What's wrong with 24 mm?

[F.Juul]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I currently have three M lenses for my M9-P: 35 ASPH Summicron, 50 Summicron and 90 ASPH APO Summicron. Of these the 35 mm is the less used lens, and when I turn to it I often find that I would have liked something wider. So, I have considered replacing the 35 with something else and have three options in mind:

 

1. A 28 mm Summicron
2. A 24 mm 2.8 ASPH Elmarit, which I can find used at a decent price 
3. The 21 mm SEM

 

The price and availability of used copies of these three lenses suggests that the 24 mm is the one that is less wanted. I have also heard different things like “an odd format” etc. by various web gurus (self acclaimed gurus).

 

So, my question to you LUF users: Is there something wrong with the 24 mm that I should know of, or is it awkward to use?

Edited May 1, 2015 by F.Juul

[hiepphotog]

Focal length (or FOV to be more accurate) is a personal thing. You have to try them out to really see what is suitable for your style. Web gurus and other users can't really provide the answer. Like me, I can't never get used to with the 35 focal length even though it's quite popular.

[Advertisement]

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

[jrp]

 Often, when you want it wider, you want it really wider. 

[IWC Doppel]

The 24mm FOV is great, it's about as wide as you can go without startung to create that distant look needing to get something close to add interest unless it's not  landscape of architecture.

 

I use 28, 24 and 21. A 24 feels more like a wider 28 than a narrower 21 to me.

 

The Elmarit ASPH is stellar and worthy of the praise placed on it. It has real 3D and the balance of rendering, perspective and clarity ensures it makes the top list of extra special Leica M lenses for me. It was over £3k when it went out of production and it's a bargain today

Edited May 1, 2015 by IWC Doppel

[fotografr]

IMHO, there's nothing at all wrong with the 24mm Elmarit asph. It's a spectacular lens. I've never had any desire to go any wider. The resolving power is superb. One very nice thing about the 24mm is that it can be effectively used without an optional VF. If you are able to get your eye very close to the camera so as to see area outside the 28mm frame lines, what you see is very close to what you get. Anything wider requires either a lot of guesswork or an optional VF.

Edited May 1, 2015 by fotografr

[jaapv]

I prefer 24 mm over 21 or 28, as it is the more versatile of wideangles which combines well with both 35 and 50. If I want to go wider I will skip 21 and go to 18 immediately, so for me 24 is the ideal focal length in moderate superwideangle.

[mirekti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have had 21mm SEM, but ended up with 24mm Elmar and couldn't be happier. 21mm SEM was great, but too demanding for me. With 24mm all seems to remain natural.
My 24mm is paired with 35mm, and they complement well.
If I ever decide I need anything wider it will most likely be CV15mm.

[timde]

This might not be a popular view ... but the 24 looks a little unattractive/odd when compared to the 21 and 28 listed, it takes 55mm filter, and the other two use 46mm which is a common size for Leica, as with 39mm. For those reasons I find that the 24 is a little bit odd, perhaps that is one reason you are finding them at a better price. However your 90 APO has 55mm filter thread so perhaps for you its actually a good fit?

 

There is also the 24mm Elmar which is cheaper and lighter ... perhaps that is also an impact on resale price of the f2.8?

 

 

Edit: Let me rephrase, if I was looking for a 24mm Leica-m I would take the Elmar because its smaller and lighter and fits my existing filters (and its probably cheaper too). I can't be the only person who thinks that way and so that 24mm you are looking at might be a good deal!

Edited May 1, 2015 by timde

[01af]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the 24 mm focal length. On 35-mm format, it's the widest wide-angle that is not yet super-wide ... in other words, it's very wide but still natural, as others already have pointed out above. Super-wide-angle lenses, in contrast, tend to render an unnatural, surreal look which can lead to breath-taking vistas (when used properly) but also can get in the way of natural image composition.

 

So for 35-mm format, there are the wide-angle lenses (light, medium, strong = 35 mm, 28 mm, 24 mm). And then there are the super-wides, starting at 21 mm, and shorter.

 

For the Leica M rangefinder specifically, 24 mm ist the first focal length that isn't covered by the internal viewfinder but requires an auxiliary finder. Hence, many users feel theyd be better off with a 28 mm lens which doesn't require any accessories. Others feel if they have to go through the hassle of an additional viewfinder then they'd better go real wide, i. e. 21 mm or 18 mm. That's why the 24 mm local length is slightly less popular in the M system. But that's a purely technical reason which has nothing to do with image quality or creative potential.

 

Personally, I prefer 24 mm over 20/21 mm when shooting a 35-mm-format SLR camera but prefer 21 mm over 24 mm when shooting an M camera. No idea as to why this is. Just an observation. I was surprised of myself when I became aware of this.

Edited May 1, 2015 by 01af

[arthurgalvao]

I prefer 24 mm over 21 or 28, as it is the more versatile of wideangles which combines well with both 35 and 50. If I want to go wider I will skip 21 and go to 18 immediately, so for me 24 is the ideal focal length in moderate superwideangle.

 

Ditto. 

[F.Juul]

Thank you all for your thoughts on this - they are most helpful.

Right now I think I have narrowed my choice down to 24 F2.8 or 28 F2.

Issues I am considering: size, price, speed, external viewfinder or not - and of course the extra 4 mm or not

 

Any more thoughts on the initial question would be highly appreciated 

[F.Juul]

IMHO, there's nothing at all wrong with the 24mm Elmarit asph. It's a spectacular lens. I've never had any desire to go any wider. The resolving power is superb. One very nice thing about the 24mm is that it can be effectively used without an optional VF. If you are able to get your eye very close to the camera so as to see area outside the 28mm frame lines, what you see is very close to what you get. Anything wider requires either a lot of guesswork or an optional VF.

So, just to understand it fully: Can the 24mm Elmarit (55mm filter) effectively be used without an external viewfinder?

[jrp]

If you wear glasses you will need to use live view either way as it is hard to see the edges of a 28mm. 

[F.Juul]

If you wear glasses you will need to use live view either way as it is hard to see the edges of a 28mm. 

Well, since I'm using an M9-P live view is currently out of reach, but I don't wear glasses when shooting.

Anyway, I would like to know if it is possible to use a 28 mm Summicron as well as a 24 mm F2.8 Elmarit effectively without an external viewfinder on a M9 camera? I guess that some finder blockage would be OK for me when composing pictures.

[gpwhite]

Well, since I'm using an M9-P live view is currently out of reach, but I don't wear glasses when shooting.

Anyway, I would like to know if it is possible to use a 28 mm Summicron as well as a 24 mm F2.8 Elmarit effectively without an external viewfinder on a M9 camera? I guess that some finder blockage would be OK for me when composing pictures.

 

Absolutely!

 

I recommend the 24mm Elmarit ASPH as drawing beautiful lines, hardly noticeable distortion and lots of micro contrast. I have six Leica WA, all of which I shoot often, and the 24mm Elmarit is my favorite. My guess about the "awkward format" description is that the perspective created by a 24mm requires particular attention and skill in composition... 24mm is truly WA, whereas 28mm is more like a very generous normal lens. Shooters who are not accustomed to WA will be thrown off, likely shooting wide views of very little objects that appear far off in the distance. With a 24mm, you want to be quite close to the subject and let the context surround or fall away. The 24mm Elmarit is exceptionally sharp, minimum focus @ f/2.8. That is how how I use mine. The 24mm Elmar is technically superior in comparison to any WA made anywhere, but not as pleasing at minimum focus and really offers no OOF separation.

 

The 28mm Summicron ASPH has an edgier look than the 24mm Elmarit and is good into the corners at any aperture. Incidentally, you can see most of the corners for the 28mm using the RF viewfinder, so you can really count on the great lens rendering all of that crisply. I like to shoot with both the 28 and the 24 because their looks and effective perspectives are so different from each other. Minimum focus with the 28mm suffers somewhat, unlike the 24mm Elmarit. There is clearly sample variation with the 28mm Summicron ASPH, so you want to shoot it before you buy (several theories about the cause in other threads on this forum). A good copy will deliver a benchmark lens.

 

I never use a WA viewfinder, as the process of going back and forth to the RF window is completely contrary to the M experience, at least for me, and the information you gain from the WA attachment is not very accurate anyways. If you are working to capture a particular outline for the image, check the LCD.

[F.Juul]

Absolutely!

 

I recommend the 24mm Elmarit ASPH as drawing beautiful lines, hardly noticeable distortion and lots of micro contrast. I have six Leica WA, all of which I shoot often, and the 24mm Elmarit is my favorite. My guess about the "awkward format" description is that the perspective created by a 24mm requires particular attention and skill in composition... 

 

Thank you very much! This really answers a lot of my questions. I'm leaning more and more towards the 24mm. 

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts and experiences.

[jrp]

I still have an M9, which I should really have sold, as I like wide angle shooting and it is not really feasible without live view beyond 28mm or in my case 35mm, since I wear glasses.  However, I would never use it for wide angle shots now, as the viewfinders are pretty crude and very expensive for their performance.  For wide angle, since you are, at some point, going to end up with an M240 or successor, they are a waste of $€£ and another thing to have to fiddle with if you need to change focal length.

 

if you already have 35mm, then I suspect that 28mm is too close, although it's a nice focal length, and if you can get a cheap lens with a different rendering characteristic from what you currently have, go for it.  Otherwise, I'd be inclined to separate focal lengths by 1.5 or 2 and / or alternate fast lenses with high performing ones across focal lengths (the current Leica wide angle line up consists of fast, sexy, but stretched luxes, and slow, as good as it gets, rits, including the 21mm that you mention).

 

Otherwise, otherwise, I'd save for an M240 first and contemplate a wider range of lenses later.  Both wider and short lenses will work better on it.  The M9's comfort zone is 35mm and 50mm, with 28mm and 70mm as viable alternatives, if  you keep the 1.5/2 focal length separation factor.

 

My ½¢pd¥€$£₽₨₩௹₰₤

[mirekti]

So, just to understand it fully: Can the 24mm Elmarit (55mm filter) effectively be used without an external viewfinder?

I own Elmar so not sure how much bigger Elmarit is.

I don't wear glasses and what you see in the viewfinder is more or less what you get. It is a bit of struggling, but it works for me.

[bocaburger]

Paraphrasing Edwin Hawkins:  "24mm, what is it good for?  Absolutely nothing!  Say it again!"   Just kidding!!!!!  I think I've said this before, one of my photo idols is the late Galen Rowell, who said his 2 most-used lenses were 24 and 85 (he was a Nikon shooter).   I've had a 24/2.8 Nikkor since forever (mine's a converted-to-Ai from the late 60's), just never warmed up to the focal length, so was never tempted by the Leica version.  I've always prefered 21-35-90 as a minimalist travel outfit.  Back in the day I had the f/3.4 S/A, went up to the Elmarit Pre-ASPH (which I still own after a brief trial stint with the ASPH which I didn't find enough better to warrant keeping).  Nowadays I'm more likely to travel with the tiny CV 21.  The only time I carry a 28 is if I'm basically shooting a 50 and want a single W/A to take along just in case.  Like someone said, it's a very personal thing.  I find the 24 too much of an in-between focal length.  I either want something wider or longer. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[adan]

Nothing wrong with the 24 Elmarit. But "24mm" is a very late late-comer to the Leica M line - the system was 44 years old (1998) before Leica decided to include a focal length between 21mm and 28mm. (Nikon and Canon had 25mm lenses by 1960, for their own mounts and/or in the Leica screw-mount).

 

Historically, Leitz was not all that comfortable designing superwide lenses - they farmed out the M 21mm designs to Schneider (Super-Angulons) until 1980, and "borrowed" the original Zeiss Hologon 15mm in a mount for the M. (Pushed by competition, they were a bit more adventurous with the R line - but still leaned heavily on Schneider (21, 28PC, 35PA, 15 v.2), Minolta (24, 16 fish) and Zeiss (15 v.1) for wide-angle lens designs).

 

Conversely, Nikon produced a 24mm f/2.8 (same as bocaburger's) for the F-mount, that far outperformed their own 20mm and 28mm lenses for a combination of speed, wideness, sharpness and size, from the 1960's until the early 80's.

 

So for photographers of a certain age, growing up in either the Leica M or Nikon F systems - THE superwide, by default or choice, was 21mm (Leica) or 24mm (Nikon). These just became habit.