Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Leitz 75mm F/1.4 Summilux
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I agree with Renato, all the subtle shades of white and pale gray give it a nuance that some lesser lenses/cameras would not render half so nicely.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
bernhardas wrote:


After now nearly three years on this forum I find myself the gfirst time in disagreement with Ian.
The definition of "simmilar" is a wide and grey area.
But I would only attach that word even in a wide sense to the front groups of the two diagrams.
The back is quite different?


Yes, I have to agree, similar is a very loose term and I stretched how loosely it could be used. Smile

You are correct, the rear half is very different - two cemented pairs vs three singlets.

However, they are both in the same broad Planar/Ultron/Xenon double Gauss family.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:

The pictures are out of focus. Check out this 100% crop from the shop picture:

The photographer must improve his technique.

Oh, go play with your Samyang Smile

LOL, Well I know you don't really have one, or any fast 85, but that shot is funny and I almost did not post it, yet I liked the color. The DOF is tighter at that distance than the church, but the bricks do seem to be in focus near the hanging sign and it's shadow. The A7 is actually more difficult to focus with this lens than the M9, though I am using mag, of course. The sensor may be in play a bit as well.

Certainly my technique needs lots of work, but since I have many shots in this thread and you have been desperate to find fault with every aspect of it, I feel pretty good about my focus in general, considering DOF is tighter than the f/1 noctilux Smile

What is your fastest lens, Gerald?


PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7 wrote:


The DOF is tighter at that distance than the church, but the bricks do seem to be in focus near the hanging sign and it's shadow. The A7 is actually more difficult to focus with this lens than the M9, though I am using mag, of course. The sensor may be in play a bit as well.

What is your fastest lens, Gerald?



Sorry, but you missed the focus completely. The focus plane passes through the very bottom left corner of the photo, so no part of the shop or the background are really in focus. If you cannot focus with the magnification in the Sony's viewfinder of the Sony A7, you might be in need of new glasses. New spectacles, I mean, not new lenses.

My fastest lenses for still pictures are a trio of Pentacon 50mm F1.8. I have some Canon F1.4 zoom lenses for video, but I don't use them anymore.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 5:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I agree with Renato, all the subtle shades of white and pale gray give it a nuance that some lesser lenses/cameras would not render half so nicely.

I fully agree. I have been using an A7 for one year. The rendition of this camera can be very subtle and refined.
I have seen stunning pictures made with the FE55 in this respect.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Please gents, keep to the subject please.
I would like to see the images taken by the lens, on different bodies, your opinion about the lens, your PP to get most out of it.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2015 6:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:
uhoh7 wrote:


The DOF is tighter at that distance than the church, but the bricks do seem to be in focus near the hanging sign and it's shadow. The A7 is actually more difficult to focus with this lens than the M9, though I am using mag, of course. The sensor may be in play a bit as well.

What is your fastest lens, Gerald?



Sorry, but you missed the focus completely. The focus plane passes through the very bottom left corner of the photo, so no part of the shop or the background are really in focus. If you cannot focus with the magnification in the Sony's viewfinder of the Sony A7, you might be in need of new glasses. New spectacles, I mean, not new lenses.

My fastest lenses for still pictures are a trio of Pentacon 50mm F1.8. I have some Canon F1.4 zoom lenses for video, but I don't use them anymore.


Really? Maybe you need glasses Smile


red crop by unoh7, on Flickr

or maybe you stole the wrong photo? Mr. Green


Gotcha! by unoh7, on Flickr


He is so lame! by unoh7, on Flickr


Peeping Like Gerald by unoh7, on Flickr

Leitz 75mm Summilux, Wide Open Smile

So good, it can penetrate the most obscure and annoying trolls Very Happy


PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2015 8:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The wide open shots do have highlight glow.

In my experience of other lenses, a slightly step down should remove the most of these glow. I mean 1/3 click down or less.
The contrast wo is pretty good.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7 wrote:
Ultrapix wrote:

To make short a loooong story, bad cams were born along the CNC, and then there are faulty lenses that leaved the factory in no proper working conditions. Then you can obviously find lenses that became faulty after bad use, improper repair, and so on. Early eighties BTW are the worst years to buy a fast lens. Almost all the 90/2 second version that I have checked suffer from back focus, earning to the lens the fame of "soft", wich is absolutely wrong in a good copy. Digital age "helped" to clarify all the story, even creating some serious trouble to the factory, where many lenses were returned for an often impossible calibration (even a new cam is not enough when it is an old stock with the same issues)...
I was much involved in that kind of problems, and wrote a lot in my country. One of the reasons that made me get tired of the red dot Sad

Your copy looks perfect to me, BTW Smile


This is information valuable to serious collectors, and is 'news' to me, though I'm sure others do know about it too, and would make a great article today as these lenses get new life with digital.

I would encourage you to gather some of your previous writing, and perhaps add some retrospective thoughts. This would not be hard to have published on one of the busier M releated blogs with credit to you of course, and would really help educate a new generation of Lens lovers Smile I would be honored to help with english editing if needed and help find a place to 'publish' Smile

It sounds like the Canadian Leitz factory was not quite as "perfect" as some legends would have us believe?

As well it sounds like I really dodged a bullet when I received a good 80's copy!! Whew!! If I knew all this I might never have risked it!



Thank you, I really appreciate your offer, but all my writing was spent in italian forums posts, so really hard to recover. BTW no much more to add to this Steve Huff article: http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/03/17/leica-focus-issues-lens-or-body/

I only would add that in some cases several trips to Solms were not enough to make a lens work properly, but only "within our -their, of course- standards"


PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2015 10:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pontus wrote:
Maybe not as clear but not entirely dull either. But I agree the images from the M9 are crisper.


one single click in pp and the A7 photos will be crisp enough


PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2015 11:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7 wrote:
Gerald wrote:
uhoh7 wrote:


The DOF is tighter at that distance than the church, but the bricks do seem to be in focus near the hanging sign and it's shadow. The A7 is actually more difficult to focus with this lens than the M9, though I am using mag, of course. The sensor may be in play a bit as well.

What is your fastest lens, Gerald?



Sorry, but you missed the focus completely. The focus plane passes through the very bottom left corner of the photo, so no part of the shop or the background are really in focus. If you cannot focus with the magnification in the Sony's viewfinder of the Sony A7, you might be in need of new glasses. New spectacles, I mean, not new lenses.

My fastest lenses for still pictures are a trio of Pentacon 50mm F1.8. I have some Canon F1.4 zoom lenses for video, but I don't use them anymore.


Really? Maybe you need glasses Smile


red crop by unoh7, on Flickr

or maybe you stole the wrong photo? Mr. Green


You can not recognize your own photo?

The crop I presented before was 100%. The crop you show above is 50%. You're a smart guy and noticed that a lower magnification is a good way to hide the shortcomings of your lens. But I think you will have to reduce the magnification to 12.5% for the captured image with your Summilux 75mm F1.4 seems reasonably sharp.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2015 11:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm confused, something is notright.

Gerard shows this 100% crop:



uhoh7 shows this 100% crop:



The first is blurred, the second is in focus, so what is going on? Are they from two separate images or has some blurring been applied to one?


PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I'm confused, something is notright.

Gerard shows this 100% crop:



uhoh7 shows this 100% crop:



The first is blurred, the second is in focus, so what is going on? Are they from two separate images or has some blurring been applied to one?


One from Leica, the other from Sony, I guess


PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ultrapix wrote:

Thank you, I really appreciate your offer, but all my writing was spent in italian forums posts, so really hard to recover. BTW no much more to add to this Steve Huff article: http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/03/17/leica-focus-issues-lens-or-body/

I only would add that in some cases several trips to Solms were not enough to make a lens work properly, but only "within our -their, of course- standards"


The rangefinder focusing system was invented at a time when a F3.5 lens was considered "fast". With lenses faster than F2, the required mechanical precision exceeds what can be achieved in mass production. Leica engineers discovered it soon, but the fanboys who spend $10,000 on a lens take a little longer (1000 years?) to realize that.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2015 1:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tedat wrote:
Pontus wrote:
Maybe not as clear but not entirely dull either. But I agree the images from the M9 are crisper.

one single click in pp and the A7 photos will be crisp enough


That's not the point Smile
As I have used A7r more than a year, and spent endless hours to tweak the outcome, raw files from sony are different when dynamic range had been adjusted, and they follow different PP. It is hard to find a process that sony also produces the same look as leica. It is perhaps good that sony offers dynamic range adjustment, but that too results none optimal images...


PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2015 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hoanpham wrote:
Tedat wrote:
Pontus wrote:
Maybe not as clear but not entirely dull either. But I agree the images from the M9 are crisper.

one single click in pp and the A7 photos will be crisp enough


That's not the point Smile
As I have used A7r more than a year, and spent endless hours to tweak the outcome, raw files from sony are different when dynamic range had been adjusted, and they follow different PP. It is hard to find a process that sony also produces the same look as leica. It is perhaps good that sony offers dynamic range adjustment, but that too results none optimal images...

Please, how do you adjust the dynamic range of your A7r raws ?


PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2015 2:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:
Ultrapix wrote:

Thank you, I really appreciate your offer, but all my writing was spent in italian forums posts, so really hard to recover. BTW no much more to add to this Steve Huff article: http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/03/17/leica-focus-issues-lens-or-body/

I only would add that in some cases several trips to Solms were not enough to make a lens work properly, but only "within our -their, of course- standards"


The rangefinder focusing system was invented at a time when a F3.5 lens was considered "fast". With lenses faster than F2, the required mechanical precision exceeds what can be achieved in mass production. Leica engineers discovered it soon, but the fanboys who spend $10,000 on a lens take a little longer (1000 years?) to realize that.


Not true. The two Contaxes and half a dozen Kievs I own ALL focus accurately with both my pre-war Sonnar 1.5/50, post-war Sonnar 1.5/50 and 1960s Jupiter-3 1.5/50. Then again, the Contax has a longer rf base than any Leica and works a bit differently.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2015 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I'm confused, something is notright.

Gerard shows this 100% crop:



uhoh7 shows this 100% crop:



The first is blurred, the second is in focus, so what is going on? Are they from two separate images or has some blurring been applied to one?


I understand now why you are confused. I decided to investigate the case further, but what I found is very disturbing!

To be direct and objective: the author modified the original photo of the shop shown on page 7 of this thread AFTER I posted my comment about it!

The proof is in the EXIF data:






Note that the photo was taken on Jan 13 but modified on Jan 14 at 23:32:01 (almost on Jan 15). I posted the 100% crop on Jan 14 at 1:04pm, that is, long before the author modified his photo. This is suspicious? No question about it!

Another strange fact: the author did not change the other two photos of his post of page 7, at least until this moment. Maybe because I did not say anything about those photos?







PS: You can also view the EXIF data in the flickr page, but hurry before the author modifies the pictures! That guy is not serious!


PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2015 3:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Gerald wrote:
Ultrapix wrote:

Thank you, I really appreciate your offer, but all my writing was spent in italian forums posts, so really hard to recover. BTW no much more to add to this Steve Huff article: http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/03/17/leica-focus-issues-lens-or-body/

I only would add that in some cases several trips to Solms were not enough to make a lens work properly, but only "within our -their, of course- standards"


The rangefinder focusing system was invented at a time when a F3.5 lens was considered "fast". With lenses faster than F2, the required mechanical precision exceeds what can be achieved in mass production. Leica engineers discovered it soon, but the fanboys who spend $10,000 on a lens take a little longer (1000 years?) to realize that.


Not true. The two Contaxes and half a dozen Kievs I own ALL focus accurately with both my pre-war Sonnar 1.5/50, post-war Sonnar 1.5/50 and 1960s Jupiter-3 1.5/50. Then again, the Contax has a longer rf base than any Leica and works a bit differently.

Did you not read Ultrapix's post or Steve Huff's article? The lack of necessary precision of Leica rangefinders is a fact, not my opinion. Besides, you are thinking only in terms of your 50mm lenses, but forget that the problem is particularly serious for fast 90mm lenses, and especially for the 135mm. I agree that the Contax rangefinder was way better than the Leica. That was the reason for Nikon has copied Contax camera, except for the shutter, which was based on Leica design.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2015 4:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:


The crop I presented before was 100%. The crop you show above is 50%. You're a smart guy and noticed that a lower magnification is a good way to hide the shortcomings of your lens. But I think you will have to reduce the magnification to 12.5% for the captured image with your Summilux 75mm F1.4 seems reasonably sharp.


Looks like you could not tell the difference, Gerald. Smile

I love your double standard. It's perfectly OK for you to download and modify my images, without a PM, as you did earlier in this thread with my landscape, or to crop my images for use in insulting me.

But if I update my own images "it's very disturbing".

Any member here with reasonable manners is free to download my samples, examine, and post crops. But, Gerald, if you can't be civil about it, I don't want you posting my shots, period. For any reason, please.

If fact my first upload was a mix-up of several images. I uploaded the wrong shot, "troll-bait" you could not resist trying use to tell me about my bad technique and poor eyesight, when a simple "hey, I think you missed a bit on this one, LOL" would have done just fine.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2015 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sorry but..........


PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2015 4:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hoanpham wrote:
Tedat wrote:
Pontus wrote:
Maybe not as clear but not entirely dull either. But I agree the images from the M9 are crisper.

one single click in pp and the A7 photos will be crisp enough


That's not the point Smile
As I have used A7r more than a year, and spent endless hours to tweak the outcome, raw files from sony are different when dynamic range had been adjusted, and they follow different PP. It is hard to find a process that sony also produces the same look as leica. It is perhaps good that sony offers dynamic range adjustment, but that too results none optimal images...


yes it is... the crisp Leica photos aren't jpeg's out of the cam.. same as the A7 photos. It are RAW processed with Lightroom (at least thats how I understood). If I need a single click in Photoshop on those processed A7 pics to make them appear crisp like the Leica photos.. why not doing the same thing in Lightroom?

(I hope Uhoh doesn't mind.. if it's a problem I will delete it)


Original by uhoh7


edited by me in PS

Sure.. it won't be the same look as leica.. but it's not dull anymore.

Last edited by Tedat on Thu Jan 15, 2015 4:42 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2015 4:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7 wrote:
Gerald wrote:


The crop I presented before was 100%. The crop you show above is 50%. You're a smart guy and noticed that a lower magnification is a good way to hide the shortcomings of your lens. But I think you will have to reduce the magnification to 12.5% for the captured image with your Summilux 75mm F1.4 seems reasonably sharp.


Looks like you could not tell the difference, Gerald. Smile

I love your double standard. It's perfectly OK for you to download and modify my images, without a PM, as you did earlier in this thread with my landscape, or to crop my images for use in insulting me.

But if I update my own images "it's very disturbing".

Any member here with reasonable manners is free to download my samples, examine, and post crops. But, Gerald, if you can't be civil about it, I don't want you posting my shots, period. For any reason, please.

If fact my first upload was a mix-up of several images. I uploaded the wrong shot, "troll-bait" you could not resist trying use to tell me about my bad technique and poor eyesight, when a simple "hey, I think you missed a bit on this one, LOL" would have done just fine.

I did not modify your picture. You did. AFTER I showed it was out of focus. The proof is in my previous post. You're not serious.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2015 4:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
No worries, Jan. Smile

But please let us know how you adjusted the image. Smile

The Leica images don't need much post for my taste, and I left the sonys mostly alone, or with very simple changes, for comparison.

I resist adding a bunch of editing in a thread like this, because after a bit, you can't tell what the lens is doing.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2015 6:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
for the above photo this did the trick:

http://www.athentech.com

but even without it's not too much work.. just set the whitepoint, apply auto levels and maybe enhance the contrast a bit will look nearly the same. Like this:


Original by uhoh7 (amazing photo btw.)


edited version by me (PS auto levels + auto color)


uhoh7 wrote:

The Leica images don't need much post for my taste


I can see this, it seems to be a great combination where not much pp is needed. Same happens to me with A7 and T* lenses, a good team in my eyes. Leica knows their lenses and Sony knows T* coating..
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 5 of 7