Re: [Leica] 90 f/2 or 75 f/1.4

["Wilber Jeffcoat" <wilber@jeffcoatphotography.com>]

I had similar results with an 85/1.8 (N----) compared to a 90/2. The 90
being a converted 2 cam lens for the "R". This 25 yr. old lens also swamped
a brand-new "N" 20-35 zoom. There is nothing like Leica Glass. With the "M"
system I would feel better with the 75 as I could see better what I was
doing than with the 90. But: Your the one using it so what feels right for
you??
Cheers Wilber.
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "..RODGERS, RICK" <rick@quicktest.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 4:13 PM
Subject: RE: [Leica] 90 f/2 or 75 f/1.4


> No flamewar necessary. I was actually very surprised at the results,
having
> gone into the weekend with the assumption that i would see very minimal
> improvements if any. I shot about 2 rolls of portra 160vc neg on each
body.
> Used TTL metering for m6 ttl and matrix for the f100. The sharpness of
small
> elements far away when focused at infinity was pronounced, as was the
affect
> of the light coming through my niece's hair (not sure of the technical
term
> :). The leica was sharper and more lifelike. If you any suggestions on
what
> I missed I would be glad to hear them. In my experience not only did I
pick
> the leica shot nearly every time, but so did a number of my
> friends/relatives. Both under blind conditions. I don't profess to know
much
> if anything about the proper testing procedures or photography in general
> for that matter. But to my eyes the leica won hands down. Maybe i wasn't
> using the nikon properly but I've used it for a little while and thought I
> had the basics down. Thanks for your thoughts on the matter.
>
> rick
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: B. D. Colen [mailto:bdcolen@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 3:43 PM
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: RE: [Leica] 90 f/2 or 75 f/1.4
>
>
> Well, not to start a flamewar, but I defy anyone to successfully pick
either
> a shot taken with the Summilux 75, a magnificent lens, or the Nikon 85 1.4
> AF D, an equally magnificent lens, out of a pile of photos taken with
those
> two lenses.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> > [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of ..RODGERS,
> > RICK
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 3:02 PM
> > To: 'leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us'
> > Subject: [Leica] 90 f/2 or 75 f/1.4
> >
> >
> > Hello,  I am trying to decide on which lens to buy fo my first leica. I
> > used a friends m6ttl and 75 1.4 for a week comparing it to my f100 and
85
> > 1.4 and just finished putting the nikon up on ebay. I could not
> > get over the
> > difference in quality. I do mostly amateur travel photography and
> > have been
> > shooting for little over a year. My first roll on the leica was
> > better than
> > my 200th+ roll on the nikon. To the point, I was reading old messages on
> > this list and some various reviews on the web and seemed to be getting
> > differing opinions on the quality of the 90 2.0 relative to the 75 1.4.
I
> > realize that the 90 apo version is the newer and presumably
> > better model of
> > the 90 f/2s available. I would rather sacrifice the extra stop in favor
of
> > the extra focal length but I don't want to sacrifice the quality
> > I saw from
> > the 75 1.4. Am I over thinking this? Any opinions appreciated.
> >
> > Rick
> >
>