Rationalizing a 75/90 combo

[Sohail]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 minutes ago, setuporg said:

I have both M 75 and 90 Crons, and also a 75 Lux for that Mandler magic.  I rarely use the 90, mostly for speakers far away.  I also rarely use the 75mm but more often than 90.  They certainly have uses.  Most importantly you have to scratch that itch so do get it and then see how you use them!:)

If you're looking for a nice home for that unused 90, I'll send you my postal address.

[Jeff S]

39 minutes ago, Sohail said:

 

I'm not big on cropping for the perspective you'd get from the field of view of a given focal length. 

 

 

Fear not... no one else could possibly be a fan of that mashup.  😳

Jeff

[Sohail]

Another experimental shot with the 90 Summicron-SL that gives you a touch more blur. Once again, I love how it renders the scene.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[adan]

Perspective is based on point-of-view. Stand with the entrance to the lens in some exact spot in the universe, and every lens will give you the same perspective from that point of view.

Where they will differ is in the cropping or framing of the universe.

From 0.9 meters, a 90 and 75 show the same perspective, but the 75 will show looser cropping.

If you move in with the 75 to 0.75 meters (emphasis on the word "move") - you will make the cropping the same, but the perspective (point of view) from 0.75 m will be different. Because you moved.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Look at this picture. It was built by using a whole set of lenses 21mm-75mm (M, not SL, not that it matters) - from exactly one perspective (or point of view) and then drawing on the 21mm picture the framing exactly as recorded by the other 4 lenses. All show different framing - all have the same perspective.

Those of us using M's really get to internalize this truth, since we have one finder with one perspective, and crop from the viewfinder all the time with the changing framelines.

Since it is physics and optics, it is not something open to agreement or disagreement. The Laws of the Universe don't give a rat's-rectum what any particular human "thinks."

Now, we've all made that beginner's mistake at some point - a shorter lens appears to have a different quote-"perspective"-unquote because our immediate reaction using it is to move in closer and fill the frame - and that movement is what causes things to stretch and noses to get big and the relationship of a head size to something in the background to change and so on. We move - we change the point of view - we change the perspective.

A few points to your original question, though.

1) just about a year ago, I was trying to make a similar decision. The two pictures below were made (in no particular order) with M-mount 75 and 90 lenses. No cropping. Obviously I moved to keep the framing as close as equal as possible. If you can see a reason to prefer one over the other - related to "perspective" or anything else - I hope that helps. My own experience is that I can use either a 75 or a 90 interchangably, in the vast majority of situations.

2) However when it comes to portraits and human faces, they come in different varieties. Some are broad and flat, and others are narrow and pointed. On average a shorter lens is better for the "broad and flat" faces precisely because it adds some depth and stretching and perspective by moving in a bit, while a 90 (or even longer) is complimentary for narrow faces because, from a bit farther away, it reduces the impression of pointed chins and noses.

3) Despite (1), I do have both a 75 and a 90. Carrying the 75, I feel a bit "naked" without something longer (usually a 135), simply for the longer reach and the "flatter perspective" (piling up buildings in a city, or just to capture things too far away for the 75).

But if I want a minimum of weight, the 90 is a "compromise" that allows me to leave the 75/135 combo at home. A little more reach than the 75, with a faster aperture than a 135. On the SL, a 90 may save you having to carry a 24-90 or 90-280 as well.

Edited January 10, 2020 by adan

[Jeff S]

5 minutes ago, adan said:

Perspective is based on point-of-view. Stand with the entrance to the lens in some exact spot in the universe, and every lens will give you the same perspective from that point of view.

Where they will differ is in the cropping or framing of the universe.

From 0.9 meters, a 90 and 75 show the same perspective, but the 75 will show looser cropping.

If you move in with the 75 to 0.75 meters (emphasis on the word "move") - you will make the cropping the same, but the perspective (point of view) from 0.75 m will be different. Because you moved.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Look at this picture. It was built by using a whole set of lenses 21mm-75mm (M, not SL, not that it matters) - from exactly one perspective (or point of view) and then drawing on the 21mm picture the framing exactly as recorded by the other 4 lenses. All show different framing - all have the same perspective.

Those of us using M's really get to internalize this truth, since we have one finder with one perspective, and crop from the viewfinder all the time with the changing framelines.

Since it is physics and optics, it is not something open to agreement or disagreement. The Laws of the Universe don't give a rat's-rectum what any particular human "thinks."

Now, we've all made that beginner's mistake at some point - a shorter lens appears to have a different quote-"perspective"-unquote because our immediate reaction using it is to move in closer and fill the frame - and that movement is what causes things to stretch and noses to get big and the relationship of a head size to something in the background to change and so on. We move - we change the point of view - we change the perspective.

Attention, Sohail, to this excerpt. Same points as mine; different words. And a good example using M framelines.

And I agree, and also wrote earlier, that the best thing to do is try both lenses and decide.  (But be careful to note the changing relationship between near and far objects as one moves closer or farther away... different perspective... as this may not otherwise be noticed).

Jeff

[Sohail]

39 minutes ago, adan said:

A few points to your original question, though.

1) just about a year ago, I was trying to make a similar decision. The two pictures below were made (in no particular order) with M-mount 75 and 90 lenses. No cropping. Obviously I moved to keep the framing as close as equal as possible. If you can see a reason to prefer one over the other - related to "perspective" or anything else - I hope that helps. My own experience is that I can use either a 75 or a 90 interchangably, in the vast majority of situations.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

2) However when it comes to portraits and human faces, they come in different varieties. Some are broad and flat, and others are narrow and pointed. On average a shorter lens is better for the "broad and flat" faces precisely because it adds some depth and stretching and perspective by moving in a bit, while a 90 (or even longer) is complimentary for narrow faces because, from a bit farther away, it reduces the impression of pointed chins and noses.

3) Despite (1), I do have both a 75 and a 90. Carrying the 75, I feel a bit "naked" without something longer (usually a 135), simply for the longer reach and the "flatter perspective" (piling up buildings in a city, or just to capture things too far away for the 75).

But if I want a minimum of weight, the 90 is a "compromise" that allows me to leave the 75/135 combo at home. A little more reach than the 75, with a faster aperture than a 135. On the SL, a 90 may save you having to carry a 24-90 or 90-280 as well.

Thank you Adan for sharing your thoughts, images and experiences. There's always of course a trade off. Perspective, weight and bag space are all real considerations when you're out there in the field. 

For me, the 75 and 90 are admittedly 'new' focal lengths. I've often shot with an 85 (or the equivalent) which is why I think question tends to come up.

Edited January 10, 2020 by Sohail

[Arrow]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Soheil,

stick with the 75 for the time being. Learn to use it to your advantage and do not confuse yourself with the "what lens shall I take in the streets to shoot" question. Simply focus on what you want to show. Take pictures, analyse, develop your vision of what is interesting, meaningful and consequentially what to frame into your photographs and what to leave out. Share what you take with others, talk about it and have fun.

 

 

[jaapv]

3 hours ago, Herr Barnack said:

Like you, I too am loathe to crop; it defeats the purpose of having a full frame camera with a high megapixel count.  A tiny bit of cropping to clean up an image's edges is one thing but lopping off 1/3 to 1/2 of the image in post processing as a substitute for getting closer to your subject is counterproductive.

You are confusing me now. Isn't one of the main arguments for high-MP cameras the ability to crop?

[Fedro]

2 hours ago, adan said:

Perspective is based on point-of-view. Stand with the entrance to the lens in some exact spot in the universe, and every lens will give you the same perspective from that point of view.

Where they will differ is in the cropping or framing of the universe.

From 0.9 meters, a 90 and 75 show the same perspective, but the 75 will show looser cropping.

If you move in with the 75 to 0.75 meters (emphasis on the word "move") - you will make the cropping the same, but the perspective (point of view) from 0.75 m will be different. Because you moved.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Look at this picture. It was built by using a whole set of lenses 21mm-75mm (M, not SL, not that it matters) - from exactly one perspective (or point of view) and then drawing on the 21mm picture the framing exactly as recorded by the other 4 lenses. All show different framing - all have the same perspective.

Those of us using M's really get to internalize this truth, since we have one finder with one perspective, and crop from the viewfinder all the time with the changing framelines.

Since it is physics and optics, it is not something open to agreement or disagreement. The Laws of the Universe don't give a rat's-rectum what any particular human "thinks."

Now, we've all made that beginner's mistake at some point - a shorter lens appears to have a different quote-"perspective"-unquote because our immediate reaction using it is to move in closer and fill the frame - and that movement is what causes things to stretch and noses to get big and the relationship of a head size to something in the background to change and so on. We move - we change the point of view - we change the perspective.

A few points to your original question, though.

1) just about a year ago, I was trying to make a similar decision. The two pictures below were made (in no particular order) with M-mount 75 and 90 lenses. No cropping. Obviously I moved to keep the framing as close as equal as possible. If you can see a reason to prefer one over the other - related to "perspective" or anything else - I hope that helps. My own experience is that I can use either a 75 or a 90 interchangably, in the vast majority of situations.

2) However when it comes to portraits and human faces, they come in different varieties. Some are broad and flat, and others are narrow and pointed. On average a shorter lens is better for the "broad and flat" faces precisely because it adds some depth and stretching and perspective by moving in a bit, while a 90 (or even longer) is complimentary for narrow faces because, from a bit farther away, it reduces the impression of pointed chins and noses.

3) Despite (1), I do have both a 75 and a 90. Carrying the 75, I feel a bit "naked" without something longer (usually a 135), simply for the longer reach and the "flatter perspective" (piling up buildings in a city, or just to capture things too far away for the 75).

But if I want a minimum of weight, the 90 is a "compromise" that allows me to leave the 75/135 combo at home. A little more reach than the 75, with a faster aperture than a 135. On the SL, a 90 may save you having to carry a 24-90 or 90-280 as well.

I totally agree and really well explained. Good point on the 90 for the SL, in fact I have sold the 75 Crons after a year and got the 90 instead. Now I have 75 for the M and 90 for the SL 

On the SL with AF and EVF I am happy to have something slightly longer.

If I feel I need 75, I will mount the Lux with the adaptor, which has an amazing look on the SL

[jaapv]

I have (not the SL, but M) 75,85, 90 and 135 lenses. I found the 90 mm the least used, to the extent that I sold  all of that focal length except for an old LTM that I keep for “just in case”. Lens choice is so personal that threads like these are of very limited use for making the right choice. The OP seems to prefer lens combos that are so close as to be interchangeable to most of us. If so, that is his choice. Whatever else, I think we (especially Andy) managed to clear up the misconception of focal length and perspective, I hope. Once again. 

[Mr.Q]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

You are confusing me now. Isn't one of the main arguments for high-MP cameras the ability to crop?

I think cropping to a different aspect ratio is fine, and having the extra MP certainly helps in that regard, but substituting zooming with cropping can be counterproductive. I'd prefer a zoom lens at that point.

[Sohail]

2 hours ago, Mr.Q said:

I think cropping to a different aspect ratio is fine, and having the extra MP certainly helps in that regard, but substituting zooming with cropping can be counterproductive. I'd prefer a zoom lens at that point.

Agreed. Cropping to make up for poor camera technique/composition should never be the reason you opt for a high MP camera.

[Stuart Richardson]

I think it is generally better to do what most suits the photo, not what suits the technology. If you can get a better photo by cropping, you should crop. It is not a failing, it is a technique. I think the obsession about it stems from a fascination with a group of journalists who were trying to indicate that their were not intentionally excluding things from their framing, so they were showing the world the way that it was. Most contemporary photographic thought has dispensed with the notion that any photograph can be "true", and the very fact of framing the world and stopping it in a picture is inherently deceptive, whether it is cropped, manipulated or not. The photographer is always making a choice to exclude or include things whether they do it consciously or unconsciously.

Anyway. 75 or 90 is something of a recurring debate in the Leica community. It all comes down to preference and your other lenses. I tend to prefer 75mm as a more general purpose lens, but as a longer lens, I think something longer is even more useful on an EVF or SLR camera. Something between 100-135mm will give you more reach, shallower depth of field for a given camera to subject distance, and a more distinct look as compared to the 75mm. I think a 100mm APO Macro Elmarit SL would have served the system better than a 90mm Summicron...

[scott kirkpatrick]

When the SL was very new, and R lenses were gathering dust at KEH, I got all three short teles:  80/1.4, 90/2.0 and 100.2,8.  It's the 80 that got the most use, and not for the 1.4 shallow DOF, as I usually stop it down.  The 35 + 75 SL Summicrons make an awesome combination.  If I were off to visit multiple countries, traveling light with an SL2, those are the ones I would take.

[Sohail]

34 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I think it is generally better to do what most suits the photo, not what suits the technology. If you can get a better photo by cropping, you should crop. It is not a failing, it is a technique. I think the obsession about it stems from a fascination with a group of journalists who were trying to indicate that their were not intentionally excluding things from their framing, so they were showing the world the way that it was. Most contemporary photographic thought has dispensed with the notion that any photograph can be "true", and the very fact of framing the world and stopping it in a picture is inherently deceptive, whether it is cropped, manipulated or not. The photographer is always making a choice to exclude or include things whether they do it consciously or unconsciously.

Anyway. 75 or 90 is something of a recurring debate in the Leica community. It all comes down to preference and your other lenses. I tend to prefer 75mm as a more general purpose lens, but as a longer lens, I think something longer is even more useful on an EVF or SLR camera. Something between 100-135mm will give you more reach, shallower depth of field for a given camera to subject distance, and a more distinct look as compared to the 75mm. I think a 100mm APO Macro Elmarit SL would have served the system better than a 90mm Summicron...

I hear you and am willing to come along with you if cropping is intentional, i.e. if I want to crop for a particular aspect ratio. But, yes, what matters ultimately is the photo -- not how you got there. The point is more about best practices and getting the most out of your tools rather than a commandment of what you should or should not do. 

Re the 75 as a general purpose lens, I'm hearing  that a lot. It's a difficult one for me since my workhorse, if you like, is a 28mm lens (the Q2).

Edited January 10, 2020 by Sohail

[Sohail]

29 minutes ago, scott kirkpatrick said:

When the SL was very new, and R lenses were gathering dust at KEH, I got all three short teles:  80/1.4, 90/2.0 and 100.2,8.  It's the 80 that got the most use, and not for the 1.4 shallow DOF, as I usually stop it down.  The 35 + 75 SL Summicrons make an awesome combination.  If I were off to visit multiple countries, traveling light with an SL2, those are the ones I would take.

I'm currently using a 28 + 75 combo but feel there's a bit of a gap or too much of a jump -- especially when you're putting together a story.

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, scott kirkpatrick said:

  The 35 + 75 SL Summicrons make an awesome combination.  If I were off to visit multiple countries, traveling light with an SL2, those are the ones I would take.

That would be my choice of primes, provided I had the opportunity to choose a lens for a day or for a purpose, or with suitable conditions to change lenses.  For rain, snow, etc, I would prefer the 24-90, which actually weighs 3/4 lb less than the two primes combined.  In the city, though, I’ll stick to an M and a 35 or 50.

We each have our own perspective (that word again, different meaning, in this case related to focal length).  Choices are good.

Jeff

Edited January 10, 2020 by Jeff S

[adan]

34 minutes ago, Sohail said:

I'm currently using a 28 + 75 combo but feel there's a bit of a gap or too much of a jump -- especially when you're putting together a story.

Ahh - the "Lenny Kravitz Drifter" combo! https://us.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-M/Leica-M-Special-Editions/Drifter

I've actually, over the past year, found that an interesting "change-up" from my usual 21/35/(tele of choice) journalism/reportage setup (I don't use the Drifter special edition, just used "cheap Leica" 28/75 lenses on an M10. )

Of course, if you find that 28-75 is already too much of a jump, I'm afraid 28-90 will be an even larger jump.

Edited January 10, 2020 by adan

[scott kirkpatrick]

Andy, have you ever been tempted by the 24 (or Zeiss 25)?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[adan]

Nope - too close to my 21, which has been my "first purchase" in every camera system since 1978.

I've tried them out (24 f/2.8, C/V 25 "snapshot) - always felt cramped in the long run.