I've been using my 75/1.4 for a roll, and I intend on shooting quite a few rolls in it. It will be my only lens for awhile, or at least until I answer my only question about it: Can I really learn how to use it well?

My first complaint is, I can't focus it fast enough. Seems like I have to twist that thing seven times around before I can drop it down from inf. to 5 feet or so. I don't think I've EVER taken a sharp picture with it.

Well, anyway, my second complaint: A few years back, I shot my first roll with it. Every single shot came back blurry with sharp backgrounds that were, on average, 5-6 feet behind the subject that (I thought) I focused on. Back to Leica NJ it went. Oops, a month later I get notified that it had to go back to the Motherland because, presumably, that's where the beast was born. Nearly a year later I have my "repaired" lens in hand. Since then, I haven't taken a sharp photo with it. One reason is, I don't use it that much because it's heavy. Oh, that's my...

Third complaint: It's bloody heavy, and big, and even a bit heavier as you realize how big it is. Especially when you have the new motor drive attached. Great combo, that's for sure. Has a wonderful feel to it. But try walking through the china section of JCPenny with it under your coat. Looks like you've got a machine gun. Anway...

I'm about to process a roll that has shots taken with it on a tripod and focused on a home-made test chart so I can tell, for sure, how well it focuses now. I'm worried that one of two things is wrong, and it really doesn't matter which: 1) the lens is still faulty, which means that I may be 60 years old before I get it returned fixed; or 2) I just can't focus the damn thing. Ah heck. Things can't be all bad. We have our forum back.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@alaska.net), May 01, 2002

Answers

It's because of Mike Dixon that I'm trying to master this stupid thing. Imagine how maddening it is to get the crap I'm getting from this beautiful lens, and turn around and see Mike's photography with it. I'm tempted to ask Mike to test mine. But I already know what the answer is.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@alaska.net), May 01, 2002.

Yes, glad the forum is back. I don't know what to say:

1. my results have been spot on from the first roll onwards 2. big and heavy? I guess for you and other M users, but I find it just right. 3. slow focusing? hmn, try the 50/1.4 R lens, now that's slow 4. with my 35 lux it's the only 2 lenses I need : )

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), May 01, 2002.

Leica kept your lens for almost a year?!?!?

I use my 75mm regularly at f/1.4 with .72x M6 and get about 70% infocused shots from 5 feet away. The weight isn't the issue but rather the balance but the rapidwinder/grip solved that. I like mine very very much more so than the 90AA which I no longer have. Yes at close range focusing is very slow but you need the accuracy for such narrow dof. I would give it another try before letting it go but if you don't like it enough to use then go for something else.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), May 01, 2002.

Welcome to my world with the Summicron 90 Tony.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), May 01, 2002.

...bitch, bitch, bitch...;-)

-- Ken (kennyshipman@aol.com), May 01, 2002.

Okay folks. I think that the same malfunction occured with a 90mm/2.0 that I traded. I think that sometimes the focusing cam on a M lens is off. If it is off, Leica cannot fix it and will not replace it. I think this is rare, but occurs.

-- Doug Landrum (dflandrum@earthlink.net), May 02, 2002.

I agree with James. I have had my 75 Lux for a few months now and it is my "go to" lens for low light. I have used mine primarily for theaters and church interiors. Depth of field at 1.4 is demanding but with my 0.85 finder I have been able to work with individual subjects from 10 feet on in relative comfort. At any given distance the 75mm has a one stop advantage in depth of field over a 90mm lens and this has been good for groups on stage which are tougher to get all sharp with narrow depth of field. I do like shooting at 2.0, if I have the light, both for that little extra depth of field and getting into the performance sweet spot of the lens (2.0 to 4.0). The one weakness of my 75mm is in close focusing performance. My 90 Elmarit-M has better contrast and resolution focusing at distances ten feet or less at all common apertures I have tested (2.8 to 5.6).

-- Doug from Tumwater (dbaker9128@aol.com), May 02, 2002.

Tony, sorry about causing you such frustration and annoyance--I usually just have that effect on women. : )

On the focusing issue, practice! Do you have small hands? I can go from infinity to about 4 ft in one twist, though I usually have the lens set to the approximate distance before I even lift the camera to my eye.

Regarding size and weight, spend some time handholding a medium format with a telephoto to put things in perspective.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), May 02, 2002.

Shot only one roll with my 75 'lux, so far. Everything is quite sharp, although I haven't attempted any real close stuff at f1.4. Biggest problem with that first roll was forgetting to use the 75 frame and using the 50mm frameline instead, chopping off some heads & feet! What is intriguing to me is the 75mm focal length for an all- around lens for the 35mm camera. I probably would be just as happy with a 75mm Elmarit-M, if there were such a thing. It might be the size of the 90 TE. Wouldn't surprise me if Leica comes out with a 75- 90 "BiElmarit" one of these days.

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), May 02, 2002.

You didn't mention what mag finder you're using, Tony, or if you're shooting wide open. Mike uses an M3 (.91x). A longer viewfinder, or addition of the 1.25x magnifier, might solve the problem - assuming the rangefinder checks out ok. Also, I've found at my age (over 50) I can definitely critically focus better with the eye I always *thought* was weaker.

-- Ken (kennyshipman@aol.com), May 02, 2002.

Tony,

I will offer you $100 for it...

:-)

-- Kevin Baker (kevin@thebakers.org), May 02, 2002.

Tony, sorry about causing you such frustration and annoyance--I usually just have that effect on women. : )

LOL!

-- TSW (tsesung@yahoo.com), May 02, 2002.

Tony,

Like others here, I use the 75mm on a 0.72 classic, with no focusing problem whatsoever, even at max aperture, even at closest distance. When I say "no focusing problem" that also means that I am extra careful in those circumstances, and take the time to fine tune and think of what happens while I reframe. One does not use a 75mm at f1.4 at 0.70m as a 35mm at f5.6 at 3m... Not quick 'n dirty focusing here.

So, with that in mind, the long focusing throw is a blessing rather than a curse: you need that micrometric precision.

The 75 'lux, when used for what it is made, is a far cry from what one would expect from a rangefinder combo. It is heavy and cumbersome compared to other M lenses (on par with Noctilux and 90 'cron). It is challenging, and when you think of it, it might even seem kind of masochistic, both from a manufacturer and a user standpoint, to consider such a lens outside of the SLR realm...;-)

But I feel it is the most useable and useful telelens for the M, generating wonderful images that one would have a very hard time generating with other equipment combinations. And, if you carry a M around, it is much less uncomfortable to have the 75 in a (big) pocket than a R8+80 'lux over the shoulder..

So, go on trying !

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), May 02, 2002.

The problem is not necessarily with focusing accurately, it is with adjusting carefully because of the "focus and recompose" factor. When you move, the distance will vary slightly and your image at wide aperture could suffer if not corrected or anticiapated correctly.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), May 02, 2002.

One more suggestion if you're unsure about the rangefinder or lens accuracy: try the lens at infnity on, for example, a distant mountain, trees on a very distant horizon, and/or cloud formations. Then examine the results with a magnification glass. That should tell you if something is seriously out of adjustment.

-- Ken (kennyshipman@aol.com), May 02, 2002.

I recently bought the Voigtlander 75mm 2.5 - a fraction of the size and an even smaller fraction of the price of the 75 'lux. Without the hood it's about the same size as a 50mm 'cron.

Results so far are impressive - used Fuji Velvia, and the trannies are sharp and contrasty, with pleasing out of focus bits.

Focussing - it goes from 1 metre to infinity in a quarter of a turn.

Not nearly as fast as the 'lux but there had to be a downside!

Heresy - I sold my 90mm AA precisely because it was too whopping big - the whole idea of having an M system was to keep things small and light. I sold it for what I paid for it, which I won't do with the V lenses, but that doesn't matter given their price.

-- Paul Hart (paulhart@blueyonder.co.uk), May 02, 2002.

Hi Tony!

1. Great to hear from you as a genuine hater of certains lenses etc and not just as our captain etc who has to keep telling some of us (thank God) to calm down on weird postings and also to stop worrying about server problems etc. Thanks for all of that work again, too.
2. I don't own a 75 for "obvious" reasons but I did lease one for two whole days at a Leica workshop (because I do like the focal length itself) and ended up hating it for all the above-mentioned reasons, yes, partly of course due to its size and weight, more so because of its unbalance, but above all because of the tightness or firmness in focusing the frigger. I almost need another hand at it, or --  I think it was Jay who invented the expression here -- a whole pipe wrench.
3. Not sure if  I'm the only one here (who cares?), but I wouldn't mind a 75 'cron.

Much greets, Mike

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), May 02, 2002.

I am a newcomer to the group although I have been following the threads for some time.

I also had a problem with the 75 mm 1.4. I bought the lens new from a dealer, he occasionally gets special offers through from Leica. When I played with the lens in the shop I noticed that the aperture marks didn't line up with the index mark. The lens was sent back to Leica to sort out. When I got it back (after about 10 days) I shot off a film to check performance. Not one photograph was in correct focus. I had some interesting results where the focus point was other than where I had selected. Even in bright sun and with a small aperture the images were not sharp. The dealer got another experienced Leica user to check the lens out and he got the same results. I got a full refund on the lens and eventually bought a Noctilux (again on a special deal). Since then I've traded up my 90 2.8 to a 90 f2 APO, and bought an 80 f1.4 for my R6.2. Spent a lot more money but got what I wanted in the end.

Ian Gillett

-- Ian Gillett (i.gillett@ic.ac.uk), May 02, 2002.

I don't have the 75/1.4, but the problem with my 85/1.5 Canon is similar.

If you're trying to figure out if the lens is focusing right, dump the test charts--they won't tell you. Put the want ads on a table, and drop a coin in the middle of them. Focus on the coin, and shoot (you're viewing the paper at a normal angle, of course, not straight down). When you develop the film you'll be able to see if it's the coin that's in focus, or some point in the ads beyond or in front of the coin.

Put the ads on the floor, and do the same routine at about 15 feet-- and then do the same thing at a greater distance down something like a brick wall. Generally you'll have a much worse time focusing on the farther things. If you miss by the same degreee turn of focus in each instance, at close-up you might still be within some reasonable part of a face (the front of the eyelashes, not the pupil), and not notice, but if you're shooting someone on a stage and the front edge is in focus, but not the subject, that's much worse.

And check infinity on something REALLLLLLY far away!

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), May 02, 2002.

I LOVE my 75mm Summilux!

I use several Leica lenses regularly and to me, 75mm Summilux is THE lens! If I can only have ONE lens, if I could only carry one lens, that is it! No second thought!

I have never encountered problems like yours. However, I believe if you want to let go, there are buyers around...

It is a pity that you didn't enjoy perhaps the BEST lens in the world like many others.

-- Joe Lee (joelee@1388.com), May 02, 2002.

Dear Tony,

I am sorry to hear about your less than wonderful experiences with the 75/1.4. I think, tragically, it is in the nature of things that eventually you will come across a piece of equipment that you absolutely HATE with a deep purple passion. Mine was a Poloroid back for a Bronica 6x6--Lord did I detest that thing!

What you might do is sell that lens and with the money get a VC 75/ 2.5. It's a humdrum lens but even tempered. With the money you might also get a Bessa R2. It has separate finders for 75 and 50 so you never confuse the two. It'll be a small good thing--something that comes out of a bad experience.

What Robert Frost said about poems goes for cameras and lenses. If it doesn't stick to you don't stick to it.

Good luck.

Best,

Alex

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), May 02, 2002.

Alex says: "What Robert Frost said about poems goes for cameras and lenses. If it doesn't stick to you don't stick to it."

Exactly!

Tony, isn't this thing we do suppose to be fun? If something is leading to this much frustration, be done with it! Stick a summicron on the body and a couple of rolls of film in your pocket and go out and have fun. The other things in our life are expected to cause stress and frustration... not our hobbies.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), May 02, 2002.

Tony, I owned a 75 Lux for 3 years before selling it and I echo most of your sentiments. Mine focused perfectly on an 0.72, when I took the time. I found that he DOF was so shallow at close distances that slight swaying to and fro when handholding was enough to just take the edge off whatever detail I wanted tack-sharp. Using it on a tripod I had no such problem.

However the long, stiff focusing and bulk and weight made it my least- used lens. I could not grip the lens in portrait orientation without vlocking the rangefinder. Also the lens itself encroached into the viewing area. Finally I sold it and have never regretted it. To me that lens, along with the Noctilux, 135/2.8 and 90/2 run contrary to the reasons *I* use the M camera: compactness.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 02, 2002.

Tony

I have the 90mm Elmarit and assumed I would get the ASPH 90mm, but focussing the 90mm and 135mm is so much more difficult with an 0.72 than with my R6.2, I am not sure I would really enjoy having a 75mm 'lux, superb as they are. The idea of screwing and unscrewing a magnifier to be able to use it properly seems to me not practical for pleasurable photography (and I need the 0.72 v/f). On the other hand my 80mm on the R is just a classic combination. It is not so much a question of it not being possible, but it is a question of pleasure. Personally I am not sure that a wide focus throw is what is needed - a steeper cam is what is needed, so a degree of off-focus throws the r/f way off - this would speed up focussing, not the other way around as Jacques suggests.

I agree with Al - if it a chore, get rid of the lens. As Jay says I am also inclined to go with the M strengths: small size and weight. Once you get fast lenses over 50mm then the size and weight approach its R cousins. Many things are possible with an M, but sometimes it is just not fun.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 02, 2002.

Tony -

Don't laugh, but have you has a recent eye examination? Several years ago, we had a 75 lux, and I had difficulty with focus, just as you've described. I sold the lens. The following year an eye exam determined that I had developed a slight case of macular degeneration in my "shooting" eye. MD interferes with your central vision - - and that's what you use to focus.

Just a thought

-- George C. Berger (gberger@his.com), May 02, 2002.

Robin,

A "steeper cam" would be a risky proposition, as a few microns rather than millimeters rotation of the ring at close range would change the plane of focus in a visible way. The translation of such minute ring movements into the rangefinder mechanism would have to be even more exactingly precise than it already is. When you read about all those stories of mismatched bodies and lenses, you would think Leica should avoid going further overboard with its stringent tolerance requirements.

Also, in the SLR world, experience with many AF lenses used in manual mode shows that the steep focus throws managed by the AF shaft mechanisms can be quite hard to manage precisely when focusing manually. Using AF macro lenses for example has always left me frustrated. While the long focus throw at short range of MF macro lenses such as the 100 elmarit or 105 micro nikkor AIS allow very precise focusing in a comfortable and secure way.

At short distance (0.70m-1.20m) the throw of the 75mm seems reassuring to me, and the focus information is translated clearly by the rangefinder. From infinity to 'average' distances, where DoF is not quite as minimal, the throw is steeper of course, and allows faster (and accurate) focusing. Brilliant design IMHO.

Finally, as stated before, in real world daily terms, I find it hard to buy the argument that the size and functionality of the 75mm make it unfit for M usage. I feel the opposite is true: choosing to use the M rather than a SLR for most of my shooting, I clearly prefer having to carry a 75mm (or another M tele) around, rather than being forced to carry a R8+80mm (or F100+85mmf1.4, or etc) on top of the M system. I personally use a Minolta SLR + 85mm f1.4 deliberately when on a 'portrait' assignement, but certainly do not want to carry that combo around day in day out....

When it comes to achieving low light tele capability with the M, the 75 'lux is a very attractive space and weight saving solution. The other one is the 90 'cron. But I prefer faster when possible.

Tony's ordeal might mean that he holds a lemon, which is extremely irritating. Wonder how his tripod test worked out. It might also mean he is plainly allergic to that M combo, and that is a real pity for him, because it can work beautiful magic (maybe not from under a coat at JCPenney though).

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), May 03, 2002.

I appreciate everyone's thoughtful answers. I like the newspaper with coin idea. I'm going to try that experiment. I'm about ready to process the roll, so I'll post back the results here.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), May 03, 2002.