RE: [Leica] Re: 75mm f1.4 (and other special lenses)

["B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

The 75 is getting a bad rap here for the reason that those rapping it see to
feel that the only "true" Leica lens is a pre-ASPH 35 Summilux or
collapsible Elmar...

The 75 is neither large, nor bulky, nor heavy when compared to anything by
the aforementioned lenses. If you want a real comparison, compare it to SLR
lenses of apx the same focal length and f stop - and it will come up the
winner. No, it's not a drop it in your shirt pocket kind of lens, but, to me
at least, it seems about the same as the 90 Summicron, which is entirely
manageable.

Yes, the nonexistent depth of field is limiting. But when you get it right,
it's RIGHT. The results you can achieve with this lens are truly astounding
in terms of sharpness and bokah...

If I want to reach out and tele someone, I want to do it with an SLR. I find
the 90 a bit beyond the effective working range of the M - but that's me.
The 75, on the other hand, is just about the limit...

And, frankly, with the advent of the new $750 "Voightlander" 75 2.5, which
is smaller and lighter than the 75 Summilux, it may make sense to hold the
Summilux in reserve for the real low light situations, and use the
Voightlander for "normal" light situations - if the quality's there..

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of
> Jeff Moore
> Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 5:32 PM
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Cc: Jeff Moore
> Subject: [Leica] Re: 75mm f1.4 (and other special lenses)
>
>
> The 75/1.4 is an odd bird.  It's about as clunky to carry as the
> Noctilux (and nearly as clunky to use -- focusing ring a bit stiff,
> but at least the throw isn't as hand-over-hand long as that of the
> Noctilux).  The 75mm focal length has always been a bit uncomfortable
> for me (too long for when I'm in a 50mmish sort of mood: the 50 always
> seems to me like the "short tele" I want to use instead of a 35mm
> "normal" when photographing people who aren't yet used to me, whereas
> the 75 seems too stand-offish even for that; but the
> 75 seems to come up short when I have that rare "reach out and tele"
> impulse).  Because the 50mm and 75mm frames come up
> simultaneously and
> they're the least dramatically different pair, I find it requires
> conscious thought to keep track of which I'm using -- and conscious
> thought is just what I don't want to have distracting me.  The 75 is
> fast, but as the longest lens of its speed, some of that low-light
> advantage is given up by its magnification of hand shake.
>
> All that having been said -- if I were to pick one M lens from which
> the best pictures just look *good*, for whatever special weird reason
> -- it'd be the 75/1.4.  I don't know why, but pictures made with this
> lens have a greater chance of being a purely sensual pleasure.
>
> BTW, as for runners-up, other lenses which do something special, may
> I suggest:
>
>  - the pre-ASPH 35mm Summicron, with its smooth, coherent, deep,
>    painterly way of going out of focus;  and
>
>  - the one-and-only 24mm.  I haven't yet used this one nearly as much
>    as the others mentioned, but I'm seeing something special in its
>    immediacy.  A different flavor from the other lenses, but a
>    compelling one.
>
> -----
> Jeff Moore
>