Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/08/22[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Mark Rabiner wrote: > How good is the close focasing performance of the 75? > I heard it might be an issue. Mark, Short answer to this is, that it is good enough for what I use it for i.e. the occasional handheld close-up of my baby son's face in available light using Kodachrome 200. I've got three lenses in this focal range (75/1.4, 90/2 & 80/1.4). Discounting the 90, as it does not focus under 1 meter, I'd say the 75 is sharper wide-open than the 80. Although, I happen to like the softness of the 80/1.4. However, the major consideration in my view is whether M's are better than R's for this kind of work? With an R you can see whether both eyes are in focus when the subject's head is turned slightly. Balanced against this though, I find the M is a far easier camera to focus with in available light and can be used at slower speeds. That's why I'm a greedy bastard and have got the best of both worlds! I find the discipline of using lenses wide open is extremely difficult due to focus error and camera shake and am keen to improve my technique. So, I'm waiting to try Tom's RapidGrip on the M and seeing the difference it makes. I was also interested to read Ted's recommendation that using a ground glass screen on an R helps and will buy one soon. He's right, that split image and microprism does get in the way! Finally, the only way to answer your original question: > How good is the close focasing performance of the 75? is to buy either the 100/2.8 or 60/2.8 and compare! Paul (wish I could afford the 100/2.8) Bolam.