Re: [Leica] Re: 75mm f1.4 (and other special lenses)

["Roland Smith" <roland@dnai.com>]

I wish you all would be stronger in your criticism of the 75mm f1.4 so the
price drops and I can afford one.
- ----- Original Message -----
From: B. D. Colen <bdcolen@earthlink.net>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 4:49 AM
Subject: RE: [Leica] Re: 75mm f1.4 (and other special lenses)


> The 75 is getting a bad rap here for the reason that those rapping it see
to
> feel that the only "true" Leica lens is a pre-ASPH 35 Summilux or
> collapsible Elmar...
>
> The 75 is neither large, nor bulky, nor heavy when compared to anything by
> the aforementioned lenses. If you want a real comparison, compare it to
SLR
> lenses of apx the same focal length and f stop - and it will come up the
> winner. No, it's not a drop it in your shirt pocket kind of lens, but, to
me
> at least, it seems about the same as the 90 Summicron, which is entirely
> manageable.
>
> Yes, the nonexistent depth of field is limiting. But when you get it
right,
> it's RIGHT. The results you can achieve with this lens are truly
astounding
> in terms of sharpness and bokah...
>
> If I want to reach out and tele someone, I want to do it with an SLR. I
find
> the 90 a bit beyond the effective working range of the M - but that's me.
> The 75, on the other hand, is just about the limit...
>
> And, frankly, with the advent of the new $750 "Voightlander" 75 2.5, which
> is smaller and lighter than the 75 Summilux, it may make sense to hold the
> Summilux in reserve for the real low light situations, and use the
> Voightlander for "normal" light situations - if the quality's there..
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> > [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of
> > Jeff Moore
> > Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 5:32 PM
> > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> > Cc: Jeff Moore
> > Subject: [Leica] Re: 75mm f1.4 (and other special lenses)
> >
> >
> > The 75/1.4 is an odd bird.  It's about as clunky to carry as the
> > Noctilux (and nearly as clunky to use -- focusing ring a bit stiff,
> > but at least the throw isn't as hand-over-hand long as that of the
> > Noctilux).  The 75mm focal length has always been a bit uncomfortable
> > for me (too long for when I'm in a 50mmish sort of mood: the 50 always
> > seems to me like the "short tele" I want to use instead of a 35mm
> > "normal" when photographing people who aren't yet used to me, whereas
> > the 75 seems too stand-offish even for that; but the
> > 75 seems to come up short when I have that rare "reach out and tele"
> > impulse).  Because the 50mm and 75mm frames come up
> > simultaneously and
> > they're the least dramatically different pair, I find it requires
> > conscious thought to keep track of which I'm using -- and conscious
> > thought is just what I don't want to have distracting me.  The 75 is
> > fast, but as the longest lens of its speed, some of that low-light
> > advantage is given up by its magnification of hand shake.
> >
> > All that having been said -- if I were to pick one M lens from which
> > the best pictures just look *good*, for whatever special weird reason
> > -- it'd be the 75/1.4.  I don't know why, but pictures made with this
> > lens have a greater chance of being a purely sensual pleasure.
> >
> > BTW, as for runners-up, other lenses which do something special, may
> > I suggest:
> >
> >  - the pre-ASPH 35mm Summicron, with its smooth, coherent, deep,
> >    painterly way of going out of focus;  and
> >
> >  - the one-and-only 24mm.  I haven't yet used this one nearly as much
> >    as the others mentioned, but I'm seeing something special in its
> >    immediacy.  A different flavor from the other lenses, but a
> >    compelling one.
> >
> > -----
> > Jeff Moore
> >
>
>