jjjjuin Posted October 14, 2009 Share #1 Posted October 14, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) i totally understand both of them deliver incredible quality. For me, wide angle lens attract me for long time. I'm kinda addicted into the 3D effects. I read few reviews about the 21mm 1.4, mostly the authors gave positive comments. I also heard some voices that 21MM 1.4 is too wide and not as versatile as 24MM. Do you think 21mm and 24mm do make big difference? I've had 50mm. 28mm. so which one you would suggest to me? Thank you:) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 Hi jjjjuin, Take a look here Summilux 21 1.4 mm or 24 1.4 mm ?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Marty Posted October 14, 2009 Share #2 Posted October 14, 2009 Can't really comment on the differences as I don't have a 21mm. On the M8 the choice was a bit easier because it had 24mm framelines built in. On the M9 I guess the choice is a little bit more personal. On the other hand like you said they are both incredible so you can't really go wrong Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjjjuin Posted October 14, 2009 Author Share #3 Posted October 14, 2009 hmm. after read more 24mm one's reviews, it seems clearer people are more cater to 24mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjjjuin Posted October 14, 2009 Author Share #4 Posted October 14, 2009 Thank you Marty, you are right. I'm not on the 24mm side thank you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ola.fiske Posted October 14, 2009 Share #5 Posted October 14, 2009 Thank you Marty, you are right. I'm not on the 24mm side thank you. Hi, Here are a link to some beautiful pics taken with the 24 mm lux http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/other/79357-analog-images-new-24-lux.html Best Ola Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted October 14, 2009 Share #6 Posted October 14, 2009 if you gave 28 than I would prefer 21. Do you use it M8 or M9 or film? Do you need f1.4? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_n Posted October 14, 2009 Share #7 Posted October 14, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Focal length preferences are really quite personal. I used a 21 for two years and could never really come to terms with it, I sold it and bought a 24 and instantly felt at home with that focal length, and I still love it and I'm getting a second one. So in my experience, yes there is a big difference between the 21 and 24. I think one of the major issues I had with the 21 was that you had to be right on top of the main subject to create any meaningful DOF effects at all. And I mean truly in their face. This was an f2.8, maybe it's better with an f1.4. I would hope so. However, on my experience I wouldn't advise you to get a 24. You need to go into a store and try both for yourself, rent your preference for a week if you can and then decide. One other thing, after I got the 24 I stopped using my 28 and I use the 24 with a 35. If you love your 28 the 24 may not be for you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
danyves Posted October 14, 2009 Share #8 Posted October 14, 2009 You may or should feel more confortable with the 24. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicaiste Posted October 14, 2009 Share #9 Posted October 14, 2009 Summilux 21 1.4 mm or 24 1.4 mm ? How do you compose and focus a f1,4 lens @ f1,4 switching between the M9's viewfinder and a separate finder ? Lucien Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mym6is12 Posted October 14, 2009 Share #10 Posted October 14, 2009 Only last week, I went for the 21mm f/1.4 to supplement/replace a Zeiss 18mm f/4 which was just too slow to cut it inside. When shooting interiors, if you are not after perspective/converging vertical effects, it's necessary to keep the camera back square on - and then crop : so every bit of width helps. I've also got a 28mm f/2, which is better suited to dynamic situations with out overwhelming optical exaggerations. The 28mm also uses the camera's own internal viewfinder frames, which speeds up the picture taking process - compared to switching between viewfinders with the 21/24. The 24mm seems to fill the ground between the 28 and 21 well, but it's still a very large expensive lens - so again I would rather throw the 28mm around on a day to day basis. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/100139-summilux-21-14-mm-or-24-14-mm/?do=findComment&comment=1074936'>More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted October 14, 2009 Share #11 Posted October 14, 2009 I have no personal experience of the two lenses mentioned (I am not made out of money) but I have used both focal lengths extensively, the 21mm for decades. The 24 is easier to handle: Less risk of perspectival distorsion. The need to level the camera very carefully, or risk seasickness, will slow you down much more than any switch of finders. So I sold my 21 and got myself a 25 instead. I would never buy the Summilux even if I could afford it. I want better performance than that. The disadvantage of 24/25mm is that the step down from 35mm, a great favourite of mine, is pretty small. In that respect, 21 is more fitting. But also more demanding, not only technically, but when I compose the picture. The wider a lens is, the more empty, boring foreground you tend to get. You have to make a progressively greater effort to consciously fill your foregrounds. Ask yourself: Have I not been oversold on the awesome separation effects of the Summilux at full aperture? They are not that great. I have yet to see a published picture that actually sings out loud: This could have been done only by a superwide Summilux! If you really want foreground/background separation, go buy a 50mm Summilux ASPH. Or a 90mm Summarit ... The old man from the Age of the Zeiss Hologon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted October 14, 2009 Share #12 Posted October 14, 2009 How do you compose and focus a f1,4 lens @ f1,4 switching between the M9's viewfinder and a separate finder ? Lucien Hello from central Africa - just a short one - this is a wobbly dial-up. First you compose in the accessory viewfinder, noting the centre, then you use the camera viewfinder for focussing and aiming. 21/24 @ 1.4 is usually not a value for action photography. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted October 14, 2009 Share #13 Posted October 14, 2009 Ask yourself: Have I not been oversold on the awesome separation effects of the Summilux at full aperture? They are not that great. I have yet to see a published picture that actually sings out loud: This could have been done only by a superwide Summilux! If you really want foreground/background separation, go buy a 50mm Summilux ASPH. Or a 90mm Summarit ... Have a look at some of the photos by Brett. There was a series in LFI which had such a look, pre-release. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted October 14, 2009 Share #14 Posted October 14, 2009 Have a look at some of the photos by Brett. There was a series in LFI which had such a look, pre-release. I disagree. There is a simple reason why this does not work: We do not normally, when we see a picture of an unfamiliar place, have any knowledge of the actual spatial geometry of the background. If we had that knowledge, we might well cry out: What a wide angle of view! But without it, we can only say, That's a decently large sitting room. Or, if out of doors: Could have been a 50mm Summarit, at twice the distance. The old man from the Age of the Zeiss Hologon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted October 14, 2009 Share #15 Posted October 14, 2009 Are we talking about the same photos? I mean 8/2008, the photos from the Goodwood Revival event. There are shots there which could not be made with another lens, like page 42 and 44. Given, that was on an M8. I would like to see someone do the same for the M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolu Posted October 14, 2009 Share #16 Posted October 14, 2009 Are we talking about the same photos? I mean 8/2008, the photos from the Goodwood Revival event. There are shots there which could not be made with another lens, like page 42 and 44. Given, that was on an M8. I would like to see someone do the same for the M9. Do you have a link to those? -- What about this one, just to give an idea. http://www.stevehuffphotos.com/Steve_Huff_Photos/Blog/Entries/2009/8/26_THE_LEICA_21_SUMMILUX_1.4_LENS_REVIEW_files/L1010983.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mym6is12 Posted October 14, 2009 Share #17 Posted October 14, 2009 21 Summilux - a set on Flickr Do you have a link to those? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted October 14, 2009 Share #18 Posted October 14, 2009 La Passione on Flickr - Photo Sharing! Dunlop Racing on Flickr - Photo Sharing! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolu Posted October 14, 2009 Share #19 Posted October 14, 2009 21 Summilux - a set on Flickr La Passione on Flickr - Photo Sharing! Dunlop Racing on Flickr - Photo Sharing! Thank you! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjjjuin Posted October 15, 2009 Author Share #20 Posted October 15, 2009 La Passione on Flickr - Photo Sharing! Dunlop Racing on Flickr - Photo Sharing! wow,, what a adorable album . like it so much. thank you Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.