The 75/1.4 again (Caution: long)

[KEVIN BURKE <KBURKE@iterated.com>]

A little while ago, D. Hemingway asked for comparisons of the 90/2.8
versus the 75/1.4.  Since I don't have a 90/2.8, I didn't think to respond
initially.  I do have the 5 element version of the 90/2 and have bored
the LUG with some initial impressions of the performance of these two
lenses.  I've been actively shooting the two lenses recently and have
a little more info.  I'll recount a little of what has already been covered
for those who missed it.

I've been shooting my current 90/2 regularly for about eight to nine
years.  Over that time, I've gotten familiar with it and like both its
strengths and weaknesses.  Near maximum aperture and close
distances the lens' contrast drops a little bit.  Consequently, I, and
many others who have seen the images, think it renders portraits
very nicely.  Maybe it has that "glow" thing some were discussing.
A few B&W prints almost appear three dimensional.  The in-focus
portions of the image seem to float at times slightly above the paper.
A non-photographer friend of mine noticed this and asked how such
a thing could happen.  I had to plead ignorance but at times the effect
is quite pronounced.  Maybe it's my cheap plastic glasses.

However, I've not really been happy with the size of the 90mm image
in an M4-P/M6 viewfinder.  Sometimes precise composition and focus
at f/2 eludes me when the subject (usually a child) is moving.  I picked
up the 75/1.4 since I thought having a larger image size might help in
the circumstances where I normally use the 90mm.

The first thing I noticed about the 75/1.4 was that the contrast at or near
full aperture in the near focus range was higher than what I was used to
with the 90/2.  Another user has also compared the 75/1.4 to the 50/1
and gotten the opposite impression.  Their 75/1.4 seemed lower in
contrast to their 50/1.  Anyway,  the 75/1.4 was a bit brutal on my early
portrature subjects.  Color differentiation was good.  Maybe too good
for some subjects.  My neighbor's 14 year old daughter's skin problems
were more obvious than she cared for.  Clearly this could be tamed
with better film selection; I just used what had been working with 90/2
 - either NHG or PKL.

The majority of my work with the 75/1.4 has been under four feet and
from f/1.4-f/4.  Nearer f/4 the image gets a bit sharper.  The quality
at f/1.4- f/2 is very nice in this respect - its just that it gets a little 
better by
f/2.8-f/4. Part of this is DOF.  I frequently run into the near focus limit 
on
the 90/2. The near limit of 0.75m on the 75/1.4 has been wonderful and
terrible at the same time.  Based on my typical working distance, I shoot
just under 1m regularly.  Unfortunately, DOF at f/1.4 in that range is
something like the thickness of two issues of Leica Fotographie.  My
proofs show rejects due to slightly missed focus more often than I'd like.
This prompted me to have all my rangefinders checked.  As it turned
out, the biggest problems were with the eyes of the guy behind the
camera.  Subject movement and rangefinder image alignment are also
issues and I'm getting better the more I use the lens.  Even when in
the wrong place, the plane of focus looks pretty flat, the resolution and
contrast uniform, and I haven't noticed anything that would suggest
coma or flare.

Some unexpected points I discoverd:
* The lens is heavy (by M standards, IMHO).  The 90/2 is not a 50/2
but the 75/1.4's weight put it over some unknown threshold I didn't know
I had.  The camera+lens hangs almost facing the ground and I notice
the weight around my neck earlier than the 90/2.  Still, it's managable.
* The lens is big (again by M standards).  I have the version with the
integrated hood.  With hood extended, the almost full lower right
quadrant of the image is obscured at the near focus limit.  Add a thumb
to the focus ring when shooting verticals and things get interesting.
* Frame lines for 75mm could be better.  My M4-P (1983) has tiny corner
ticks marking the field of view for 75mm.  The presence of the 50mm
lines has gotten me confused when the action is rapidly changing.  At
times, the subject has ended up closer to the image boundaries than I
intended.  The M6 has little short lines extending from the corner
marks.  While not quite like having a real frame, it does something to
help quick composition.
* I like the size of the rangefinder rectangle relative to the 75mm image 
size.
For this reason, I want an M3 to use with my 90mm.

This stream of conciousness has gone on too long.  Others may have
different views on this grand and glorious piece of optical technology.
Hope mine are helpful.

 - Kevin
kburke@iterated.com