Jump to content

New: Leica Summilux-M 90 mm f/1.5 ASPH


LUF Admin

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 minutes ago, dem331 said:

My feelings exactly.  A pure EVF M is coming or the M line is now the MF SL line 

For SL users, why not get the awesome 100 Summicron-S?  Yes, a stop slower, slow-as-snot autofocus performance but lovely humane images.  And not vignetting on the SL. And used, less than half the price of this new beast. The brilliance of APO isn't ideal for portraits.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the 90/1.5 is going to be nearly as difficult to focus as some folks imagine. I have just been trying my 85/1.5 Summarex, which cannot be much different at all to the 90/1.5. I have tried on three different M cameras (I know from past experience, it is quite difficult, other than in very good light, on any LTM camera older than a IIIg). The easiest by some margin is my M3 with an 0.92x viewfinder and newly back from service by Alan Starkie. The next is my M7 with an 0.72x finder, again recently cleaned and serviced and last by a very small margin, is my M240 with an 0.68x finder but none of them are actually difficult even in artificial light. I cross checked with live view on the M240 and RF focus was accurate within about ±1cm at 2 metres distance. 

Wilson

Edited by wlaidlaw
Typo
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wlaidlaw said:

That is what superglue is for 😎

L-mount version would transfer aperture accurately etc. not possible with super glue...

IMHO the latest two M lenses (Noctilux 75 and this one) were designed to be used on a SL(2) body, but were (to keep the M folks happy) released in M-mount.

Not sure if this is the way to go for M. I for certain would have preferred a new version of e.g. a 75/2 which doesn't need a check of 1000 copies to find a good one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Edax said:

 

I for certain would have preferred a new version of e.g. a 75/2 which doesn't need a check of 1000 copies to find a good one.

I gave up and have bought a 7Artisans 75/f1.25 which is far better than it has any right to be for the very modest price. I much prefer its rendition to my unloved and rarely used 75/2.5 Summarit.  7Artisans acknowledge that getting these lenses to focus and match RF to optical focus perfectly is very difficult and give you the tool to adjust it yourself. With a live view M camera, this is really very easy and only takes about 20 minutes of trial and error, rather than a trip back to Leica as both my new 50/.95 Noctilux and 35/2 ASPH Summicron required. The only thing is to keep a note of the distance in mm of each adjustment of the RF ring and whether clockwise or anti-clockwise or it is easy to make the focus worse instead of better. I used a 0.005mm Mitutoyo dial gauge to get the adjustment perfect but that is probably over-kill. 

Wilson

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 11 Stunden schrieb wlaidlaw:

i don't think the 90/1.5 is going to be nearly as difficult to focus as some folks imagine. I have just been trying my 85/1.5 Summarex, which cannot be much different at all to the 90/1.5....

There is an important difference: Wide open the Summarex is very, very soft, so  you do not see a sharp decline between sharpness and unsharpness. Therefore it does not matter so much, if you misfocus with a Summarex. 
Even Max Berek described this effect in the early 30s when the „highly opened“ 1:2.5/5cm Hektor was introduced. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, UliWer said:

There is an important difference: Wide open the Summarex is very, very soft, so  you do not see a sharp decline between sharpness and unsharpness. Therefore it does not matter so much, if you misfocus with a Summarex. 
Even Max Berek described this effect in the early 30s when the „highly opened“ 1:2.5/5cm Hektor was introduced. 

I was expecting the Summarex to be very soft wide open but in practice, that is not the case. It is surprising sharp in the centre, albeit with some inevitable fall off and vignetting to the corners. I was also expecting it to be low contrast like my similar period Summarit 50/1.5 but the contrast is considerably higher than the Summarit. I suspect the reputation for the Summarex comes from Erwin Puts, where I think he was a bit unkind about it but even he described the image quality wide open as modest and not very very soft. 

Wilson

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...