance it might be "brutally honest" about the skin of any portrait pic. But, this can be easily adjusted already in LR (with an easy-build preset for skin smoother correction brush), or in Color Efex Pro (dynamic skin softener), or PS. Using a Leica SL systems means for me that I am not expecting finished out-of-cam jpegs - postprocessing at least in LR is part of the work-flow. And - this is the difference for me - you can always easily "smooth" skin etc, but you can not post-produce sharpness and details, that the lense does not deliver in first place.

 

regards, Holger

  • Like 4
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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...