28cron vs 24lux

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Owning both of them and lately having used the 24/1.4 a lot I just re-experiencing the 28cron and I am interested how you think about those 2 lenses (on the M9):

 

I see it as:

 

Framing and focusing:

framing with internal finder (in case of the 28mm lens) means focusing and framing with the same finder means more precise focus and framing when shooting wide open (which is one of the reason to own those lenses). When I use the 24mm I have an external finder. When shooting wide open non static subjects I often have to use the internal finder and gues the rest because I need to see the rangefinder. Chnaging forth and back between internal and external finder in case of the 24mm leaves more room for either focus inaccurancy (when looking through external finder) or framing inaccurancy (when using internal finder) shooting wide open. Of course not problem when you sep down and have a little more DOF.

This means 28 has an advantage here IMO.

 

Subject isolation:

I would see the edge for the one step faster 24mm lens - however with 28mm at f2.0 its possible to. Differnce seems not too big.

 

Signature:

very subjective...It looks like the 24 draws a boit more "dreamy/creamy" wide open tand the cron a bit more crisp. I am not sure though didnt shoot enough with the 28 on the M9 so far. 28 seems very well balanced - sharp but not clinical

 

Handling:

28 is lighter and some what smaller than 24

 

focal length:

I like shooting at small-medium distance with those lenses-and a lot people in my own environment, friends, family, kids etc.

24 seems to give those images a more dynamic interesting look and 28mm seems to give it a more natural look (perspective wise). Of course we cann allways crop 24mm to a 28mm fov. My personal idea when getting the 24lux was this more dynamic look. I wanted to force myself to shoot more spontanious and with more extreme lenses to create "more interesting images" with a certain chracter. (like somemore dynamic wide angle look images and when using a different lens more compressed onces)

 

Anyways, I am interested how you guys see those 2 lenses and your ideas behind using them.

[lars_bergquist]

I use none of these lenses. But I have quite a bit of experience with both focal lengths and fields of view. Am I qualified to give my opinions?

 

I never found much use for 28mm. 35mm is much more in line with the way I see. 28mm does not give a look much different from the 35; it is just a 35 with more elbow room. This may come in handy if you are a press photog and have to shoot the entire Board of Directors in one boardroom, but that is not the kind of photography I do.

 

To me, the "first" or "mildest" real wide angle lens is 24/25mm. You do not get that "superwide look" unless you consciously go for it, but you do get a bit more dynamism than with the 35. The accessory finder has never bothered me. Any 24mm lens has lots and lots of depth of field. Or maybe I am not the nervous kind. When I was young, any wide angle lens necessitated an accessory finder!

 

I am sorry to say that I would not want the 24mm Summilux even if I were given it for free (and you are free to discount my opinions because of that). But optically, it is not one of Leica's best lenses, and at my age, moderate weight, low bulk and general handiness are also important. Both wide Summiluxes are o.k. for occasional use -- but that kind of money, and that kind of weight, for a "sometimes lens"? No.

 

So my choice is a lens in the 24mm Elmarit class, fast enough for nearly all use on a camera you can safely hold at 1/15th -- and after all, you have to have enough light for quick focusing too. And if I want a shallow d.o.f. I use my v.2 35mm Summilux ASPH (which is the most useful lens I have ever owned) wide open.

 

The old man from the Age of the 3.5cm Summaron

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[mhoersch]

I use none of these lenses. But I have quite a bit of experience with both focal lengths and fields of view. Am I qualified to give my opinions?

 

I never found much use for 28mm. 35mm is much more in line with the way I see. 28mm does not give a look much different from the 35; it is just a 35 with more elbow room. This may come in handy if you are a press photog and have to shoot the entire Board of Directors in one boardroom, but that is not the kind of photography I do.

 

To me, the "first" or "mildest" real wide angle lens is 24/25mm. You do not get that "superwide look" unless you consciously go for it, but you do get a bit more dynamism than with the 35. The accessory finder has never bothered me. Any 24mm lens has lots and lots of depth of field. Or maybe I am not the nervous kind. When I was young, any wide angle lens necessitated an accessory finder!

 

I am sorry to say that I would not want the 24mm Summilux even if I were given it for free (and you are free to discount my opinions because of that). But optically, it is not one of Leica's best lenses, and at my age, moderate weight, low bulk and general handiness are also important. Both wide Summiluxes are o.k. for occasional use -- but that kind of money, and that kind of weight, for a "sometimes lens"? No.

 

So my choice is a lens in the 24mm Elmarit class, fast enough for nearly all use on a camera you can safely hold at 1/15th -- and after all, you have to have enough light for quick focusing too. And if I want a shallow d.o.f. I use my v.2 35mm Summilux ASPH (which is the most useful lens I have ever owned) wide open.

 

The old man from the Age of the 3.5cm Summaron

 

Very sensible statement - I agree 100%.

Edited September 7, 2010 by mhoersch
Removed smiley in the wrong place

[jaapv]

I am sorry to say that I would not want the 24mm Summilux even if I were given it for free (and you are free to discount my opinions because of that). But optically, it is not one of Leica's best lenses, and at my age, moderate weight, low bulk and general handiness are also important. Both wide Summiluxes are o.k. for occasional use -- but that kind of money, and that kind of weight, for a "sometimes lens"? No.

 

 

It is strictly personal - but I tend to carry the Summilux 24 - not a 28. And I am very much taken by the signature and quality of that lens. It is certainly not an occasional lens for me. I normally use it wide open - for subject separation, which is quite unique at this focal length.

Edited September 7, 2010 by jaapv

[tom0511]

Interesting answers. Thank you!

In my case of the 24mm I replaced my 24 Elmarit with the Lux and I prefer the lux a lot because I have the additional feature of shallow DOF for those times I need it and on the other side I dont see any disadvantages when having it stepped down.

 

Regarding size/ weight I havent had really any issue with any lens. IMO there are only 2 or 3 lenses which make the M9 a walkaround camera (35/50 Summarit, 35 cron, 28 Elmarit and 50/2.8 collaps). All other lenses are too big to make the camera a pocket camera anyways and 200 g or even 500 g more or less ore 3 or 5 cm depth more or less are not really an issue for me. (I am not saying that I understand that others feel different here). Even carrying a M9 with 4 lenses I still feel I am on the light side - (compared when I would carry a backpack with a D700 and 70-200/2.8 +1 or 2 other lenses.)

 

Sometimes I am surprized. I ask myself if someone carrys a backpack with a 1l bottle of water. Who recognizes if the bottle is full/half full/empty?

 

I do agree that the 24mm gives more the real wide angle look.....

[lars_bergquist]

I am an old long range backpacker, and I learned the hard way the value of travelling light. You want to spend your energy taking pictures, not carrying a load.

 

And now I know that Jaap does not venture outside before sunset (maybe he spends most of the day inside cavities ... ) I am mostly hard put to go wider than 2.8 outside without a ND filter.

 

We hear a lot about the wonderful new combination of wide field and shallow depth. But the pictures I have seen have not been very special. It is usually quite difficult to spot how wide a lens is, unless we have cues (or personal acquaintance with the place) to judge the geometry and dimensions of the space we see depicted. The d.o.f. of even the 24 Summilux is not much different from what you can get with a 35 Summicron. It all adds up to very little.

 

If my pictures are not interesting unless I use optical gimmicks, or write captions that forcibly underline the fact that I took the picture while standing on one leg, then I try change my choice of subjects.

 

The old man from the Age of Scepticism

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I do indeed carry ND filters. Note to self: start posting some more shallow DOF shots in the future

[tdtaylor]

Especially the ones where you are standing on one leg

[Gerard]

I have a 28 Cron, and it's utterly capable - it simply delivers every time, without fuss or fail. But from the images I've seen published (online), the 24 lux seems to deliver a very appealing, slightly dreamy result that makes the cron look exceptionally clinical. Because of this; I'd love to try the 24 out. Its size doesn't bother me (I'm one of the few that enjoys using the 75 lux), and I'm confident my brain would be able to attune itself to ballpark framing, but its price puts it squarely out of my reach.

 

Jaap; I'd love to see some of your shallow DoF shots from the 24. Unless of course you think it would just make me want it even more; in which case... I'd rather not look.

[tom0511]

I am an old long range backpacker, and I learned the hard way the value of travelling light. You want to spend your energy taking pictures, not carrying a load.

 

And now I know that Jaap does not venture outside before sunset (maybe he spends most of the day inside cavities ... ) I am mostly hard put to go wider than 2.8 outside without a ND filter.

 

We hear a lot about the wonderful new combination of wide field and shallow depth. But the pictures I have seen have not been very special. It is usually quite difficult to spot how wide a lens is, unless we have cues (or personal acquaintance with the place) to judge the geometry and dimensions of the space we see depicted. The d.o.f. of even the 24 Summilux is not much different from what you can get with a 35 Summicron. It all adds up to very little.

 

If my pictures are not interesting unless I use optical gimmicks, or write captions that forcibly underline the fact that I took the picture while standing on one leg, then I try change my choice of subjects.

 

The old man from the Age of Scepticism

 

Lars,

my back is not the greatest and I need to go to the gym 1-2 times a week to not have back pain.

On the other side if I like paragliding and like to walk up (at least little hills like 1000 feet) and then carry a 20kg backpack. Or sometimes carry my daughter with 12 kg on my shoulders - so for me the difference between carrying 1,2kg or 1,5kg photoequipment is no difference.

[tom0511]

I am not saying those are masterpieces but I like the effect of shallow dof in those 2:

 

 

[tom0511]

excuse here- first I ask for opinions and then I start arguing against them....of course much of this is jsut my opinion and liking and I fully understand (and I am interested ) that others have other preferences.

[fursan]

I use the cron 28mm a lot on my M8 and my film M7/MP. I cannot afford the M9 nor the lux 24mm.

 

I want shallow dof, I would not consider using a wide, slightly wide or very wide angle lens.

f/1.4 or whatever.

 

I just put on the lux 50/1.4 and at .7m or the 75mm at .7mm. That gives me the subject isolation I need.

 

imho, 35,28,24 and lower are not there for subject isolation per se. That is the reason I can use hyperfocal focussing on my 28mm. It has the depth of field.

 

Regards.

[tom0511]

I use the cron 28mm a lot on my M8 and my film M7/MP. I cannot afford the M9 nor the lux 24mm.

 

I want shallow dof, I would not consider using a wide, slightly wide or very wide angle lens.

f/1.4 or whatever.

 

I just put on the lux 50/1.4 and at .7m or the 75mm at .7mm. That gives me the subject isolation I need.

 

imho, 35,28,24 and lower are not there for subject isolation per se. That is the reason I can use hyperfocal focussing on my 28mm. It has the depth of field.

 

Regards.

 

I have to disagree for the part that wide angles are not there for subject isolation. Maybe we dont see it much because there are not many lenses which allow to do it, but IMO that doesnt mean that it makes no sense.

I find it to be an intersting effect and IMO the images look more dynamic/less compressed.

When I used the M8 the 28cron has been one of my favorite lenses. One of the reasons to start this thread since I havent used it so much on the M9.

[jedi996sps]

I use the cron 28mm a lot on my M8 and my film M7/MP. I cannot afford the M9 nor the lux 24mm.

 

I want shallow dof, I would not consider using a wide, slightly wide or very wide angle lens.

f/1.4 or whatever.

 

I just put on the lux 50/1.4 and at .7m or the 75mm at .7mm. That gives me the subject isolation I need.

 

imho, 35,28,24 and lower are not there for subject isolation per se. That is the reason I can use hyperfocal focussing on my 28mm. It has the depth of field.

 

Regards.

 

 

I do not have the 24mmlux but do have the 28cron and the 28elmarit. Wide open, dof is adequate for the type of image that i might want to shoot with both of them. More often than not, i use both these of these at f8 and above. I agree that where separation is important, i would also use my 50lux or more recently 50mm series 1 nocti.... all on my M8

[doug_m]

I am not saying those are masterpieces but I like the effect of shallow dof in those 2:

 

 

 

The first image with the girl in green and white on the swing is really nice and demonstrates the value of the 24 lux at 1.4. I am not aware of any other lens being able to deliver this kind of image.

[tom0511]

The first image with the girl in green and white on the swing is really nice and demonstrates the value of the 24 lux at 1.4. I am not aware of any other lens being able to deliver this kind of image.

 

The Nikon 24/1.4

just kidding. However would like to mention that the DOF of the 28/2.0 wide open is quite shallow as well.

[shootinglulu]

I really like the look of subject seperation in some pictures using wide angle lenses. It can make a very interesting picture and (also with the dreamy look i've sometimes seen with 24 Lux pictures) i think it can be more captivating than the more obvious longer fl shallow dof look.

[lars_bergquist]

Lars,

my back is not the greatest and I need to go to the gym 1-2 times a week to not have back pain.

On the other side if I like paragliding and like to walk up (at least little hills like 1000 feet) and then carry a 20kg backpack. Or sometimes carry my daughter with 12 kg on my shoulders - so for me the difference between carrying 1,2kg or 1,5kg photoequipment is no difference.

Well, congrats. With two artificial hip joints, I must admit that such joys belong to the past -- and pack my gear accordingly.

 

Mr. Walker

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[tom0511]

Lars - I understand - so specially for those who dont want or should carry much weight the M and its small lenses is great, isnt it?

 

And then there is also the X1, not an M but also a serious camera.