75 Summilux has arrived!

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

Just a quick note to let interested parties know that the 75 Summilux arrived this afternoon. It is exactly as Jack Flesher described it in his initial post. Those who were doubtful of Jack's honesty and integrity were raising questions about the wrong person--considering that the lens arrived so promptly, it's apparent that Jack sent the lens before any contributions could have reached him. He has proven himself to be both trustworthy and trusting.

I shot about half a roll with the lens this afternoon while "warming up" a headshot subject. I have to take off again now, but late tonight, I'll post to this thread describing my initial impressions.

My genuine thanks to Jack Flesher and my other benefactors for their generosiity and kindness. I've started working on the prints for you--they should be completed by early next week.

Mike

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), February 21, 2002

Answers

Good to hear! That's a sweet lens, have fun with it. Look forward to your impressions.

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), February 21, 2002.

Wow, now that's brotherhood. Bravo Jack. Congradulations Mike. Now maybe some day in the not too distant future we'll all enjoy the fruits of your good fortune. Hint, hint. Keep the good work men. Sincerely, Ron Wills

-- Ronald Wills (youngdeer@earthlink.net), February 21, 2002.

Good to hear Mike. I look forward to seeing how you utilize the unique characteristics of this lens. Hint: stock up on some Delta 3200 and hit the bars again.

;-)

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), February 21, 2002.


This and the original thread have raised the bar of forum generosity and integrity. I'm sure Mike's images will be of a similar standard.

What a good forum! Jack and others...many thanks.

-- Tim Gee (twg@optushome.com.au), February 21, 2002.


Mike:

Did Jack trade you the 75 Summilux for some of your pictures? I lost track on what happened on the previous thread?

I love my 75, It is heavy, but when you hold the camera by the lens barrel it has good balance on the M body and makes it easy to hold the camera steady at low speeds. I have been able to shoot at 1/8sec. I'll post an example if I can figure out how to post a picture.

-- Mitch Alland/Bangkok (malland@mac.com), February 21, 2002.



...so does this mean we get to meet the models now?

Dennis

-- Dennis Couvillion (couvilaw@aol.com), February 22, 2002.


Here is a test of whether I can post a picture effectively. The following -- I've posted is before but have forgotten how to do it -- is a picture taken with the 75 Summilux at f/1.4:



-- Mitch Alland/Bangkok (malland@mac.com), February 22, 2002.

Sorry, I posted Rowlett's example picture by mistake. Here's another attempt:



-- Mitch Alland/Bangkok (malland@mac.com), February 22, 2002.

Dennis, let me know when you're going to be in Nashville--I'll see if I can line up a model or two.

Mitch, yep, they get some prints; I get a kick-ass lens. I'm not complaining. Hope they won't be when they see the real photos rather than just scans.

My initial impressions of the 75 Summilux:

It's big and heavy, but no worse than the older 90 Summicron (or 135 Elmarit) I use, with the 'lux being a bit shorter and thicker. It's not a huge jump in size and weight from the 50 Summilux--if you're comfortable with the 50, the 75 would probably be manageable.

It blocks a BIG chunk of the viewfinder--I find that it's most objectionable trait. But I've gotten used to the same trait with the fast teles; I'll adapt.

Focusing action is more-heavily damped than the 50, but not as stiff as the 90 Summicron. I like the close-focusing ability, though I had to search the archives for Andrew Schank's directions on adjusting M3s to focus to less than a meter (Thanks, Andrew!).

I developed a roll from a headshot session today that had about a dozen of the 75 'lux images on it. I can't tell that much about the character from looking at the (wet) negatives, but focusing at close range and wide open seems to be spot on.

Rather than stay at home and do work, I took some (non-photographic) work with me to my neighborhood cafe so I could get in some more practice with the lens. It seems to work well for unobtrusive candid shooting. One cute girl kept looking my direction, but she was doing that even when the camera was sitting on the table, so maybe she just thought I was funny looking. ; )

Within a week or two, I hope to start getting good, solid results using it. I'll post updates (with images) as they become available. Since the general idea behind getting the lens into my hands was to see what I could do with, I'll do my best to not disappoint the interested parties.

Thanks again. Hope you'll enjoy the photos as much as I'm enjoying the lens.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), February 22, 2002.


I would like to apologise to Jack for the "cynical" response I made when he launched this process, and am delighted at how his initiative has developped.

BTW, I had not questioned his honesty. I had questioned what I perceived as a strange sales method. But this is obviously such a win- win outcome, even for us who benefit from Mike's images, that I sincerely regret not having shut up.

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), February 22, 2002.



Hi Mike

I was wondering are you using an accessory viewfinder for the 75mm or are you guessing the frameline when you compose a shot? Thanks

-- Erik (eloponen@hotmail.com), February 22, 2002.


Mike:

I'm afraid that if that cute girl was looking at you, she probably did think you were funny looking. In my case the cute young girls usually look away---you know, trying to play hard to get. Happens every time.

When things get too boring here in New Orleans, maybe we can set up a shoot in Nashville.

Have fun with the 75 and keep up the great work, Mike.

Dennis

-- Dennis Couvillion (couvilaw@aol.com), February 22, 2002.


Here's still another attempt to post a picture taken with the 75 Summilux at f/2:



-- Mitch Alland/Bangkok (malland@mac.com), February 22, 2002.

Sorry, I blew it again! Here's my final attempt at posting this picture:



-- Mitch Alland/Bangkok (malland@mac.com), February 22, 2002.

Success at last! The penultimate picture that I posted is not mine. Perhaps it's Mike Dixon's. In my picture of the orchid, note the foreground bokeh. In the print, it looks like a painting.

-- Mitch Alland/Bangkok (malland@mac.com), February 22, 2002.


Gwenneth Paltrow, no? Did Mike take it? I wouldn't be surprised.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), February 22, 2002.

I was going to use the 80mm accessory finder from my Kodak Retina for "precise framing" if necessary, but the view was so small and squinty that I've just been estimating things based on the 50 framelines. We'll see how that pans out.

Don't know whose photo the girl is--it's not mine. Maybe a typo in the code?

And, guys, come on--if I had an in with Gwynneth Paltrow, you think I'd be hanging out here? ; ) I mean, she's not Nicole Kidman, but she certainly wouldn't be a waste of film . . .

I spent the evening photographing with the 75 at a gallery and bar. I should have stayed home and worked on dull stuff, but I felt I had an obligation to the good folk of Leicaland. I'll post results soon if they don't suck.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), February 23, 2002.


Gwenneth Paltrow, no? Did Mike take it? I wouldn't be surprised.

Her name is Amanda.

BTW: Mitch... I don't mind you posting photos from my folder but please, please, pretty please (with Gwenneth on top) remember to CREDIT THE PHOTOGRAPHER

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), February 23, 2002.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ