Using Puts "One Lens" lens -- the 24mm f2.8 asph

[wparsonsgisnet]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been working to use flash to capture some rehearsal photos of the bride's dances.

 

The attached photo is taken with the M(240) and the 24mm f.28 lens.  Puts calls this "the one lens every M user should have."

 

I am also using my newly acquired Quantum T5DR strobes with their electric power packs and the HongNuo radio transmitters recommended so highly on this forum.

 

The image is about 1/4 of the 24x36 sensor size and I am about 30 feet from the dancers.  Shot at f2.8 and 1/125 sec.

 

I use this lens for weddings along with the 35 'lux asph (now fle).

 

There's nothing earth-shaking about the image, except for the technical superiority of the hardware.  I spent a couple of hours yesterday, shooting happily with light to spare and nice, crisp images.  A real treat.

 

Regards to all,  Bill

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited April 12, 2015 by wparsonsgisnet

[chris_tribble]

And one I've never used. 28 and 50 seem to be my bread and butter lenses these days and always come out for performance and event work. Not sure how the 24 would fit in with these and my trusty non-asph 21.

Can you elaborate on its goodness (apart from its technical excellence)?

Thanks

Chris

[Advertisement]

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

[Herr Barnack]

Nice image - I like the rendering of this lens.

 

Herr Puts offers his commentary on the M 24mm f/2.8 ASPH here (see pg. 27/83):  http://www.overgaard.dk/pdf/Leica-M-Lenses-Their-Soul-and-Secrets_en.pdf

[wparsonsgisnet]

Well, looking to the link Carlos posted, Puts actually said, "No Leica lens user should be without this lens."

To answer Chris, the way this lens feels to me is accurate and critically sharp.  I use it for portrait work because it just gets out of the way.  I zone focus and talk to the subject -- the camera just isn't there.

 

I also use it for wedding work because of the wide coverage and the same convenience as for portraits.

 

It does distort a little bit along the short side of the sensor at the edge of the image.

 

Here's another shot from the same session on Saturday, 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[FrozenInTime]

I don't buy into "No Leica lens user should be without this lens."

As good as the 24mm might be - the inconvenience of using an external OVF makes the 28mm lenses more practical.

If wide is needed the step to 21mm justifies the OVF.

[chris_tribble]

I don't buy into "No Leica lens user should be without this lens."

As good as the 24mm might be - the inconvenience of using an external OVF makes the 28mm lenses more practical.

If wide is needed the step to 21mm justifies the OVF.

I tend to agree - though if Bill is able to get lovely shots like the one above and is happy working with external VF (or live view) then more power to him .

Each to his own in the end ...

[wparsonsgisnet]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I only use the rangefinder to focus and rarely for any other purpose.

I use a slightly wider lens and focus or zone focus, then just look around and click the shutter.  The camera is mostly on a monopod.

I can see what the lens is seeing in the review panel.

[otto.f]

I agree with Puts. I use it without a separate viewfinder because the total frame of the RF-viewfinder, including the space outside the 28mm frame, is about the 24mm. Never had problems with this way of working. A 21mm would require a separate viewfinder and it's not my lens because of the perspective lines are too much for me. A 28mm is less my angle than a 24mm. So I jump from 15 (fun) to 24 to 35, etc.

Cropping with the 24mm: I never found unexceptable quality drop after cropping.

Edited April 13, 2015 by otto.f

[wda]

I can see why Leica made a range of focal length lenses. We all have our favourites, but tend to agree with Chris over the 28 and 50.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I have. well worn 24mm Elmarit ASPH I picked up some time ago. Great lens.

 

However I use it rarely as I also use a 28 and 50mm combination. When I go wide I usually reach for the WATE.

 

Gordon

[wparsonsgisnet]

i have a WATE at the top of my wish list.  The f4 wouldn't help in replacing the 24 f2.8, tho.

[Mornnb]

I have. well worn 24mm Elmarit ASPH I picked up some time ago. Great lens.

 

However I use it rarely as I also use a 28 and 50mm combination. When I go wide I usually reach for the WATE.

 

Gordon

Agreed. I prefer to go for the 28mm Elmarit, plus a 15mm Voigtlander for when wide is really required. 

 

I also have the WATE on my wish list.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Mornnb

[bocaburger]

I shoot mostly outdoor photography, and always admired the work of the late Galen Rowell.  His stated 2 favorite lenses were 24 and 80.  I picked up a 24/2.8 Nikkor (still own it) but it never sang to me.  Neither does a 28.  20/21-35-80/85/90 fit my way of seeing best.  That's what it's really about.  No matter how technically excellent a lens is, if the focal length doesn't fit my way of seeing, the resulting images will be technically awesome but esthetically blah.  And the former doesn't seem to mitigate the latter in the eyes of most viewers.

[mtsullivan]

The 24 Elmarit-M is an amazing lens! One of the few lenses I regret selling. It has an almost 3D rendering. And with practice, could easily be used without an external viewfinder. I've used all three Leica 24's and found the Elmarit to be a great, great lens.

[IkarusJohn]

I shoot mostly outdoor photography, and always admired the work of the late Galen Rowell.  His stated 2 favorite lenses were 24 and 80.  I picked up a 24/2.8 Nikkor (still own it) but it never sang to me.  Neither does a 28.  20/21-35-80/85/90 fit my way of seeing best.  That's what it's really about.  No matter how technically excellent a lens is, if the focal length doesn't fit my way of seeing, the resulting images will be technically awesome but esthetically blah.  And the former doesn't seem to mitigate the latter in the eyes of most viewers.

 

Galen Rowell!  I have his Mountain Light on the shelf next to me.  He and Ansel Adams really inspired me in my early photographic days.  As I recall, he was also very keen on the Nikkor 180mm f/2.8, one of my favourite lenses.  On lens selection, he makes the following comment:

 

 

In order to decide on a lens, I thought out the scene in terms of a number of compromises.  No obvious composition struck me, but I knew that I couldn't vary much from a level horizon without tilting the trees in the upper right so much that they looked disturbing.  I wanted to have a pleasing, random-looking order to the image, so first I tried my 35mm f/1.4 lens, but found it unsatisfactory because in order to get both the waterfall and the distant cliffs in focus I would have to use an aperture of f/22, an aperture the lens didn't have.  Even if I had been carrying a 35mm lens with such an aperture, I couldn't have handheld a sharp image at the slow speed it would have required.

 

With my 24mm lens I could shoot at 1/15 second even though it was pushing the limits of handheld sharpness.  Since I had no place to brace in tall brush, I held my breath and made more than one image at each aperture to ensure that I would get one perfect one. 

 

My starting point with an f/1.4 lens in low light, then shifting to a wider f/2.8 lens, underscores my overall experience in trying to use fast, heavy lenses for landscape photography.  IN theory it sounds better to have, say, an f/1.4 lens in stead of an f/2.8 for low light, but in practice I rarely make a decent landscape image at less than f/5.6 [Edit - No shit, Sherlock] because of the need for depth of field; therefore, I almost never have the need for a fast lens unless I am photographing action. 

 

 

The image he is talking of is in Sequoia National Park.

 

I find I get the range I want with either a 28mm lens (almost "normal") or a 21mm (with the care that is needed with an ultra-wide).

[JHellow]

I have had this lens for a couple of years and use it paired with the 50 Apo.  I don't think it gives up much to the 50 Apo in image quality.  They draw in a similar fashion, as compared to the 35 Summilux FLE, which seems a bit frenetic in the way it handles bokeh.

[rsmphoto]

I agree with Puts. I use it without a separate viewfinder because the total frame of the RF-viewfinder, including the space outside the 28mm frame, is about the 24mm. Never had problems with this way of working. A 21mm would require a separate viewfinder and it's not my lens because of the perspective lines are too much for me. A 28mm is less my angle than a 24mm. So I jump from 15 (fun) to 24 to 35, etc.

Cropping with the 24mm: I never found unexceptable quality drop after cropping.

 

This has been my experience as well. I use the entire frame of the viewfinder to great effect. I find the 24/2.8 M an exceptional tool for landscapes.

[sml_photo]

I am intrigued by this lens and this discussion about it.

Just wondering...why was it discontinued?  And, what is the equivalent?  The 24mm f3.8 ASPH? Or the 1.4?  (Big jump from 1.4 to 3.8!)

And a question I've had has been answered, I suppose...as stated above.  That is, the viewfinder itself in the M240 is about equivalent to the 24mm view.  Right?

[wparsonsgisnet]

I am intrigued by this lens and this discussion about it.

Just wondering...why was it discontinued?  And, what is the equivalent?  The 24mm f3.8 ASPH? Or the 1.4?  (Big jump from 1.4 to 3.8!)

And a question I've had has been answered, I suppose...as stated above.  That is, the viewfinder itself in the M240 is about equivalent to the 24mm view.  Right?

Stephen, I can't speak to the viewfinder view because:

1. I don't use the viewfinder, and 

2. It is not always clear to me what the viewfinder is showing at different distances (there is much discussion about this on the Forum).

 

I take a test shot and see what the viewer screen shows me.

 

As stated above, I use the RF for focusing and then ignore the viewfinder when I am shooting.  I look at what I am shooting and hit the shutter.

 

My 24mm lens was made in 1997.

Since this time the f1.4 came out.

 

Leica only has 3 elves in their fabrication shop, so many lenses get discontinued, tho fortunately they are available used.  

 

The 50mm f1.0 has been discontinued and replaced by the 0.95.  The earlier lens had one piece of glass that was responsible for 1/2 of the cost of the entire lens!  That glass used a rare earth element.

 

There was a 50mm f2.0 DR (dual range) close-focusing lens that I have been using since 1970.  This is the non-retracting lens before the asph versions came out and the DR version has a very special drawing characteristic.  I like to use this lens for children because of the soft and warm character of the rendering.

 

You may want to get some of the publications about Leica lenses, such as those by Erwin Puts.  Also, following the threads on this forum gives recommendations from users (what could be better?).

 

Thorsten von Overgaard's site is miraculous and a gotta-read for everyone.

 

I purchased the 24 f.28, a 50mm f1.4 DR, a 75mm f1.4, and many other lenses used.  Of course, ALL of them just seem to go up in price.

 

Best regards,  Bill

Edited April 15, 2015 by wparsonsgisnet

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[sml_photo]

Stephen, My lens was made in 1997.

Since this time the f1.4 came out.

 

Leica only has 3 elves in their fabrication shop, so many lenses get discontinued, tho fortunately they are available used. 

Thanks, Bill!

I especially like the part about the three elves!  I can picture that in my mind...

 

I'm thinking about getting this lens.  A good compliment to my 35mm.  28 is too close and 21 needs the EVF.  And I don't want the size, weight, and expense of the 1.4.

My second choice would be the 24 f3.8 ASPH which would probably serve my purposes, too.  Probably don't need the extra stops.  (I have a 24mm 1.4 with my DSLR and rarely use it wide open...)

(I had a 35 Summilux, 50 Summicron, and 90 Tele-Elmarit with my M4 in the 70's.  Though I don't know how I focused the 90!  haha)

 

Again, thanks for your response!