Here's the first round of images from the weekend, demonstrating the relative coverage of the 50, 75, and 90mm focal lengths. I didn't have the camera mounted on a tripod, so there's a little bit of slop in the system, but the camera to subject distance is within about 3 or 4 inches for all the shots. Also, I changed the framing for the various focal lenghts in order to optimize the composition, though on the comparison photo, I centered the "framelines."

The film was Kodak E100SW at EI80, though I overexposed the 50 and 75 shots a bit more than that. Lighting came from two windows in a second-floor bedroom: direct light from a window just to my left, and indirect light from a window at Renee's back (there was a fresh layer of snow on the roof next door which really pumped up the level of the fill). The sun was moving through light clouds during the session; this caused the obvious changes in color temperature (don't take these results as an indication of different color casts among the lenses).

The usual thanks to Jack and company for providing me with the 75 'Lux, and special thanks to the lovely Renee for her help. Please keep any comments about the model respectful so I won't have to kick anyone's ass . . . ; )

75 Summilux (about f1.7)	50 Summilux (about f2.4)
90 Summicron (about f2)	field of view comparison

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 05, 2002

Answers

Unless you're looking for absolute sharpness and love the tech behind the 90, I think the 75 lux is a better all around lens. Barely any framing diff. Thanks for the photos.

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), March 05, 2002.

A good illustration of what Leica intended the 75 to be - a "fast 90" - though it ended up with its own unique characteristics. I like the 75's softness here, and its ability to set Renee apart from the background. Thanks, Mike.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), March 05, 2002.

Mike:

>>The film was Kodak E100SW at EI80

Then do you have the lab process the film for E180?

Nice shots. The 75 is a great lens but heavy.

-- Mitch Alland/Bangkok (malland@mac.com), March 05, 2002.

Mike is of course the only one who knows what instructions he gave to the lab but since the Ektachrome 100 is rather saturated it wouldn't need special lab treatment if exposed at 80. In fact, this 1/3 stop probably helped to show details in the black sweater.

What really surprises me is how close the 90 and the 75 are in field of view!

-- Peter Olsson (peter.olsson@lulebo.se), March 05, 2002.

The 90 Summicron rocks! Love that look. Thanks for posting these.

-- Keith Davis (leica4ever@yahoo.com), March 05, 2002.

Thanks Mike,

Always nice and motivating to read your posts incl. the nice pictures! Makes me want to buy these expensive lenses. Thanks a lot, and please continue to keep us updated with beautiful pictures.

-- Joop Mes (mes@nat.vu.nl), March 05, 2002.

I like em all, but have to admit that the 90 image is my favorite compositionally. Subject-wise, they ALL rock!!!

:-),

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), March 05, 2002.

move a few inches closer and you have a fast 90. *grin*

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), March 05, 2002.

Great set of shots. I prefer the 90 (but that just might be because it gets us a bit closer to the lovely Renee!)

-- Seth Honeyman (shoneyma@nycap.rr.com), March 05, 2002.

Thanks Mike. Could I impose on you for a future series? Could you shoot the same model and background with the same three lenses, BUT... move YOUR position to keep the model the same relative size? This way we could see the effect on the background. I have always heard that old thing about "just move a couple of feet and lens A and B are the same", but in reality the background will be different. Seeing this effect on film made me start using my 50mm lens again rather than just leaning in with my 35mm. It would be nice to see it with these three lenses. Mathematically, it would be something like 6 feet with the 50, 9 feet with the 75, and 11 feet (actually 10.8) with the 90.

The next time you are shooting, it would be great if you could devote three frames of film to this.

Again, thanks for you efforts here.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), March 05, 2002.

Mike, these are great shots, but I really can't see in them what I need to see: please shoot the whole series the same way with Andrea so we will all have a frame of reference. That way, we can be more objective in our evaluation of the merits of these lenses. It's the scientific method, don't you know!

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), March 05, 2002.

Geeez, you people are almost as demanding as Renee!! : )

The film was developed normally (standard E6). My default for shooting people with slide film is one-third stop overexposure. In addition to opening up the shadows, it cleans up the skin tones and tames saturation a bit.

Joop, the older 90 Summicron is a bargain (by Leica standards). I got my black, Canadian pre-asph 90 in excellent plus condition for US$ 485. It's not unusual to find them for less than $600.

Jack, have the prints arrived yet?

Al, believe it or not, that test is already one I'm planning. Because of Renee's work schedule and bad weather, we didn't shoot much, and our location choices were limited. When she comes to Nashville, I'll be sure to do the test you mention if I haven't already done it with someone else.

Preston, Andrea knows I'm willing to shoot with her again, but she's far away, and I ain't driving. Maybe I'll find another model who allows you to properly evaluate the lens performance in an objective manner. ; )

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 05, 2002.

Nike:

>>The film was developed normally (standard E6). My default for shooting people with slide film is one-third stop overexposure.

I don't follow: Exposing at E180 is underexposing the Ektachrome 100...

-- Mitch Alland/Bangkok (mallland@mac.com), March 05, 2002.

Mitch,

That is E.I. (exposure index) 80, not E180. ISO 100 film shot at ISO 80 over exposes the film.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), March 05, 2002.

EI 80 (Exposure Index 80)

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 05, 2002.

Any picture of Renee is a good picture, but a Dixon is even better. ;-)

Nice work, Mike. Thanks for the comparisons.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), March 05, 2002.

FWIW When I first read your post I also read "EI80" as "EI 180". Had to read it three times before I realized it was an "I" and not a "1" before the "80"...

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), March 05, 2002.

Excellent. I love the 75, the model is nice too!

-- Anam Alpenia (aalpenia@dasar.com), March 05, 2002.

Mike you are a legend. I love the bed frame? in the background. I t almost looks as if it is a window with light comming through. Another excellent contribution.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), March 05, 2002.

I like the bed frame too!

Now...Mike could you do a series of shots say nine of them, with the three lenses, and at three different positions keeping the size of the head the same?

Oh, and could please do those with warm E100SW, neutral EPN and coldish RDPIII. That makes a mere 27 shots, and we can evaluate the color as well as perspective differences. And lest we be distracted by Renee in particular, how about using 3 different models. Only 81 shots. And with and without the bedframe, which could be distracting us. And with and without Renee, who definitely is. And on a cloudy day and a sunny day too. And indoors and out. A mere 1296 shots...

Just kidding Mike ;-) Enjoy that new lens however you please...

And may I say again it is a pleasure to view your pictures whenever you are so generous as to take the trouble to share them with us.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), March 05, 2002.

Gotta be careful to make sure that space is in between the EI and the rating . . .

Yep, that's a bed frame. Renee had just moved and didn't have bed to go with the frame yet. I thought about moving it, but decided it would help to define the angle of view.

Mani, yeah, I was thinking of doing those tests, too. Mmmm hmmm. : ) I did do a quick comparison of EPN and E100S (not SW) one time--on the shots I did, I couldn't tell them apart on the light box. On closer examination, the E100S is much finer grained, but the color balance is about the same.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 06, 2002.