I know that their are similar postsbut I want fresh answers, so your new advice is well appreciated. I am now in the market for a portrait lens, being a Lux75 or Cron90. I am not interested in the Elmarit or Heliar, so please don't recommend these. I am unable to see these lenses compared due to the fact that the retail stores (salespeople that is) suck where I live. I am interested in the following: 1. Size comparison 2. Weight and balance 3. Viewfinder obstruction (75) compared to size of view (90) 4. Quality comparison from f/2 onwards. 5. Difference between Cron90 Asph and model directly pre-Asph only. Anyone who can give advice based experience comparing these or recommending one please do so......and their may be a reward...or not.

Thanks in advance anyway. Kristian

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), February 10, 2002

Answers

Well 2 things' for sure.

75 Lux has 1 stop advantage over 90 Cron

Great skill is necessary for focus at maximum aperture with both lenses since the DOF of the 75 @ 1.4 is more or less the same as the DOF of the 90 @ 2.0.

So what's your priority? Personally, the 75 is more my cup o' tea.

BTW: Viewfinder intrusion helps to exercise your imagination hence your creativity! (At least that's what the salesman told me) ;-)

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), February 10, 2002.

Leica salesmen down where I live have fed me more S*it than that, but good effort by that salesman you spoke to

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), February 10, 2002.

My suggestion would be to think about the environment you'll be doing the portraits in. If natural light, the 75 Lux may be the better choice. If in a studio with strobes, go for the 90 Cron, as you won't need the extra stop. Actually, you won't need the f/2.0 either, but you seem not to want to consider the Elmarit-M.

The 75 Lux weighs 560 grams compared to 500 grams for the 90 Cron, the 75 uses an E60 filter versus the E55 for the 90. The viewfinder obstruction from the 75 is minimal, but I'm not sure about the 90 Cron, as I opted for the Elmarit-M.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), February 10, 2002.

Kristian,

I can only give you an opinion on Question 5: I have 3 90's; the 90 TE (thin), 90 'cron pre-Asph and the 90 'cron Apo/Asph. I did a test by shooting images and comparing visually, so no MTF charts. I only tested on B&W film. IMHO I would rate the 90 'cron pre-Asph as being the best of the three for crispness and smoothest bokeh. The 90TE was a good but produced patchy midtones or should I say the mid-grey areas tended to close up, where as the 90 'cron pre-Asph handled it with more finese. The 90 'cron Apo/Asph was overall just contrastier and (perhaps) sharper than the pre-Asph. But for portraits and images with a little more character I would go for the 90 'cron pre-Asph. I think the 90 'cron Apo/Asph is just a bit too clinical and mechanical. Probably great for landscapes and colour slide, but have yet to test that. Also the 90 'cron pre is lighter than the 90AA and is about 5-7mm shorter in length. Does it make a difference? To me it does, its just that little more compact and lighter after you've been carrying it for over 2 hours. Have fun with your lens whichever you choose. Best,

-- sparkie (sparkie@mailcity.com), February 10, 2002.

Kristian:

I currently own the 90APO and just recently sold my immediate pre-APO 90 'Cron to get a 75 'Lux. I have not owned the 75 long, but herre are my opinions:

1. Size comparison: The 75 is bigger than the 90 -- a few mm longer and a few mm wider, (The 90APO and pre-APO are essentially the same size, FWIW)

2. Weight and balance: The 75 is heavier than the 90, and while I've heard a lot of people complain about it not balancing well on the M, I find only a small difference in balance between it and the 90APO; the 90 being a bit better.

3. Viewfinder obstruction (75) compared to size of view (90): The 75 blocks WAY more of its frame than the 90APO does -- probably almost 25% out of the bottom right corner!

4. Quality comparison from f/2 onwards: In terms of resolution, the 90APO wins hands-down untill f5.6; after that all three lenses are essentially equal performers.

5. Difference between Cron 90 Asph and model directly pre-Asph only: The 90APO is lazer sharp at f2.0 and f2.8, but for some reason my sample actually loses some resolution at f4 -- I think this is because the aperture blades are more star-shaped at f4 than they are round -- but is still sharper than the pre-APO. At f5.6, they are pretty close, but the APO is sharper. At f8 and above, there is no significant difference. HOWEVER, at f2 and f2.8 the pre-APO has a relatively sharp center with soft edges. This effect can be very appealing in portraiture. The pre-APO also has outstanding Bokeh -- better IMO than the 90APO -- if you are interested in that.

6. Handling -- you didn't ask, but here is my opinion anyway: The 90APO has a "faster" focus helical than the 75 'Lux or the 90 pre- APO, which in use makes them (the 75 and 90pre-APO) slower to focus. Also, I find the 75 framelines akward to use, and for some reason have to consiously hunt for them inside the 50 lines. BUT, as I said earlier, I have not had a lot of time with this lens yet...

I decided to trade my pre-APO for the 75 due to the extra stop, and felt they would have similar imaging characteristics -- which they do. I also felt the difference in perspectives woudld not be that significant for the extra stop -- I was wrong, they are very different. The 75 seems a lot wider than the 90.

Conclusion: IMO, of the three lenses you mentioned, the 90APO is the most versatile and easiest to use, and as such is one of my favorite lenses. You won't go wrong by getting it.

Hope this helps :-),

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), February 10, 2002.

I also owned (past tense) the last 90/2 and the 75/1.4 and there isn't much I can add to Jack's assessment of the performance and ergonomics, my experience was identical. The long, stiff focusing ring travel (especially on the 75) and the 75's major obstruction of the frame were particular peeves. However I did find both these lenses too large for my taste and so I currently own the 90 Elmarit, as well as a late 90 T-E which I gravitate to more often.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), February 10, 2002.

Hi Kristan I just recently acquired the 75 mm Lux (new German version) and used it for the first time at my daughter's choir recital judging. Right from the start the extra F-stop of 1.4 was absolutely necessary for me to keep shutter speeds at my necessary minimum of 1/60 or 1/125. Up until the Lux I had been using my 90 mm 2.8 Elmarit-M with Fuji Superia 1600 (a fine fast film) but in the circumstances of that day I simply would have been out of luck with the 90 mm 2.8/1600 ISO combo. The recital was in a high school theater and the lighting was dim with hot spots on stage which varied by over 1.5 F-stops according to my Minolta Spot Meter F. The 75 mm allowed me to use Superia 800 (a great fast film) and a KB-12 color compensating filter (which still left some orange and yellow in the skin tones, I will be getting a B+W KB-15). I found the Lux focusing to be smooth and easy to get spot on with my 0.85 finder. The narrow depth of field is more demanding on my focusing accuracy and DOF judgments than when using the 90 mm 2.8 but I had a lot of keepers which I simply would not have gotten with 2.8 or 2.0 apertures. The photos were tack sharp at the 6X9 size that I had them enlarged to. Also as a side note the 75 mm will focus closer than the 90 mm lenses which will be an important advantage in portraits.

-- Doug from Tumwater (dbaker9128@aol.com), February 10, 2002.

Thanks guys, and special thanks to Jack for that extra effort. Anyway, anymore opinions would be most appreciated.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), February 10, 2002.

There are several 'unique' features of the 75 Slux. It allows you to cus down to 1:7 magnification (@ 0.75m), the highest mag you can achieve w Leica M. And it is the only F/1.4 longer than 50 mm. But to my mind it is really an available/(unavailable) light lens, since it's weight and bulk make it not so desirable as a general purpose lens.

The problem with the 75mm is not its performance, which is terrific. If you look through previous posts on this lens, I don't think you will find any criticism of its optical performance, which is first rate. But many people just are not inclined to carry this lens around because of its size and weight. So its probably not a good choice unless you really need F/1.4, in which case there is no alternative.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), February 11, 2002.

Kristian, wait five or ten years and then get a 75 'cron.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), February 11, 2002.

I hate to break up the 'lux love-fest - but I have never gotten pictures I consider acceptably sharp with the 75 at f/1.4. Not focusing problems, either. The thing I focused on was (usually) the sharpest part of the picture - it just was too soft for what I consider professional quality.

To double-check my impressions (anyone can have a bad experience) I looked up the photodo.com MTF charts. They suggest that at f/1.4 the 75 is a little better than half as sharp as even the pre-ASPH 90 at f/2. (33% contrast (75) vs. 53% contrast (90) at 40 lpm.

To be fair, a shot at 1/60th and f/1.4 may be sharper than a shot at 1/ 30th and f/2, regardless of raw lens quality - so the 75 has its place, as Doug Baker demonstrates. In my case I'd rather push some film a stop and get the 90's image quality, save some weight, and get the longer reach all at once.

Back to the MTFs: The 75 is a pretty decent f/1.4 tele - it nudges out the Nikkor 85 f/1.4 wide-open and gets nudged itself by the Zeiss/ Contax 85 1.4 - but in the same ballpark as both. At f/8 they are all within a couple of contrast points across the board - and from personal experience the 75 at f/8 has a beautiful contrast and glows on Velvia in sunlight - no nasty skin tones there!

Looked at another way - the 75 chart at f/1.4 is very similar to the chart for the Nikon 85 f/2 AIS at f/2 - another lens I always found just unusably soft wide-open.

On questions 1-3 I think Jack pretty well covered the bases accurately.

5) The APO 90 is clearly sharper and contrastier than the immediate small non-APO esp. at f/2-2.8-4. It also has less green-purple color fringing and therefore slightly 'cleaner' color. And the older small 90 'crons (both M and R) sometimes have a slight yellow cast. It's come up in posts before.

For reference I've owned both very early and very late versions of the small (1980 design) pre-APO lens - and still have the early one. It is acceptably sharp wide-open for documentary work if the subject is near the center. IMHO it falls between the 90 APO and the 75 - having better resolution than the 75 while retaining some of the 75's smooth highlight rendition - more so than the APO 90. A good compromise - unless you need the ultimate image quality and color of the APO.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), February 11, 2002.

thanks again guys. your advice is excellent. It seems that the Cron 90 Apo is the most versatile in terms of size, weight, handling, price and performance. I guess comming from a Nikon AIS 85 f/.4 (although my older AF version was miles ahead at f/1.4-f/4) the 75mm would be nice, but probably a little too short considering I will eventually buy a Noct and too big considering I will eventually buy a Noct. Pretty simple answer here i think.

Thanks again

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), February 11, 2002.

Kristian, I use both the 90 SAA and the 75 Summilux. I really love the 75 for head and shoulders portraiture. Although I rarely shoot at maximum aperture, the often mentioned "creaminess" of the rendition is unique and desirable. Both lenses are difficult to focus up close at maximum aperture. I do not object to the size of either and have no problem with the focusing helicals of either lens. I find myself using the 75 more and really like the focal length. Why not get both?

-- David (pagedt@chartertn.net), February 11, 2002.

"why not own both"........hmmmm.....$$$$....so if you ever decide to part with your 90, send it my way.....that way it will get the appreciation it deserves. I am already having to sell my girlfriend to fund some of the payment.

-- kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), February 11, 2002.

Have not used a 75, but my personal experience with my 90 late pre- ASPH and ASPH Summicrons differes a bit from what is commonly reported. I could not tell much difference in sharpness between the two, but I preferred the overall and out of focus renditions of the ASPH. Ergonomics of the ASPH are a bit better as well, often I accidentally adjusted the stop ring while focusing the pre-asph.

-- Robert Bouknight (rkb58@bellsouth.net), February 11, 2002.