Compare 21 and 24 (Oh not again)

[Woofer]

I've heard so much about the "special" qualities of the 24 , for those who have used both the 21 and 24 please , your opinions on each.

I'm not concerned about external viewers etc ... but is the 24 more "special" than the 21.

[jackal]

i have both here

i did some back to back tests recently
not something i normally do but i was bored one afternoon

same exposure, same white balance etc...
the 24mm was in a different class in terms of sharpness on centre

the 24 really does pop, quite extraordinary
the 21 is mushy by comparison... in fact my zeiss 18mm is sharper

i had another example of the 21mm last year and the results were exactly the same
in my opinion whilst the rendition is very smooth and leica-like and it takes great pictures, it terms of resolution and clarity it is not one of leicas best

24, 28 cron & 35 lux are the real gems

(and please no one reply back saying maybe i missed focus ... i focus bracketed 3 shots either way - 7 shots in total - with both lenses and picked the best of each)

[Mauribix]

I don't have both right now, but i had the 24 for a small period, and still i have the 21 ASPH.

The 24 seems to be a real gem in the Leica ceiling, but as Sean Reid said in his 21's review (and I confirm in my hunble opinion/experience), the Elmarit 21 ASPH is the best 21 that money can buy right now, so it deserves the maximum respect.
I just may compare it to the old Contax Biogon 21 (a piece of history in RF world) and the actual Zeiss Biogon 21 (great lense, but with different qualities).

I kept the 21 just because i use my 35lux ASPH the most, and I found the 24 too much near to the 35frame (just my opinion, the difference is quite enough to justify the use of both).
I needed a "real" 28mm on my M8, so the 21 really got me.
The 24 FOV is somehow weird to me on the M8, but as many here showed, it can be used in a real creative way.Finally the 24's qualities are simply out of discussion: a first rate lens.
In conclusion i suggest you just one thing: find what is you're preferred FOV between 21 and 24, then the qualities of the lens come in a second order (IMHO): as we said the 24 is a real gem, but the 21 is nonetheless!

[Mauribix]

For those who believe that the 21 is not as sharp as we use to believe...
(a great bokeh, and a great "popping" of the subject)

M8+21 elmarit ASPH @ f/2.8

[jackal]

Originally Posted by Mauribix

I don't have both right now,.....the 24 is a real gem, but the 21 is nonetheless!

i do, and raw files from each up on a 30" monitor at 100% 2560x1600

just to reiterate, when it come to sharpness the 21 is a lesser piece of glass as my post indicates

i dont have any bias, i own both

[Mauribix]

Originally Posted by Mauribix

the 21 is nonetheless

.... a Great lens!

Sorry, i did not complete the sentence

@Jackal:
I don't doubt your test, and since I had both lenses, I can't do nothing but confirm what you say, and what Sean indicated some time ago.

@Woofer
My choice went for the 21, as I said, only because of its FOV.
Simply,i believe that the differences between these lenses are not so "visible" especially when printing job is done, so I guess the best starting point could be to find the personal preference first considering the frame.

This is just my humble opinion, as usual!

Anyway, and this is my last point, it's really hard to compare shots between these lenses, the 21 is somehow really wider then the 24, so we should consider too many factors (i learned this from reidreviews.com); i.e. distance from the subject for first...
Some time ago, i had the impression that my CV12 could be less sharp then my CV15, but then i found that it was my fault since i was shooting from the same point with different lenses, and this wasn't fair for the CV12.
After that, i reconsidered my point, and i knew my CV12 better... incredibly sharp!

Obviously, the differences between 21 and 24 may be quite visible for many people, but i believe that these lenses's qualities may be less consistent in taking a decision...
It's easier to choose between a 35cron ASPH and a 35lux ASPH, don't you think?

Finally, if you can, buy both (maybe used) and then make your own decision, maybe you could fall in love with both then decide to keep both and have a bigamy !

[KJB]

The 21 apsh is far from mush. It is the sharpest wide I've used which have included the WATE, 21 ZM, 28 Cron asph. It even rivals my 50 lux asph. On center sharpness even wide open is amazing for a wide and it is probably the last lens I would give up on a crop body. But its the tonality of the 21 that really sells me. The high contrast asph look can be in my opinion overdone at times. The 21 hits the sweet spot here without overdoing it. Regarding claims that the 21 apsh is mush compared to the 24 asph, I'd think that testing methods are suspect.

[jackal]

have you actually tried a 24 and done a direct comparison ?

because I have, twice, taking care to focus bracket as well so each lens definitely looks its best and is prefectly on focus. I can assure you that there was no error in my testing, I did it in such a way as to rule out any error. And no offence, but I'm a reasonably intelligent being and I don't really make schoolboy errors. I have also done this with 2 different 21's as well.

Now obviously the 21 is not 'mush' in isolation, of course its a fine lens but compared to the 24mm my tests showed it is softer on centre certainly at 2.8 and F4. Its pretty common knowledge that the 21 elmarit isn't one of leica's sharpest or best lenses, its no big deal. Sure, its has a lovely rendition as I stated and no one is disputing that but the OP asked for differences and I reported a significant difference. Just because someone owns a 21mm doesn't now make them a lesser person or mean that they should feel the need to leap to its defence... there are other leica M lenses that are just sharper. So what. My 18mm zeiss is a fair bit sharper for example.

If your 21 is indeed sharper than your cron then maybe its you who needs to examine their methodology ?

[jackal]

oh and notice all the detail on the 21mm (or lack of) is bathed in soft white non-image forming light. Reminds me a lot of the nikon 24 1.4 wide open.


(obviously same default processing, no sharpening, same exposure, same white balance, same lighting exactly, same camera position, timed shutter, tripod used, focus bracketed and the most in focus exposure selected for each lens blah blah...)

[Mauribix]

Originally Posted by jackal

it is very soft on centre certainly at 2.8 and F4.

I feel this is strange, have you made a comparison with another sample of the same lens?
I suspect something's going wrong with your lens by your description, but I'm not an expert

Originally Posted by jackal

Its pretty common knowledge that the 21 elmarit isn't one of leica's sharpest or best lenses, its no big deal.

this sounds odd to me

[Mauribix]

Originally Posted by jackal

same camera position lens.... blah blah...)

That's why this test shouldn't be considered fair.
If you get nearer to the subject (due to different FOV), you'd get obviously different results...

Even in the Leica's MTF charts, the 21elmarit at F2.8 shows major details than 24elmarit.
I guess, as i previously said, that differences between these lenses are mainly due to different FOV...

[vieri]

Originally Posted by jackal

... same camera position, ...[/IMG]

this could be responsible for what you see. Of course, bringing a detail to the same size in two crops extracted from files shoot with the camera IN THE SAME position with two lenses with different focal length result in a different magnification for the detail depending on the lens; thus, the tree coming from a 24mm lens occupies a larger area of the original frame, uses more pixel, is more defined by definition while with the detail out of the 21mm, for the tree to look the same size, you have less pixels available and therefore a less detailed image.

Hope this makes sense...

[Mauribix]

Originally Posted by vieri

Hope this makes sense...

Yep, it does!
That's exactly what i said!

BTW:
Ciao Vieri, come stai?

[vieri]

Originally Posted by Mauribix

Yep, it does!
That's exactly what i said!

BTW:
Ciao Vieri, come stai?

I saw that, but you beat me for a minute - plus, you even attached MFC charts, you are much better prepared than I am

Ciao Maurizio, benone - tu? Magari continuiamo via PM

[jackal]

Originally Posted by vieri

this could be responsible for what you see. Of course, bringing a detail to the same size in two crops extracted from files shoot with the camera IN THE SAME position with two lenses with different focal length result in a different magnification for the detail depending on the lens; thus, the tree coming from a 24mm lens occupies a larger area of the original frame, uses more pixel, is more defined by definition while with the detail out of the 21mm, for the tree to look the same size, you have less pixels available and therefore a less detailed image.

Hope this makes sense...

no sorry it doesnt make any sense
look at the picture again closely

regardless of the size of the tree, its soft ! and is infused with uncontrolled white glow
if i was an inch closer to the tree it wouldnt make it the same as the image on the left !!!

you could look at images with different subjects even (let alone slightly different sizes) and its still patently obvious that the 24 is sharper

bear in mind its just one test as well, there are other tests and dozens of pictures that bear out the same results. its obvious just from regular shots where you dont zoom in 100% and pixel peep, the 24 just 'has it'.

[Mauribix]

Originally Posted by jackal

no sorry it doesnt make any sense
look at the picture again closely

regardless of the size of the tree, its soft ! and is infused with uncontrolled white glow
if i was an inch closer to the tree it wouldnt make it the same as the image on the left !!!

you could look at images with different subjects even (let alone slightly different sizes) and its still patently obvious that the 24 is sharper

bear in mind its just one test as well, there are other tests and dozens of pictures that bear out the same results. its obvious just from regular shots where you dont zoom in 100% and pixel peep, the 24 just 'has it'.

It's not soft, it less contrasty! Maybe the 21 could have a larger DR?
If so, i prefer it.

Keep in mind, that being nearer to the subject makes really a great difference!

Magnification counts.

[tom0511]

without direct comparison my opinion:
both are very good lenses
both are sharp
the 24 pops more, higher contrast more saturation, maybe maybe slightly sharper
the 21 shows smoother transitions and tones
the (my) 21 is not mushy
Overall I prefer the look of the 21

[jackal]

Originally Posted by Mauribix

It's not soft, it less contrasty! Maybe the 21 could have a larger DR?
If so, i prefer it.

Keep in mind, that being nearer to the subject makes really a great difference!

Magnification counts.

if the tree in the 21mm elmarit was twice as big, it would still look soft like it does there in the picture. Im not going to go on about thay anymore, i've done various tests and have folder upon folder of RAW files from the lens that bear out the same findings and it is what it is.Whats more, i've used two of them in the past year, both samples were the same As stated above, in my opinion its most definitely softer than other leica M's, notably the 24mm that the OP was referring to.

tonally it's lovely, but its not especially sharp. As I think sean reid found, the 18mm zeiss is a fair bit sharper as well and the 25mm zeiss is also most definitely sharper. My WATE was also most definitely sharper at 21mm than the elmarit. I think I am right in saying that Sean Reid's in-depth reviews also found this to be the case. Its a great lens, don't get me wrong, but its just not one of leica's sharpest. Its no big deal though, use whatever you like and enjoy.. no leica lens will make your photography any better in any case. Me ? I have both and use both... i'm totally unbiased and couldn't care a less what is sharper, I am just telling you how it is.

[wparsonsgisnet]

ReaiReviews did a serious comparison of wide lenses for the M8, including both of these lenses.

You can see images that reveal the character of these lenses and these images helped me to make my purchase decision. No surprises.

[vieri]

Originally Posted by jackal

Me ? I have both and use both... i'm totally unbiased and couldn't care a less what is sharper, I am just telling you how it is.

...how it is in your opinion, with your camera, and your lenses. Other variables might come into play - besides your test being flawed by relative camera position, your particular copy(es) might not be in the best shape, etc. Sean rated the Leica 21 as the best 21 money can buy, by the way, seeing you quote his review.

Anyway, whatever works for you works for you - whatever works for others, works for others: no absolute truths here. Sharpness is not everything anyway, is it?