How does the 75 compare to the famous Summicron & Noctilux 50mms? I only ask, as I haven't seen any direct comparison on line, and sample pictures on Flickr & elsewhere don't convince compared to hearing from someone whose actually tried all these lenses. Yes, I am aware that we're talking about different things here; the manually operated Leica lenses will obviously operate differently to the Oly, with its AF etc, but in terms of optical quality at say f4 - would it really be easily apparent from comparing 2 shots with the different lenses, that the Leica lenses will be considerably better? I'm sure that's the case if you're talking about, say, the Oly 17, but the 75? I'd be truly amazed if that was the case, but am more than happy to be corrected. Just curious and very interested to see if anyone lucky enough to try the Leica's can comment. Thanks.
Well the 75 is pretty damn near perfect at f4 so I don't think there will be much difference, nothing easily discernible at least
There are seven variations of summicron and I believe four versions of noctilux. They themselves have different intents and renditions. The noctilux f1 50mm for which I shoot is beatifully imperfect as it should be. If the summicron or Noctilux is favorable are you going to drop and buy one? If not this is a point less thread. If so, then you have some homework to do. You do realize that Leica actively produces four 50mm lenses? and no... its not because price range. The best of the four is not necessarily the most expensive nor the fastest. Its not even a comparable on paper.... 75mm is equivalent to 150mm focal length.... no such focal length exists in M mount. Heck the base rangefinder length of the M Leica is not long enough to accurately focus at that focal length albeit the newer M240 can using EVF. Get the 75mm. Its a very good lens.
Oh duh... I am thinking 75mm on a MFT camera versus a 75mm on a FF M9. ... its too late... I should go back to sleep. The rest of my post is still related
I'm not sure what you are asking, but in general, while the 75 is a superb lens, a Leica lens will render quite differently. Leica and Olympus have a character to their look that is different.
I am with usayit on this... not really sure where you are coming from and what kind of response you are expecting as you are not really comparing like with like. I have the 75 and it is a wonderful and surprisingly versatile lens. https://www.flickr.com/photos/kevinparis2007/sets/72157632975120141/ My partner is a leica shooter and she has a couple of 50mm summilux from the 60's/70's, an early Noctilux and even a 75mm summilux, along with an m8, m9 and a Monocrome. I have shot the Nocti and the 75 both on 4/3 and full frame, but almost always wide open, which is the reason to have such fast lenses. this set is the OMD-em1 with the noctilux https://www.flickr.com/photos/kevinparis2007/sets/72157636126623193/ this is an old shot with the e-p1 and noctilux Across a crowded room by kevinparis, on Flickr more leica on 4/3 shots here including some shot with the 75 summilux Eat on the Go by kevinparis, on Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/kevinparis2007/sets/72157630808391888/ while leica glass can produce wonderful results on 4/3, if I didn't have access to them for free I would not consider them as a sane or reasonable purchase to be solely used on a 4/3 camera. On the other hand, put them on a Leica body, especially a full frame one and you start to see perhaps some of the justification for their reputation and price Noctilux on Monocrome L1002578 by kevinparis, on Flickr 75/1.4 on M9 L1000854 by kevinparis, on Flickr K
They will produce different results, what you may consider better or worse is often more to do with personal taste. I have a Voigtlander 75mm f1.8 lens and it can produce some great results, but when shooting where there are strong highlights, then stopping down one or two stops is essential to avoid lots of purple fringing. My Leica 135mm f4 exhibits very little, if any of this, but it is a much slower lens. My Olympus lenses produce virtually no fringing, wide open or not, as you would expect from modern designs and coatings. Then there are other aspects to consider such as contrast etc. They all behave differently. The Olympus 75mm is not going to be a poor lens by anyone's definition and autofocus can be a major advantage, whether you like manual focus or not.
All I’m interested in is the end result of the image - if the results coming out of the Leica lenses either on M43 or Leica FF are considerably better than the 75 then that would justify me plunking down the cash and its in that regard I was asking the question. Yes, if justified, I’d plunk down the cash. For me to do that however, I’d have to be certain that the resulting image were considerably better. Establishing this is difficult and usually meets with the type of “pointless thread” / “need to do your homework” type answer from Leica owners, which was not unexpected. The responses so far show that the Leica lenses on M43 are indeed fantastic and uniquely different - but not considerably better than the 75. Apologies if any Leica owners consider the OP and this post to be trolling, it really isn’t, I just wanted to know if one lens rendered better than the other. Thanks for all the responses and to kevinparis for the very informative info and links.
The Leica 75mm f2 is around four times the price of the Olympus 75mm f1.8. Is it four times better? Very unlikely. Will owning one make you feel that it's four times better. Possibly.
This is a generalization... there is no wrong or right answer. Its like saying Picasso's paintings are inferior because his lack detail and introduced distortions. Noctilux f/1 = Non-Aspherical older formula. "It paints. It doesn't draw". Big. Heavy. Slow focusing. Summilux Aspherical f/1.4. = "It draws with a fine pen". Its bokeh can be harsh at times. Very clinical. Summicron f/2 = "Classic renderer" People often prefer this for its bokeh. Summicron f/2 APO = SImilar to Summicron but APO design. Summarit f/2.5 = Close to the summicron but at a slower stop and cheaper build. Easy fast short focus throw. small compact. For some of the above, there are 50 years of variations.... each rendering differently. I already said, there are 4 currently produced 50mm lenses from Leica. Unlike many brands, they don't produce and market by the paper specs. They don't market against good, better and best. There is no "L" lenses. Each has their own unique characteristics (subtle at times) and its up to the consumer to decide which is "best" for them.... Leica doesn't decide that for you. My initial response is the same type of response you will get if you go to the Leica forum and ask a Summicron vs Summilux "which is best?" question.... there is no answer. Its for the same reason why Leica divided the community when they made the Noctilux f/0.95 aspherical. For some the new Noctilux is better because its sharper. For some the new Noctilux was ruined because it was sharper. I know you already have the 75mm Olympus. If you are asking whether a lens several times more expensive will improve your end result after all the great reviews and wonderful samples of Olympus 75mm produced, then you are completely missing the point of photography. You are focusing on the wrong things.... the equipment in your hand. I guarantee you that spending $1000s based extra on the premise of this post will lead to nothing but disappointment. Will a better paint brush make me paint better than Picasso? Will a faster car make me a better driver? etc... no. I own an older Summicron, newest Summilux, and the Noctilux f/1. Ask which is better and the first response is "all of them". Stick with your Olympus 75mm. Its one of the best lenses in the MFT system. We are lucky the MFT system has such a great line up of optics. No need to go to Leica for that.
Are you comparing the Leica lens adapted on M43 vs. Oly 75 on M43 body? Because on the original (first) post of yours, it didn't say so.
I guess I just don't get it, eh? Lol, never mind, the "L" subject will be off limits from me on this site.
That's not my intent. I would have written this thread off it were my intent and not written the above post. Seriously... there is no good answer you seek. You already have my answer. The Olympus 75mm is a great lens... one of the best in the market IMO. Will you only be satisfied if I say its" the Olympus is better than the Leica"? Then you are loosing sight of what is important in photography and simply looking reaffirmation. Will you only be satisfied if say "Leica is better than the Olympus?" Then you are again loosing sight of what is important and simply looking to improve your photography through equipment... and be disappointed.
No one thinks it's trolling. Its just that it's a very odd question. Leica lens are mood lens and not always about all out sharpness or micro contrast... So the question then becomes what rendering feel are you looking for. Olympus m43 lens especially the primes are more about accuracy, clean, clear, sharp exposures. Quite different then ff leica. Its all a matter of taste. Panasonic leica certified are a mix for me of the two ie leica ff mood and m43 tack sharpness renders. The best of both worlds. In my opinion, that's the direction you should go in.. either the 25 or 42 vs. 75 unless you need the 150mm ff reach of the 75.
For whats its worth I did a quick test Oly 75 and 45 against Leica 75/1.4 summilux and a pre ASPH 50/1.4 summilux on an OMD E-M1 First of all the 75's @1.8 Oly Leica * and @ f4 Oly Leica Then the Oly 45 and the 50mm Summilux @1.8 Oly Leica and at f4 Oly Leica Finally the two leica lenses on an M9 at the same distance to subject (Apologies for missing focus a bit on some of these - I forgot you can't move a rangefinder patch around the screen and moved to match OMD framing Not sure what conclusions to draw, other that on the OMD neither of the Oly lenses are shamed in such exalted company, and that where the leica magic really happens is when the Leica lenses are put on a Full frame Leica body cheers K
