Jump to content

75mm Summilux close up

hankg

By hankg
in Leica M8 / Leica M8.2

Recommended Posts

hankg

hankg

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just picked up a 75mm Summilux which will arrive in about a week. I have been using a 90/4 Macro to do product shots and it does a spectacular job. It's the only Leica M lens optimized for close distances.

 

I'm shooting stopped down to f/11 f/16. I'd rather not keep both lenses if I don't have to. If the 75 will perform at a similar level close in at those apertures to the 90 i can sell the 90. It doesn't have to beat the 90 on a MTF chart at f/5.6 or f/8 just give similar results at f/16.

 

Anyone with experience with the 75 Summilux with close in detail?

 

Here is an example of the type of work:

 

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites
johnkuo

johnkuo

Posted
Posted
the 75 1.4 has the closest reproduction ratio of any M lens to my knowledge--even more than the 90 F4 macro.

 

lots of people seem to like the 75 1.4

 

hope this helps.

 

/a

 

Are you sure about that? From the official PDFs on the leica website, the 75/1.4 has the closest focusing distance of 0.75m and a highest reproduction ratio of 1:8. The 90 macro has the closest focusing distance of 0.77m (0.5m with macro adapter), and a highest reproduction ratio of 1:6.7 (1:3 with macro adapter).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Philippe D.

Philippe D.

Posted
Posted
I just picked up a 75mm Summilux (...) I'm shooting stopped down to f/11 f/16.

Anyone with experience with the 75 Summilux with close in detail?

:confused: What the relevance to use a bright optic (f/1.4) if it is to close it down to f/16 ?

(it's like closing down a Noctilux to f/16, senseless)

I'm not sure you're going to enjoy the Summilux 75 with close up details.

 

A Summicron 90mm AA would be (imo) a much better choice. (but not better as the 90/4 Macro)

Link to post
Share on other sites
hankg

hankg

Posted
  • Author
Posted
:confused: What the relevance to use a bright optic (f/1.4) if it is to close it down to f/16 ?

(it's like closing down a Noctilux to f/16, senseless)

I'm not sure you're going to enjoy the Summilux 75 with close up details.

 

A Summicron 90mm AA would be (imo) a much better choice. (but not better as the 90/4 Macro)

 

I'm not buying the 75 for this purpose. The 90/4 is certainly the best choice for 'tabletop' work. I got the 75 for available light portraits, low light moderate tele stuff and the like where it's 1.4 aperture and wide open signature are unmatched (I owned a 75 in the past). I'm just wondering if I could cheat a bit and have it do double duty replacing the 90/4 since at f/16 differences tend to become minute even close in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35mmSummicron

35mmSummicron

Posted
Posted
Are you sure about that? From the official PDFs on the leica website, the 75/1.4 has the closest focusing distance of 0.75m and a highest reproduction ratio of 1:8. The 90 macro has the closest focusing distance of 0.77m (0.5m with macro adapter), and a highest reproduction ratio of 1:6.7 (1:3 with macro adapter).

 

i stand corrected!

 

thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
hankg

hankg

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Are you sure about that? From the official PDFs on the leica website, the 75/1.4 has the closest focusing distance of 0.75m and a highest reproduction ratio of 1:8. The 90 macro has the closest focusing distance of 0.77m (0.5m with macro adapter), and a highest reproduction ratio of 1:6.7 (1:3 with macro adapter).

 

That could have an impact on resolution with small products as the 90 will better fill the frame making the most of the sensors resolution. I guess I'll have to wait for the 75 and test it. I'm not sure how much of a difference 1:8 and 1:67 will make.

Link to post
Share on other sites
henning

henning

Posted
Posted

I've both the Summilux and the Summicron 75 as well as the 90AA. I've tried the 90/4 macro-Elmar.

 

The Summilux and the Summicron give pretty much the same reproduction ratio at close focus points, with the 90AA slightly behind.

 

The 75 Summicron has floating elements for correction of close focus conditions, which work extremely well, so that in the ranges that overlap with those of the 90 macro they give essentially equivalent performance, except for the two stop aperture difference. The 90AA, and especially the 75 Summilux do not do as well. The generally softer performance of the 75 Summilux at wide apertures masks this to some extent.

 

At f/8 or so the differences are minimal, and at f/11 and smaller non-existent to any degree due to diffraction.

 

If you want one tele lens, the 75 Summicron provides a great balance of relatively small size, outstanding performance and decent close focussing. In my world, if I want to shoot anything at a larger magnification ratio, I reach for an SLR. Rangefinders really don't work that well for this kind of stuff.

 

I love the look of the 75 Summilux, but I sure don't reach for it for closeups.

 

Henning

Link to post
Share on other sites
lars_bergquist

lars_bergquist

Posted
Posted

One very decided weakness of traditional high speed lenses is that their definition deteriorates very markedly at close focusing ranges. This is why the current 75mm Summicron ASPH and the 50mm Summilux ASPH both have floating elements. Do not expect to use the 75mm Summilux for critical work at close focus.

 

The old man from the Age of True Macro

Link to post
Share on other sites
hankg

hankg

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

At f/8 or so the differences are minimal, and at f/11 and smaller non-existent to any degree due to diffraction.

 

 

That is why I'm thinking I can have my cake and eat it to. Since I'm shooting these products at f/16 the close up advantage that other lenses would exhibit at wider apertures is canceled out due to diffraction. So I can have the characteristics at wider apertures of the Summilux which can't be matched by the 75 Summicron and use it for the occasional product shot.

 

Yes an SLR with a Macro and or tilt-shift lens would be a much better choice but I'm still months away from picking up another DSLR just need something adequate in the mean time. If this sort of stuff was all I shot or my main source of income I probably wouldn't even own an RF.

Link to post
Share on other sites
hankg

hankg

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Hum... i would rather say, a view camera, at least 6x9, would be the one for such a purpose. :cool:

 

I've owned an Arca-swiss view camera when I was using film and I've come to the conclusion that I am allergic to tripods and that way of working.

 

I'd like to have one of these Hartblei Prototype Macro 4/120 TS with a DSLR though. I used to have a Canon 90 TSE and hand held movements are very nice. I also owned the Zeiss 120 Makro the Hartblei uses, a great lens but the 5 bladed aperture made some ugly shapes in OOF Hartblei has fixed that and added movements -maybe next year with an R10:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
guywalder

guywalder

Posted
Posted

Hank,

fegarding your origonal question, my experience of the 75 summilux is that the clarity of the image deteriorates significantly when you get nearer than about 1.something metres (not sure exactly what distance, I borrowed the lens, but dont use it regularly). The effect can be quite attractive, just not super crisp...

Guy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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