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

["Matt Morgan" <mattmorgan@pdseurope.co.uk>]

Rick,
I just bought a new 75mm1.4 yesterday, so haven't yet had a chance to let it
see some action, but I'm looking forward to getting some results after this
weekend.
The cost of this lens is one of the biggest factors to consider, because you
can get a lot more for your money at the start of building your Leica kit.
My only initial impression on the lens with the M6 is that the 75
frame-lines are a bit of a pain being with the 50 frame-lines. However, same
with everything, I'm sure it just takes a bit of getting used to. I've been
told about the difficulty of focusing with such a narrow depth-of-field, but
again, I'm just going to practice, practice practice. It should help that I
have it on a M6 TTL .85.
If you do decide on this lens, it'll be interesting to compare notes.
At-the-end-of-the-day though, having spent this amount of money, the thing
better be fantastic!<g>
Matt.


- ----------
>From: "..RODGERS, RICK" <rick@quicktest.com>
>To: "'leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us'" <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
>Subject: RE: [Leica] 90 f/2 or 75 f/1.4
>Date: Tue, Oct 10, 2000, 12:13 pm
>

> 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
>>
>