Time to take a look at the close focus characteristics of the 75 Summilux. The images here were shot on Kodak E100S at EI 80; lighting was essentially the same as described in Chapter 2 (morning light through three windows in upstairs bedroom). The full images here have a small amount cropped off the sides, then enough cropped from the top and/or bottom to create the aspect ratio you see. For both, the image represents about 80% of the total image area on the film. The full images have been given a slight unsharp mask (approx. 0.7 pixels, 50%) to give them a bit more snap on the web. The enlarged views show unsharpened scans that have been resampled to 1200 dpi from the original 1800 dpi scan. As usual, jpeg compression has "muddied" the images a bit--the original scan looks noticeably better. The first image was shot at about f2.4. My focus was slightly off as can clearly be seen on the enlarged view (focus is slightly behind the eye). At these ranges and wide apertures, it takes very little movement by the subject or photographer to move the plane of critical focus away from where you want it. At arm's length, however, an 8x10 print still looks quite good, though the eyes aren't as tack sharp as I'd like. The out-of-focus hair on the left side of the enlarged view reveals a bit about the bokeh of the 75 'Lux.

75 Summilux (about f2.4)

The image below was shot at about f1.7 with Renee's face at a greater angle to the film plane. This time, focus was exactly where I wanted it: on her left eye. Because her face is angled away from the camera slightly, focus of her right eye is slightly soft (similar to the eyes in the photo above). As you can see, DOF at this aperture and distance is extremely shallow. It's also apparent that, even at or near maximum aperture, the 75 'Lux is still a very sharp lens. Her lashes and individual hairs are quite clearly defined. Maximum resolving power of lines on a test chart may come at smaller apertures, but for practical purposes (my practical purposes, anyway), the 75 is plenty sharp enough.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 10, 2002

Answers

Which "50" Summilux do you use, Mike, and how would you compare its performance with these shots? (Outside of the obvious difference in focal length of course.)

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), March 10, 2002.

Thanks, Mike. I never understood the "why"of this lens as opposed to the fast 90; but you make it obvious. Quite a tutorial................

-- David Kelly (dmkedit@aol.com), March 10, 2002.

Couldn't the same effect be created with a lot more control using a 50/75/90 stopped down a bit more and then adjusted with Gaussian Blur in Photoshop?

-- Keith Davis (keithdavisphot@yahoo.com), March 10, 2002.

Couldn't the same effect be created with a lot more control using a 50/75/90 stopped down a bit more and then adjusted with Gaussian Blur in Photoshop?

Yes it probably could but could you print it poster size? Nope.

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), March 10, 2002.

Thanks for the comments.

Ken, I have the '59, first-version 50 Summilux. Because of the differences in focal length and minimum focusing distance, it's tough to make a direct comparison of several aspects. The 50 is much more prone to flare, and there seems to be a bit more light falloff in the corners at maximum aperture. There are a couple of threads about the 50 'lux hiding somewhere in the archives.

Keith, I don't know how to achieve this effect using digital blur, but it may be possible. It seems like a formidable task, though, since most objects I photograph are not two dimensional. That means that, to reproduce the effect I get by simply opening up the aperture, you'd have to come up with different gradients for the blur effect (depending on how steeply the subject recedes from the plane of sharp focus) and selectively apply those gradients to the different parts of the image. Sounds like a lot more work that clicking the lens aperture a few notches.

Another problem would be that the digital method would alter the grain of the image (even at 1800 dpi, the "grain" of 100-speed slide film is visible), and how sharply grain is rendered can seriously affect teh perceived sharpness of an image.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 10, 2002.

I've said this before. If Claude Monet was a photographer, this is the lens he'd have used. It's reproduction of color is something special. I wish it wasn't so much of a hassle to use it on an M3 (w/MR meter).

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), March 10, 2002.

> If Claude Monet was a photographer, this is the lens he'd have used.

I really doubt this lens would fit on his Hasselblad.

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), March 10, 2002.

Very luminous, great color like the other said, sweet photos.

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), March 10, 2002.

Mike- Your 75 Summilux drills have been quite interesting. I just became owner of one. I will be using it on a M4-P. Does anyone know if Leica can put the 75 frame into the M3? I doubt that the 28 frame would work with the M3's high mag viewfinder, but the 75 frame would be nice in the M3, if they can install it. (I know someone who has a mint M3 and I might be able to get it, reasonable, with 7-element 50 'cron) BTW, Mike, are you using the 75 'lux with 0.85 or 0.72?

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), March 10, 2002.

Frank, I'm using it on an M3 and using the 50 framelines to estimate coverage. There have only been a few shots where I was significantly off--my accuracy should improve with more practice. If you have a preview lever, the 90 framelines are very close to the 75 field of view (see Chapter 2).

Don't know about the possibility of adding 75 frames to the M3 (other than replacing the rangefinder with the M6 0.85). Perhaps someone more familiar with M anatomy can provide insight.

Here's one more shot from up close. Aperture was about f2 at 1/25. It's not good for illustrating critical focus (on her right eye) because of motion blur, but it may be my favorite image from the weekend.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 10, 2002.

I asked:

Couldn't the same effect be created with a lot more control using a 50/75/90 stopped down a bit more and then adjusted with Gaussian Blur in Photoshop?

John replied:

Yes it probably could but could you print it poster size? Nope. ---------------------------- Hmm. Gotta get a new monitor. That photo was only about 3 X 5 on my screen. You've got it poster sized?

A 4000 dpi scan of a high-quality 35mm negative would enlarge just as well digitally as analog. At normal viewing distances a huge digital print looks as good (often better) than an analog print.

Who said anything about posters, anyway? I have no personal interest in hanging photo banners out my window. And I seldom print larger than 11 X 17.

I guess I'm not really clear on your point, though I suspect it's something like, "digital sucks." Fine for you. But Adobe Photoshop is the best software package I'VE ever used.

-- Keith Davis (keithdavisphoto@yahoo.com), March 10, 2002.

About using Photoshop to simulate DOF. Sure, it can be done, but I think the big problem is that you really have to be really skilled in Photoshop to make it look natural and to not get any digital artifacting. Just making a selection and then using gaussian blur isn't going to cut it if you intend to make 8x10s. Though for small web work, it might be okay.

-- Richard (rvle@yahoo.com), March 10, 2002.

Even on a 500-pixel web image, I typically have no trouble distinguishing between optically out-of-focus areas and those which are digitally blurred. A sophisticated approach (like I described above) might mask those differences, but it will take a lot of work. Consider the time and effort it would take to convincingly reproduce the effect seen in the bottom left photo of my original post where individual hairs are sharply defined against a background of moderately and extremely out-of-focus curls.

I'm definitely not anti-digital--I'm quite happly to use that additional set of tools to get the images I want. That said, however, there are some things which are impossible or extremely difficult to do well with digital methods.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 10, 2002.

I guess I'm not really clear on your point, though I suspect it's something like, "digital sucks." Fine for you. But Adobe Photoshop is the best software package I'VE ever used.

I never said that digital sucks... that's just your own erroneous conclusion. My point is that there's still something to be said when the gods occasionally smile on your work. Subject, exposure, etc come into play to give you a GREAT negative. A negative that has MUCH more shadow detail than its subsequent scan (regardless of what type of scanner you use) and also one where you don't have to spend hours with the digital airbrush and tablet to get "just right". I don't have a problem with digital unless it becomes a crutch where you expect it to recover every shot where your brain/technique was asleep.

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), March 10, 2002.

John's post reminded me of something I meant to address earlier regarding control. Depth of field and degree of blur are not random: they vary in a straightforward manner depending on aperture and focus distance. With practice, it's not hard to predict the results with a good degree of accuracy. I knew what the bottom right photo was going to look like when I tripped the shutter--the gods had little do with it (unless you want to give them credit for Renee's face).

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 10, 2002.

Mike- That must really be a senior M3! You're shooting at 1/25 sec! I thought all M3s had the 15-30-60-125, etc. Must be an old double stroke, right?

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), March 10, 2002.

Yep, it's a '55 DS converted to SS. I've also got an early SS which has the DS-style triangular strap lugs but the modern shutter speeds (it's currently out of action with a jammed film advance).

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 10, 2002.

Mike this thread may shed some light on whether you can get an isolated 75mm frameline.

I don't how the framelines are engaged in the M3 (by the lens?) but that seems to be the heart of the matter. Both the 50 and the 75 push the frame selector to the same frame...

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), March 10, 2002.

this thread?

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), March 10, 2002.

Try again. This thread http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch- msg.tcl?msg_id=006n87

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), March 10, 2002.

Funny, what am I doing wrong? This HTML has always worked...

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=006n87

Sorry to create clutter, Tony and Mike.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), March 10, 2002.

Let's try this Mani, but be forewarned, I've had one of my martinis!

Click Here!

;-),

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), March 10, 2002.

Mani -- FWIW, you got a "+" sign and not the "=" sign in your HTML string...

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), March 10, 2002.

Regarding DOF and other lens distortions. I haven't used these photoshop plugins, but I have used their shadow plugin, and it was impressive. Look atAndromeda's Varifocus (sorry, can't link directly because their crappy site uses frames).

Cheers,

-- David Carson (dave@davidcarson.com), March 10, 2002.

I looked at Varifocus--YUCK! Even the tiny sample images looked terrible. I don't think fast lenses are in danger of going out of fashion just yet . . . : )

I wonder whether the 50 frame is engaged by the lens on M3s, since the 50 frame is the default that's always present. In any case, I know I'm not going to be shelling out the $$$ for a modification.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 10, 2002.

What truly wonderful and beautiful photos.The lady is not hard on the eyes either.Could'nt care less what took these photos...they are simply perfect.As for this flare business....well i better keep quite. Here all are Leica demons and probably hunt me down like a vampire! I sometimes use my 135mm on my M2,NO Frame,guess with the 90frame! Suggest same with 75 but use 50.

-- jason gold (leeu72@hotmail.com), March 10, 2002.

Mike:

>At these ranges and wide apertures, it takes very little movement by the subject >or photographer to move the plane of critical focus away from where you want it.

Indeed. Using the Summilux-75 to make portraits at f/1.4 at a distance of 1-2 meters, after focusing on the eyes, I have often ended up with the whole face out of focus. At first I thought something was wrong with the lens calibration but, after testing close focus on a tripod and a newspaper on the wall, I found that was not the case. The reason for the out-of-focus faces was camera inadvertantly moving the plane of the camera a few inches. In your shooting with the Summilux-75 have you also ruined shots this way? Or are you using a tripod?

-- Mitch Alland/Paris (malland@mac.com), March 11, 2002.

Talking about depth of field -- which is the subject of this thread -- I have to say that it is tricky with these fast lenses. I have a noctilux and have shot extensively with it. Even making some very nice pictures like Mike has here. It was intoxicating. But over time I go a bit frustrated with the "hit ratio" of the shots at f1. The depth of field is really razor thin. At distances of a few meters I can just about forget it. Maybe it's my shooting style. But I have stopped using the noctilux and am using 35mm and 50mm summicrons now. Anyway the point I want to make is that initially people are excited by the fast lenses and then over time the size/weight/hit ratio starts to drag a bit...

-- Russell Brooks (russell@ebrooks.org), March 11, 2002.

Mitch, I'm shooting handheld. I lose some shots to subject/camerea movement, but most are okay (I should note that I also do the close focus/narrow DOF thing with other lenses and cameras, so I've gotten better at keeping steady and instructing subjects to hold still).

I've addressed the close focusing effects here, but really-wide apertures are also quite useful for blurring fore/backgrounds even when the subject is further away (e.g. full-length shot with model in focus and background heavily blurred).

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 11, 2002.

Mike, Thanks so much for taking the time to scan all the great photos in the "75 "Lux Adventures" series. I also checked out your website and all your work is very impressive. I'm really thinking about getting the 75 and was wondering what your opinion was of it as a close up portrait lens. Specifically, I will be doing actors' headshots. Clearly, the above shots are close enough for headshots but is there a reason you might use it over the 90? Which do you prefer? Can you blow the background out with the 75 at 1.4 as much as the 90 at 2.0? Thanks,

Craig

-- Craig Semetko (csemetko@earthlink.net), March 13, 2002.