NB23 Posted August 20, 2009 Share #41 Posted August 20, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Erwin Puts: exactly the same design, with minor differences between the SLR and RF version. Basically the focal length has been shortened to make the lens slightly slimmer. But the differences in rendering are minimal. FWIIW. I found the 75 Summilux leaning towards the Noctilux wide open as well. Great lenses both - no argument there. Since the Summilux-M 75mm is really a 80mm lens (the little "50" print at the infinity mark gives it away), I have no trouble believing it can be the same design as the 80-R. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 20, 2009 Posted August 20, 2009 Hi NB23, Take a look here 80mm Summilux R. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Runkel Posted August 20, 2009 Share #42 Posted August 20, 2009 According to Appendix D of Puts's Leica Lens Compendium, this "50" code indicates an actual focal length of 75.0 mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted August 20, 2009 Share #43 Posted August 20, 2009 That's really interesting... so Puts is wrong on that? That would bear out the system differences too... Puts explains the small differences in rendering. You can see it looking at the MTF graphs. The design is very similar, but it is not "exactly" the same, and you can see it looking at the lens shape draws. It is not a question of believe or not to believe. Just look at them and compare. Different curvatures, diameters, thickness and separations means a different computation. Maybe minor adjustments from a basic shared design, but the two lenses are different. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguewave Posted August 20, 2009 Share #44 Posted August 20, 2009 I'm not a technical wizard, so when I say the "best", I'm speaking about the aesthetics of my work. While speaking with Ken Hansen a few years ago he asked me If a owned or had used a 80 Lux. I said that I didn't & had used the 90 on the R & M system for many years in my photojournalism days. Super sharp, great details & the images printed very well in the newspapers. The NY Times always loved images from that lens. The picture editors could spot it immediately. Ken gave me the 80 lux & told me to enjoy myself & if i liked it I could keep it for a while & decide if it was worth purchasing. Here's one of the first images I took with this lens. I reiterate my claim that no other R lens can render this. I'm sitting on the ground, almost right next to this child. I'm able to have a very close & intimate relationship with my subject (very important to me), & yet it doesn't feel like that when you view the image. 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! 1 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/93852-80mm-summilux-r/?do=findComment&comment=999497'>More sharing options...
jacobh Posted August 20, 2009 Share #45 Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) Wilfredo, If you are interested in a comparison with the Zeiss Ikon 2/85mm and if you are willing to consider/compare the MTF curves I suggest you pick them up at the Zeiss Ikon site and compare them with those of the 1.4/ 80 and the 2.0/ 90 ASPH from Leica. Quite apart from the rendering and subjective appreciation of the 1.4/80mm which is indeed special and is already extensively discussed here, the purely technical merits do reveal that the R 2.0/90 ASPH and the ZI 2.0/85 (which is an M-compatible btw and probably not usable on Canon) are both significantly better than the R 1.4/ 80mm even stopped down to 4.0. Hope this additional info is useful. (I believe there is also a reflex type Sonnar but I would have to check if MTF curves are available.) Correction: There is a Zeiss Planar 1.4/85 mm ZF available, not a Sonnar. MTF curves at the Zeiss site. In so far as one can estimate from the MTF curves, it would seem comparable to the R 1.4 80 mm both wide open, i.e fine structures slightly soft. The Planar has very well distributed sharpness. Stopped down the Planar tends to a bit sharper. But this is only an evaluation on basis of the MTF curves and there is a lot more to lens quality than that. Still, MTF curves are very useful. Jaap Stil Edited August 20, 2009 by jacobh Added data Planar 1.4/85 mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted August 20, 2009 Share #46 Posted August 20, 2009 That's a great picture Ben... Congratulations... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted August 20, 2009 Share #47 Posted August 20, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) {snipped} I reiterate my claim that no other R lens can render this. I'm sitting on the ground, almost right next to this child. I'm able to have a very close & intimate relationship with my subject (very important to me), & yet it doesn't feel like that when you view the image. Fabulous image, Ben. And I agree on distance as well. While I love the 280 shots Conrad posted, there's no way I could have gotten the two first shots I posted here (both done by window light in very small bedrooms) with it just due to reach! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fernando_b Posted August 20, 2009 Share #48 Posted August 20, 2009 Ben, this image is the result of a great photographer AND a great lens! Fernando. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
4X5B&W Posted August 20, 2009 Share #49 Posted August 20, 2009 As the saying goes.....A picture is worth a thousand words.....great shot Ben. Anyone who has owned the 80 Lux knows that look. The thing I find surprising, is how crisp and 3 dimensional images are, when stopped down slightly......truly a dual personality lens. One of the great ones, especially when paired with a 35 Lux. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgcd Posted August 20, 2009 Share #50 Posted August 20, 2009 I'm not a technical wizard, so when I say the "best", I'm speaking about the aesthetics of my work. ...[snipped] ... I reiterate my claim that no other R lens can render this. .... I certainly accept that you find the aesthetics of this lens to be unique (it is a great lens) and that it provides you with the right ingredients for your visual discourse. Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgcd Posted August 20, 2009 Share #51 Posted August 20, 2009 Conrad--those are great C'mon Lottery!! Thanks Jamie and all who commented. As much as I like the 280 though I seldom bring it anywhere unless I know I have a specific purpose for it, which, honestly, is rare. It is beautifully constructed but very heavy. The same goes for the 180 f/2 Apo-Summicron R, it's just a beast. Most of my work is done with the 19 f/2.8, 35 f/2, 90 f/2, so really in the grander scheme of things unless you really need them, there is no point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted August 20, 2009 Share #52 Posted August 20, 2009 You know, I just have to say that with the R system, it's seems much easier to count the lenses that *aren't* that great than those that are (I have my issues with some of the older Luxes but even they have their charm)... One more reason I'm still heart-broken about the lack of an R10. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgcd Posted August 20, 2009 Share #53 Posted August 20, 2009 You know, I just have to say that with the R system, it's seems much easier to count the lenses that *aren't* that great than those that are (I have my issues with some of the older Luxes but even they have their charm)... One more reason I'm still heart-broken about the lack of an R10. I agree totally. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilfredo Posted August 20, 2009 Author Share #54 Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) Ben, That truly is a lovely image. Nothing shows the properties of a lens better than a photograph that is well composed, exposed, and processed. I'm sold on this lens. I posted a question on adapters for the 5D II (http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/95601-best-r-canon-adapter.html.) I share the sentiment, I too regret the death of the R system, I was ready to make that transition. Edited August 20, 2009 by wilfredo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick_dykstra Posted August 20, 2009 Share #55 Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) The picture of the child in the hat raises a question though. What do you think about the distinct difference between focus and out of focus of the two eyes? I'm finding it just a tad disconcerting. The degree of cross eyed-ness that such close distances invoke is also a factor. Curious. Edited August 20, 2009 by rick_dykstra Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted August 20, 2009 Share #56 Posted August 20, 2009 According to Appendix D of Puts's Leica Lens Compendium, this "50" code indicates an actual focal length of 75.0 mm. Ok! So I read it incorrectly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick_dykstra Posted August 20, 2009 Share #57 Posted August 20, 2009 How will the S2's short tele lens compare with the 80 lux, in terms of depth of field transition and OOF rendering? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilfredo Posted August 20, 2009 Author Share #58 Posted August 20, 2009 The picture of the child in the hat raises a question though. What do you think about the distinct difference between focus and out of focus of the two eyes? I'm finding it just a tad disconcerting. The degree of cross eyed-ness that such close distances invoke is also a factor. Curious. I suspect that this picture was taken with the aperture wide open, a tighter aperture would correct that. I personally like the detail and attention on the first eye. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posto 6 Posted August 22, 2009 Share #59 Posted August 22, 2009 You know, I just have to say that with the R system, it's seems much easier to count the lenses that *aren't* that great than those that are (I have my issues with some of the older Luxes but even they have their charm)... One more reason I'm still heart-broken about the lack of an R10. Could not agree more- have owned this lens since 1981, and find it still find it unsurpassed and surprising in it's versatility and creative possibilities. Ditto for the 35 Summilux and 280/2.8. What a stupid and short-sighted policy is the decision to can the R-system! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted August 22, 2009 Share #60 Posted August 22, 2009 What a stupid and short-sighted policy is the decision to can the R-system! I cannot agree. The lenses may be great, but the R system never was a commercial success. In the digital age it is very difficult or impossible to be competitive against Canon, Nikon or Sony, which will present 24x36mm cameras and more than 24 MP for less than 2,000 dollars very soon. Leica's production costs prevents any camera in that class for less than 5,000 dollars, perhaps more. How many people would have bought it? On the other hand classical reflex cameras will be replaced by cameras based on electronic viewfinders. Video/photo cameras are another line of future expansion. Not now, but it will happen. Leica shouldn't support two classical reflex systems. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now