Hi, I'm in the process of trying to decide on a tele to add to my M system (21, 35, 50. I would value any opinions and the versatility of the 75 vs. 90 lengths. What do you use yours for? Thanks, Marke

-- Marke D. Gilbert (Bohdi137@aol.com), September 15, 2001

Answers

Marke:

Since you already have a 50, the 90 might be a better choice (and conversely, if you didn't already have a 50, the 75 might be a great choice). IMO, the 75, while a great lens, is more of a long normal than a short telephoto, and is a bit bulky on the camera. The 90, on the other hand is a short telephoto, and feels a bit more natural on the camera -- and is perhaps even a better performer optically than the 75. The real question (and decision for you) is which will better suit your perspective needs for your uses. So first, I'd engage both sets of framelines with the lever and look at several views comparing them to each other. Whichever looks better to you in most situations is probably the one you should go with.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), September 16, 2001.

I think it depends a bit on what viewfinder you use. I find that the 90 works exceedingly well on my M3, but that it was a pretty small frameline on the .72 when I tried it at the store. The 75 was more comfortable with that finder (for me). Many people are perfectly successful with the 90 and a .72, so it can clearly be done, but you might wish to try it before you make an expensive decision. I've seen a fair number of complainst that the 75 is too heavy; I am using the 90/2 APO and it is just fine but it is a good bit lighter. So, you might want to keep that in mind. I think that there would be a real market for a slower 75; since the depth of field at 1.4 is so small, it is difficult to get the full benefit of the larger aperture at close focus on a .72 or wider viewfinder. I've had pretty good luck with the 90/2 but it is definitely a challenge to get sharp pictures of my very active two year old son with it at 3 ft.

Regards.

-- Oliver Sharp (osharp@greenspice.com), September 16, 2001.

Marke, Jack Flesher has presented some good advice about comparing images with the framing already in your viewfinder. A couple of additional thoughts; the most recent issue of the LHSA "VIEWFINDER" has an excellent article by Dick Gilcreast about the 2.8 Tele-Elmarit which one would need to obtain on the used market. It's a great lens with the advantage of compactness and light weight that newer iterations of the 90mm lenses or the 75mm don't enjoy. A lot depends on your tolerance for weight and bulk, which relates to your style of photography. Personally, I do a lot of travel photography and some hiking, so I like to travel light. The 2.8 Tele-Elmarit and the Tri-Elmar coupled with the new, faster films work wee for me. George

-- George L. Doolittle (geodoolitt@aol.com), September 16, 2001.

I own the 75 Summilux and (2) 90's - the APO ASPH and the older Elmarit. All are very good lenses. I do not object to the size of the 75, finding it as easy to use as the SAA. Both are somewhat difficult to precisely focus at maximum aperture in the near range. I never make recommendations as to what lenses others should buy, encouraging them to go to a local dealer to "test drive" the various focal lengths, or better yet borrow or rent them for a short period. The 90 Elmarit that I have is the older version, but a very good performer that I often carry when I travel because of weight. Look at the used market for these lenses, bargains can be found on the used 90's (non SAA) and you might find a deal on a 75 Summilux (I did) as well. Should you decide that what you purchase does not fit you, resale should not be a problem. After years of buying and selling / trading camera equipment, I think that I will hang on to all of my Leica equipment, adding as I see fit. I always end up with sellers remorse, and all the Leica lenses are just so fine!

-- David (pagedt@attglobal.net), September 16, 2001.

Think seriously about a 135. The previous Tele-Elmar can be bought for roughly half the cost of a 90, and is one of the best-ever M lenses. The small frame in the finder is not that terrible, and second-hand 135 bright-line finders are not rare.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), September 16, 2001.

My M kit has 15, 24, 35, 50 and 90 mm focal lengths in it. The one I use the least is the 90. I think I'd get a lot more use out of the 75mm. I happen to like the 70-85mm range as a "long normal" and don't find the 75mm lens' bulk as intrusive as the 90mm lens length. I tend to prefer an SLR for longer lenses anyway.

In the end, however, you have to decide what works best for you.

Godfrey

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), September 16, 2001.

One thing that might influence your decision is that someone (Voigtlander? Konica?) makes a 75mm f/2.5, said to be not much bigger than the 50mm Summicron, and fairly good. That would make it a handy travel lens that wouldn't take up too much room in the bag.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), September 17, 2001.

Just want to mention that the current 90mm Elmarit-M is the all time bargain on the Leica line for roughly $750 mint and not much more new (grey) and you can't go wrong with this choice.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), September 17, 2001.

Marke:

The 75/f1.4 is heavier than the 90/f2, and since I already had the 50/f2, I bought the 90. I use the 90 primarily for portraits. The 75 is an excellent lens, with great bokeh at f1.4. But the 90 is just better for the head and shoulders type of portraits I use it for. Since you already have 21, 35, and 50 lenses, the 90 would be a good addition to your outfit. I have 21, 35, 50, 90 and 135 lenses for my M cameras. They can handle 90% of my photography needs.........

-- Muhammad Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), September 17, 2001.

Hi Marke

The 75mm f/1.4 is quite a "specialist" lens in the sense that I would almost put it in the same category (but not quite as extreme) as the 50mm Noctilux. It's outrageously expensive and you don't really have to have it unless you like its superb "bokeh" when used wide open, especially when focusing at closer distances (3m or less). The background gives you a superb smooth wash of colour. It is sharp and contrasty. Bear in mind though that it is not an easy lens to focus quickly especially at less than 2.5m. Heavy? Being used to chunky SLRs I always smile when I hear of people saying a mere 700g lens is "heavy". It balances well on the M6 and the 0.85 M6 does make it slightly easier to focus. But with the new 1.25X magnifier for the viewfinder I am sure focusing difficulties (even with the 135mm) will be a thing of the past for M users.

The 90mm focal length on the other hand is a "must have" basic-kit lens for portraits and outdoor photography. I have the f2.8 lens which is very light and just perfect for travel. It is sharp and contrasty at all apertures and focusing distance. I have just bought the f/2 APO but cannot comment yet on my own perception of its strength or weakness.

Start with the 90mm f/2.8 first since you already have the 50mm. It's also cheaper and a good second hand lens is readily available on eBay or inthe shops. Good luck!

-- David Yeo (yeo_d@hotmail.com), September 18, 2001.

Marke,

Almost a month later here, but still want to confuse you further: the 75mm f1.4 is one of the very best tools available, all brands and architectures considered, to perform critical available light tasks that forbid flash, require silence, require high quality performance at widest apertures (and that 'lux brings such quality) and require a little distance between photographer and subject. One thinks of stage shots, in situ portraits, wedding photography (unbeatable in church) and general reporting. Combined with the 35 f1.4 asph, you have the definitive sleath combo.

There are reasons to want f1.4. The main one is a faster shutter speed, which is THE critical asset in low light, especially with longer focal lengths. The f2 90mm apo-asph *might* yield a marginally better lab MTF graph, but it halves the speed at which you can shoot. The f2.8 90mm makes things four times worse...

BTW, I do not own that lens. I use the 90mm elmarit. But I am amazed when I count the number of shots that I was not allowed to take, and that could have been taken with the 75mm at f1.4....

In most applications, you are not shooting at minimum distance. So the blah on critical focusing at f1.4 for head/shoulder is not really as meaningful as might seem at first...

Kind regards,

Alan

-- Alan (alan.ball@yucom.be), October 15, 2001.

I "borrowed" both for two whole days at a Leica Academie Workshop. Positive: the 75 was my favourite perspective/coverage for landscape-architecture like church or monument statue stuff. Negative: the 75 is, like a Nocti 50 just too big, too heavy, too unbalanced, and too expensive. The 75's focus ring is also too firm and too hard to turn. I'd buy a 2.8/90. I'd prefer a 2/75 but it isn't here yet.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), October 15, 2001.

The 75 is a terrific portrait focal length for a Leica rangefinder. Except that the framelines on an M6 for it are awfully hard to use instinctively, especially if you use the 50 a lot.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), October 15, 2001.