APO SUMMICRON 50 VS 75

[teosnow]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi everyone, 

i'd like to ask some advise for my next lens on the LEICA SL2.

I already have these two lenses:

• 24-90 for general use, landscape, vacation, family
• Leica summilux-M 35mm FLE I for low light and low dof photos and also as general use when i want a light and small set up where the 24-90 sometimes is too heavy and big. specially when i go out for city walk or with the family i like to carry the Summilux M 

Now i would like to introduce an APO SUMMICRON SL for portait, low light, and general use . Maybe to carry also alone or within the summilux as general use lens with the big advantage of autofocus.

I am currently very doubtful whether to choose the 50 or the 75 APOs . . i'll use it for portait (especially my 4 years old daughter) but also for general use (vacation, events and reportage) 

What do you think? 

I know that there is more "right" separation in focal lenght choosing the 75 but i'm not really sure if a 50 will be more usefull and in the same time different enought from my summilux

 

 

Edited June 5 by teosnow

[Advertisement]

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

[LD_50]

I would practice with the 24-90 at equal DOF at 50 and 75 and see which you prefer. Another way to do this is look at your images with the 24-90 and see whether you more often select 50 or 75 FOV. 

Leica stores usually allow you to try out the lenses so that may be an option as well. 

I don’t find 50 very similar to 35. I have the 35SL APO, the 50SL Summilux, 35 ASPH FLE M, and the 24-90. I wouldn’t go without a 35 and 50. I have never owned a 75 but would probably have to decide between a 75 and 90 rather than 75 and 50. 

[Eoin]

I agree with LD_50, the 50 and 75 focal lengths are very close that a couple of steps either way would suffice to change the perspective easily.
The SL Summilux 50 is special, there is just something about this lens that makes me keep it, despite of its heft & size. Not a practical choice for "general use".

Most comments I've read regarding the 75mm or 90mm choice for a SL prime make reference to the looser framing the 75 affords. Some seem to prefer that approach and with the higher megapixel sensor, crop in post as necessary.

In my own case, I felt the 90mm was the correct choice for my own needs and is a beautiful lens. Not to throw a spanner in your thought process though, the Super APO Summicron SL 21mm is the most amazing lens of the SL series if you also like wide angle and distortion free images. There is no wrong choice in the SL lens line up, just a choice of focal lengths.   

[Stuart Richardson]

The 50mm APO Summicron SL is one of the best best and most versatile lenses I have ever used. In the case of the SL2, the camera body has a lot of resolution, and it can easily be cropped to around 75mm and still have plenty of megapixels. I think the 50mm will be more versatile as a general purpose lens, and the 24-90mm is great for portraits at the 60-90mm range, so in your case I would probably get the 50mm. If you only wanted to do portraits, you might consider the 50mm 1.4, but the challenge with that is the extreme size, particularly as your only other AF lens is just as big. The 50mm f2 APO will give you the world class image quality of the APO Summicrons, a more convenient size and a lot of flexibility. I find that I use mine even for artwork reproduction and close up work (as close it focuses, anyway). It is so sharp and well-corrected that it is as good as the Leica 120mm APO Macro Summarit S or the 105mm Sigma Art macro lens, even close up.

[teosnow]

This is exactly the point I’m thinking about with these 2 focal length, few steps forward or back and I can cover both maybe with the 50 better than the 75. I tried with my 24-90 and it seems to me that the 75 is more in the isolation/portrait side and I’ll probably able to crop or get closer with the 50, maintaining in the meanwhile a more usable focal length as multi pourpose lens with the 50. 
 

And it’s still very different from. Y lux35 for sure in character but also in focal length separation… maybe I could consider later, if I’ll use less the zoom, to sell the 24-90 and buy the APO 21 instead…

[Virob]

2 hours ago, teosnow said:

This is exactly the point I’m thinking about with these 2 focal length, few steps forward or back and I can cover both maybe with the 50 better than the 75. I tried with my 24-90 and it seems to me that the 75 is more in the isolation/portrait side and I’ll probably able to crop or get closer with the 50, maintaining in the meanwhile a more usable focal length as multi pourpose lens with the 50. 
 

And it’s still very different from. Y lux35 for sure in character but also in focal length separation… maybe I could consider later, if I’ll use less the zoom, to sell the 24-90 and buy the APO 21 instead…

21,35, 75 makes a nice combo, generally more versatile than 21, 35, 50, but everyone is different. Find what works for you.

[jrp]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I find the 90mm APO SL or even the 100mm Panasonic a better partner to the 50mm unless I am taking portraits, in where the 75mm really comes in to its own, not least because it seems to be optimized for closer pictures. 

[Flou]

I have the 35mm Apo SL and the 75mm Apo SL for my SL-System and all I can say is: The 75mm Apo SL is amazing! And 35mm + 75mm is the perfect combination for everyday use (if you aren‘t a landscape photographer…then I would add a 21mm for a 21-35-75 combination). 
 

A 50mm would be too close to the 35mm in my opinion in terms of focal lenghts. I never wished to add a 50mm to my SL system, because I am so happy with the 35mm + 75mm combination. A 21mm for the perfect trio would be amazing, but the lenses are too heavy and I would never want to carry 3 of the SL Apo lenses with me. 

[Babylonia]

Over the years, there are so many examples as for choosing a focal length specially for doing portraits.
Difference between "head shot" and a bigger part of the body - chest / arms.

Examples to be found:
https://www.google.com/search?q=portraitt lens perspective vs focal length&newwindow=1&udm=2&sclient=img

In spite there is a tendency that more short subject distances (more short focal length, giving a more "bulging" perspective) to a model,
by today cultural and social standards generally is more accepted, by the millions of smartphone "selfies" that people are taking.

Still for doing a more serious photography imaging experience, and more flattering "head-shots" I should say "at least" 85 mm.
So 90mm should be a very good match, and even going further up to 100mm (105mm)
Using longer focal length (135mm and up) the more longer distance to the model comes into play,
- as a negative aspect as for "social contact"  photographer vs. model.

50mm IMO definitely is to short as for FF head shots - perspective wise, but still can be used by "crop mode".

When taking more editorial portraits. More space around the model, or even more of the environment.
You can use a more short focal length, as the distance to the model itself is becoming longer (changing perspective).

So check / experiment the focal length range by using the 24-90mm lens that is already in possession of the topic starter.
As suggested more early.

If weight / size comes into play, and if you are open by using another brand than "Leica" lenses itself.
Look what the very affordable Panasonic 85mm/F1.8 and 100mm/F2.8  can give to you.

A more high quality and build, but more heavy, but advantage of a more short DOF and very nice bokeh by using a more fast aperture.
Check, what a Sigma 85mm F1.4 DG DN Art can offer.

All lenses by brand, do have their own "imaging" character.
You will feel the need to tweak the image to your liking by some post processing.
(Maybe making a special profile for one or the other lens, as to match you normally used "Leica" lenses).
-
 

Edited Sunday at 10:24 AM by Babylonia

[LocalHero1953]

2 hours ago, Babylonia said:

Still for doing a more serious photography imaging experience, and more flattering "head-shots" I should say "at least" 85 mm.
So 90mm should be a very good match, and even going further up to 100mm (105mm)

In another forum there was a dominant personality who offered forceful advice on everything. He insisted that the best lens for portraits was a 300mm. I couldn't argue with him (I'd never tried portraits with anything that long - I'd rather not have to shout at my models), but we had a falling out when I suggested that 90mm was also valid. I left the forum!

[Babylonia]

Of course several options are possible, depending on what you want to achieve.
Such a long focal length like 300mm is possibly e.g. for well prepared fashion shoots, and special chosen locations in advance.
By help of a production team?  But this is not the situation by the description of the topic starter.

But in general I would definitely advise against using such long focal lengths as e.g. 300mm.

Due to the strong telephoto effect, your image moves quite a bit when you look through the viewfinder, and you are not using a camera on a tripod.
(Activated image stabilisation in such situation is an absolute necessity).
Using a camera on a tripod due to the nature of a "fixed" setup, produces more "static" images.
A photographer is less flexible to respond quickly to "playful" interesting photographic situations.

And indeed, interaction between photographer and model is a lot more difficult.
(In past preparing a "fixed" setup of "group" shots of many people, I took a "megaphone" with me, for communication).

Some YouTube examples.
A clear explanation of using several focal lengths. Specially the "communication aspect" when using more longer focal length lenses.

From the same author:
Keep in mind these ones are all horizontally taken shots. So relatively taken by more distance, than used by vertically taken shots.

What we as "viewers" experience as pleasant or "normal" in looking to images of portraits also is culturally determined.
Images of celebrities, and e.g. members of a royal family, what people look up to "from a distance".
For this you can take a longer focal length, to generate also a corresponding human "perspective" of this "cultural" distance within the imaging.

Portraits of more "ordinary people" friends/acquaintances.
Where you feel culturally closer to as a human being, you can also approach a "closer" feeling by using a less longer focal length.

Approach to more intimate/sensual tinged pictures, the "closer feeling" can be achieved by using even a shorter focal length.
And by use of a more wide open aperture, to have more soft bokeh rendering to closer or further object areas of the model.
So as a viewer you become more involved, almost 'touchable' with a model.

Example by Mat Osborne (Mr. Leica) - Flickr

 

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!

And than there is even another aspect, mostly not discussed at all.
But it does have a major impact on how viewers 'feel' the emotional accuracy of images.
The combination / relation of printed / showed picture size and viewing distance.
E.g. a very big print size on a wall or a stretched mega print on a building. Or a projected screen image. Monitor / TV / Cinema.

Small size printed images photographed by "wide angle" lenses, look very unnatural.  Specially to the sides / borders.

But the same "wide angle" images  printed or projected to a very large scale, and relatively seen / rated by a short "viewing distance".
Just looks very natural, without stretched sides / borders. As you look "oblique" to these sides / borders of this gigantic image size / scale images.

But that is a discussion for another time. (I have to prepare for a short holiday abroad).
-

[LD_50]

13 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

In another forum there was a dominant personality who offered forceful advice on everything. He insisted that the best lens for portraits was a 300mm. I couldn't argue with him (I'd never tried portraits with anything that long - I'd rather not have to shout at my models), but we had a falling out when I suggested that 90mm was also valid. I left the forum!

I really liked my Nikkor 200 f/2 and the portrait results, but it definitely wasn’t convenient for framing. I would not call it ideal despite the fantastic results. 

[BernardC]

23 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

In another forum there was a dominant personality who offered forceful advice on everything. He insisted that the best lens for portraits was a 300mm. I couldn't argue with him (I'd never tried portraits with anything that long - I'd rather not have to shout at my models), but we had a falling out when I suggested that 90mm was also valid. I left the forum!

That's a very dated style these days, but it was popular in the 1980s when a 300/2.8 was considered to be an essential fashion/glamour lens. One critical problem with this setup is that it flattens women's faces, which is why supermodels of that era deliberately starved themselves in order to "look good on camera." 

The look for the past decade leans more toward selfie/wide angle lenses.