Re: 90/2.8 -M v. 75/1.4 -M

["Charles E. Love, Jr." <cel14@cornell.edu>]

At 06:43 PM 11/4/96 -0500, you wrote:
>I'd advise thinking carefully before buying the 75/1.4.  The depth of field
>is really shallow at 1.4 and to hand-hold and be safe you need 1/125 for
>that size and weight lens. I thought I would use this lens a lot because my
>favorite SLR lens is an 80/1.4, but for some reason on the Leica I prefer
>either a 50 or 90.  Don't really know why! Tina
>
I am puzzled at your view about the shutter speed needed to hand hold the 75
1.4.  One of the great advantages of the M cameras is the very slow shutter
speeds at which they can be hand held--for me, 1-2 stops below an SLR with
an equivalent focal length.  I think it's because there's no mirror slap.  I
haven't found the 75 1.4 to be extra heavy, that is heavy enough to make it
hard to hold, though it's very heavy for an M lens.  I think I do OK at
1/60.  The place where its weight and size matter is travel--I always choose
to take the 90 2.8.

A bigger problem, in the extreme conditions for which the lens is designed,
is the very narrow DOF, as several have already said.  Paul Ross' famous
"J'Accuse Leica" article makes the point that the M RF is not accurate
enough to hit photos exactly at f1.4 with the 75, and I think, from
experience, that he's right.  Actually, I do better with the Leica SLR 80
1.4!  With the M lens, I do better, I think, at 1/60 at f2 than at 1/125 at
f1.4.

Another problem with the lens is that it blocks so much of the viewfinder
frame line.  At close range, a lot of the lower right is gone.  You have to
move the camera around to see what's going on there.  This was also a
problem with the early (big) Summicron 90 and the Summarex.  The current 90
2.8 has no such problem.

However, I do like the size of the 75 mm. frame line.  For me, with glasses,
it's large enough to really see the composition, yet it's a slightly long
lens.  Things are a bit tougher with the 90 (though not nearly as hard as
the 135 f4).

Overall, I haven't been able to bring myself to sell the 75; I'd never be
able to afford another.  But it is a doubtful proposition, certainly, and I
do use the 90 much more.

BTW, when I bought my 75 lens I got the one with the detachable hood.  The
hood was very difficult to get on and off, and in struggling to take it off
I would sometimes unscrew the front element!  I wrote a nasty letter to
Leica about the lousy hood, and they traded the lens for the one with the
built-in hood.  I would certainly advise people to get the built in hood
with the 75, though the other one may turn out to mean more to collectors.
Isn't it interesting that, at these stratospheric prices, lots of M lenses
have cheap plastic hoods that are hard to get on and off--e.g. the 21 2.8
(its original hood was redesigned to make it stiffer, and it's better, but
still not good).
Charles E. Love, Jr.
517 Warren Place
Ithaca, New York
14850
607-272-7338
CEL14@CORNELL.EDU