Apo-90 Cron Asph. vs. Apo-75 Cron Asph.

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What do you mean with machinery?

Do you need a lens with reach and compression for that?

Wouldnt a 35 or 50 work?

Sorry, I am not trying to talk you out of the 90/2.0asph, its just one of the lenses I wasnt really interested in.

I once owned a 90/2.0 (the apo didnt exist at that time) but sold it after some months use for a 90/2.8 because I allways found f2.0 at 90mm very very hard to focus. (I also dont manage to focus the 135 at f3.4)

So I thought way carry the bulk and money of a 90/2.0 if the 90/2.8 is as usefull (for me).

 

I agree that machinery and product photography super-sharp images make sense though.

Cheers, Tom

[Advertisement]

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

[mhoersch]

If you need super sharp and want to get close occasionally in crowded surroundings, go for the 75 APO. In my opinion it's the easiest lens to get excellent results with. The 90 APO, by comparison, is bulky, limited in close up and rather difficult to handle. The only drawback of the 75 APO is, you have to get used to the inaccurate frame lines and take parallax into account when doing close ups..

[carstenw]

I have thought of the 75 Cron, but since I already have the 75 Lux, and since I prefer the 90 focal length on film (and FF!) , I thought I would get the 90. I know that the 75 gets closer, and I wish the 90 would get as close, but I can work around that. What do you mean difficult to handle? Coming from SLRs, I find all the M lenses small, including the 75 Lux, which is larger than the 90 Apo Cron.

[zapp]

I think I would prefer the 75 over the 90, but since the 90 is the only one of the two offered for the R system, I go for it. Performance wise you won't see a large difference between the two. I like the 75 more for the nice portrait perspective. It is also smaller and allows closer focusing.

That said the focal length of the Noctilux is different from both lenses and its performance and intended fields of use are also rather different.

[Jack_Flesher]

The 75/1.4 is soft until f/2.8 or even f/4. For machinery, I really want something razor sharp. f/4 is too slow.

 

Hi Carsten: That is PRECISELY the reason I sold my 90 macro and bought the 90 AA --- I needed something razor sharp wide open in a longer length. FTR, I own the 75Lux too, but for me that's a Nocti alternative... I'm sure the 75 Cron would be an excellent choice for a razor-sharp tele also, but you already own the 75 Lux and like Guy, I like owning the one-two punch combo of the 90AA razor and 75 Lux. Plus as you surely know, the 75 famelines are weird.

 

Cheers,

[xrogers]

The 75/1.4 is soft until f/2.8 or even f/4. For machinery, I really want something razor sharp. f/4 is too slow. I have used it for this, and just end up with shaky or dark pictures. A shame, but you cannot use a tripod everywhere.

 

If the 90 at 1 meter gives a field of view that works for you, I'd go for the 90AA in a heartbeat. The 90 is a razor wide open, and two stops is a night-and-day difference. I have some recent urban landscape photos taken at dusk with the 90AA where the f2 performance made a real difference---tack sharp, detailed, and great tonality. This is because the lens really performs wide open, so you can get a hand-holdable shutter speed and drop the ISO to 320.

 

I don't find the 90 difficult to handle. I did find focus difficult until I got a proper diopter. I'm still not perfect shooting people wide open at close range, but for static subjects I seldom misfocus these days.

 

I think your instincts are right on, you've already got the 75 1.4, get the 90AA. Oh, but I'd get it used---you might get it for well under the %30 off price. Stick with the noct, but if you don't want it don't even unbox it, and sell it for a profit (to finance the 90) the instant it arrives!

 

--clyde

[mhoersch]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What do you mean difficult to handle?

 

I find the 90 APO cron extremely difficult to focus wide open, while the 75 APO cron is quick and easy. Even the APO Telyt 135mm is easier to focus than the 90 APO cron. Please don't ask me why...

[carstenw]

I am able to focus the 75/1.4, even up close, as long as my rangefinder is on, so I think the 90AA should be okay.

 

Jack, yes, I am gradually coming to the conclusion that the Apo 90 makes a lot more sense. In a single-lens universe, I would grab the Apo 75, but with my current lens range, and especially if Leica should release a FF M9, the 90 is the better choice for me. Too bad it doesn't focus closer than 1m. That would clinch it.

[Jack_Flesher]

I am able to focus the 75/1.4, even up close, as long as my rangefinder is on, so I think the 90AA should be okay.

 

Jack, yes, I am gradually coming to the conclusion that the Apo 90 makes a lot more sense. In a single-lens universe, I would grab the Apo 75, but with my current lens range, and especially if Leica should release a FF M9, the 90 is the better choice for me. Too bad it doesn't focus closer than 1m. That would clinch it.

 

I hear you, and had all the same arguments with myself when I was deciding LOL! But in the end, I am happy with the two focal option. And FWIW, the 90 at 1m is very close to the same net subject magnification as the 75 at .75m...

 

Cheers,

[carstenw]

Well, it is 1:7 for the 75 and 1:9 for the 90, so that is noticeable. I doubt it will ever be a deal-breaker though.

[carstenw]

I read elsewhere on this forum that the 75 Cron is significantly better at its near limit (0.7m) than the 90AA at its near limit (1m), due to its floating element. Can anyone substantiate this, or refute it with a 90 Apo sample at the near limit, plus two crops, centre and corner, preferably of a highly detailed and sharp subject?

[J_Brittenson]

The Noctilux with a 30% discount letter is a very good opportunity. The list price is a bit crazy. I would keep the Noct choice.

 

But these expired on Sept 1, no?

Unfortunately I didn't have the money at the time to take advantage of mine.

[Hacker]

I find the 90 APO cron extremely difficult to focus wide open, while the 75 APO cron is quick and easy. Even the APO Telyt 135mm is easier to focus than the 90 APO cron. Please don't ask me why...

 

I find it difficult to foucs the 90AA when close up even with the 1.25x viewfinder magnifier. I prefer the 75AA as the floating elements is a joy to use without any focus shift and is smaller.

[doug_m]

In reference to a previous post on this thread, the 75mm lux may not be sharp at 1.4; however, the 50 lux ASPH is sharp across its spectrum.

 

Any M8 user who does not own a 50 mm lux ASPH is missing out big time unless the 66.5 mm M8 length is something they just can't use.

[adan]

Carsten: Having just made the same choice, I came down on the side of the 90 ASMA (APO-Summicron-M-ASPH.) over the 75 ASMA. For me the kicker was the relative inaccuracy of the 75 frame lines, and the fact that I just prefer the slightly longer reach, or tele "look", or background blur, or what-have-you of the 90.

 

My experience is that the 75 and 90 ASMAs are essentially equal in resolution and most other performance factors - I've shot comparisons several times, and the 90 would come out a bit ahead one time, while the 75 would come out a bit ahead a different time.

 

As a practical matter, I've found them to be equally tricky to focus @ f/2 for the same subject framing. As we know, with digital, focus errors are more obvious, so the 75's theoretical advantage really didn't show up in practice. In real life, both lenses produce about equal numbers of focus misses too big to be salvagable - assuming the lens/body match is good in the first place.

 

At medium/long distances on the M8 the 90 frames show a maximum of about a 15% error compared to what you actually get in the picture (linear measure). The 75 framelines OTOH have as much as a 22% error (the final pictures come out awfully loose), and are still showing significant looseness in the final image at 1.5 meters, where the 90 is close to minimum focus, and thus really close to accurate.

 

Put another way - shoot with the 75 at infinity, crop to what the framelines really framed, and you are cropping to 6.95 megapixels from 10.3. With the 90, to match what the framelines showed at inifinity, the crop leave you with 7.9 megapixels.

 

Which is too bad - the 75 is a nice lens, but not if I end up throwing away 33% of the pixels.

 

Below is a sample from a larger framing test I was working on. At about 20 meters (60-ish feet) subject distance.

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!

[fursan]

Guy, that surely would be a knockout blow for me. As it is I am gasping for breath:D

 

I have the 75 lux and the 90 apo a great 1,2 punch. Really can't miss here

[rob_x2004]

Andy that is a bit of an upside down logic.

In practice if you are framing at infinity you are at full stretch anyway so unless you have a longer lens you cant have a bigger picture.

Any chance of a set of frame lines from up close and at something like ten and twenty feet?

[adan]

Rob: I can't quite parse your first two lines - at infinity any lens is at its minimum stretch (at its closest to the image plane/film/sensor). It is at "full stretch" (longest extension from the sensor) at its closest focus setting.... 0.7 meters or 1 meter or whatever.

 

...but here's a response to your third:

 

each column is with one lens, each row is at a longer and longer distance, the red lines show what the framelines enclosed, as a comparison to what the M8 actually captured. I tossed in the 28 just as a control to show what happens with wide angles, where the lens extension chnages very little over the focusing range.

 

Note that at the minimum focus for each lens, the framing is very accurate - even perhaps a bit TOO accurate (no margin for error) with the 90 and 75. But even by 1 meter the 75 lines make for pretty sloppy framing, and they remain much worse than the 90 lines throughout the range.

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[J_Brittenson]

adan, your chart seems to suggest an increase in focal length as the 75A approaches 0.7m... The change in magnification is a tad greater going from 1m to 0.7 than 2 to 1m, while it should be the other way around. By extrapolation, the magnification at 0.7 seems more like what one would hypothetically expect at 0.5m or even closer.

 

This could help explain both the discrepancy in frameline accuracy and the more 'practical' minimum focusing distance of the 75.

 

By the way, 'distance' is lens scale distance, I assume. Not between focal planes with a tape measure.

[rob_x2004]

Andy given the 75 is going to be used for portraits I figure Leica arent brave enough to clip the frameline in close. I wondered whether they made a decision about the lens infinity view which of course is not going to align with the framelines which are adjusted for parallax at subject distance.

 

I was always interested wrt my backgrounds when focused on closer subjects. I needed to get on top of horizons growing out of peoples ears sort of thing, when they were nothing like that in the viewfinder. Maybe the 90 isnt as bad becuse it doesnt focus in close so the start point is different.

 

There is probably a good reason, I dont think it was just that they were on drugs the day they made the 75 framelines. I will see what I get with film, which isnt much of a help to you on digital, but i mught be an interesting comparison.