sclamb Posted November 4, 2009 Share #81 Posted November 4, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I've been using the 24 Lux for some time now. When I first got it I did experience some CA and communicated with Leica about it. The response was that it was a mild compromise easily dealt with in LR, ACR in order to have a very fast 24mm M lens that didn't get too big ... "too big" being the operative words. In practice Leica was right ... the lens is incredibly sharp out to the edges and only occasionally produces CA ... at which time I deal with it ... a process that takes all of 5 seconds when needed, which isn't often. I'd say that if one bought a 21/1.4 lens at that price point to shoot in bright light, perhaps a 21/2.8 ASPH would be a better choice. I tend to use it in dim ambient light with strong light sources against darker backgrounds, and experience very little CA ... and when it shows up usually about a 12 to 18 setting on the slider totally eliminates it. IMO, this lens is optimized for low light for those that need that end of the performance scale ... of which I am one. However, even in daylight situations I've never experienced CA at the level being shown by the OP. -Marc (M9 ISO 800, 24/1.4 ASPH) Marc If you look at my pictures posted within this thread, do you feel they are within what you have experienced with your 24/1.4? Simon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 4, 2009 Posted November 4, 2009 Hi sclamb, Take a look here 21mm Summilux on M9. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jonoslack Posted November 4, 2009 Share #82 Posted November 4, 2009 I'm following this thread with great interest as I have been considering the 21 lux for my M8 to have an equivalent 28/1.4. This is a most used FL for me on my D3 where the nikon 28/1.4 gets a lot of action in clubs and other low light work. In fact I was considering selling my nikon to help fund the leica 21. While I would be concerned about any M9 in my future in terms of this problem, can anyone speak to whether this CA (or whatever) is significantly worse on the M9 than on the M8 as may well be the case? This would be very helpful to me, and probably other M8 owners. Thanks in advance....Peter Hi Peter I think that most people would accept that (for printing purposes at least), the M9 offers at least 1 stop advantage over the M8 because of the increased pixel count. So why not just use a 28 'cron on an M9, much smaller, with less compromises, added to which, the M9 body isn't that much more expensive than the 24 'lux Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sclamb Posted November 4, 2009 Share #83 Posted November 4, 2009 Hi PeterI think that most people would accept that (for printing purposes at least), the M9 offers at least 1 stop advantage over the M8 because of the increased pixel count. So why not just use a 28 'cron on an M9, much smaller, with less compromises, added to which, the M9 body isn't that much more expensive than the 24 'lux Yes indeed, if you love 28mm then go for the Cron and M9. Ah but wait, what about the 28/1.4 - will we ever see it Simon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted November 5, 2009 Share #84 Posted November 5, 2009 i do believe that leica was right and honest when they said that it was a design compromise to accept the CA in order not to make the 21mm and 24mm luxes too large. but a compromise for 5000.- euros????? this is really annoying and shows the bad attitude of leica towards its customers. if a nikon lens for 800.- euros shows that kind of performance i can live with it. but not for 5000.- euros. btw, check out the CA of the noctilux 0.95. another design compromise in order not to make it too large? for 8000.- euros? peter I have the 0.95 ... CA is not an issue except in severe conditions ... and disappears with a click of one button. It doesn't show up at all in low light even with strong light sources in the frame. I just shot some lower light stuff with a 50/1.4 ASPH and 75/2 ASPH on the M9 and the specular highlights showed red CA ... also is gone in 2 seconds. Set the defringe button as a default connected to the M9s serial number and you'll never even see it in LR. None of this has affected my picture taking or IQ that I expect from the M ... which I shoot side-by-side against a Sony A900 and Nikon D3X in the same lighting conditions ... and the M9 stuff jumps out at you. BTW, I don't think $8,000. for a D3X to be inexpensive ... and IMO the M9 IQ is more to my liking. Fortunately, if one doesn't like these new lenses one need not buy them. An f/4 WATE is unusable for my work, where a f/1.4 or 0.95 is ... it's as simple as that : -) -Marc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohnri Posted November 5, 2009 Share #85 Posted November 5, 2009 I've been using the 24 Lux for some time now. When I first got it I did experience some CA and communicated with Leica about it. The response was that it was a mild compromise easily dealt with in LR, ACR in order to have a very fast 24mm M lens that didn't get too big ... "too big" being the operative words. In practice Leica was right ... the lens is incredibly sharp out to the edges and only occasionally produces CA ... at which time I deal with it ... a process that takes all of 5 seconds when needed, which isn't often. I'd say that if one bought a 21/1.4 lens at that price point to shoot in bright light, perhaps a 21/2.8 ASPH would be a better choice. I tend to use it in dim ambient light with strong light sources against darker backgrounds, and experience very little CA ... and when it shows up usually about a 12 to 18 setting on the slider totally eliminates it. IMO, this lens is optimized for low light for those that need that end of the performance scale ... of which I am one. However, even in daylight situations I've never experienced CA at the level being shown by the OP. -Marc (M9 ISO 800, 24/1.4 ASPH) This applies exactly to my 21 lux on my M9. Certainly this does not rise to anything close to the level of a design flaw as some others have intimated. Even shooting against a blown out sky it is easy to correct the CA so that it is all but invisible in prints at 40 inches plus on the long side. If I REALLY need to avoid the CA I will use my WATE which has less than my 21 lux (though still some). The 21 lux is a fantastic lens and well worth every penny. Best, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerimager Posted November 5, 2009 Share #86 Posted November 5, 2009 Hi Jono and Simon. I've been coming to the same conclusion. I love the 28 cron and images you guys have been posting with it on the M9 have looked magnificent. My thinking was that once I get the M9 having a true 21/1.4 would be pretty special, but I'm beginning to lean toward your suggestion indeed. Thanks.....Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted November 5, 2009 Share #87 Posted November 5, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi Jono and Simon. I've been coming to the same conclusion. I love the 28 cron and images you guys have been posting with it on the M9 have looked magnificent. My thinking was that once I get the M9 having a true 21/1.4 would be pretty special, but I'm beginning to lean toward your suggestion indeed. Thanks.....Peter IMO, the 28/2 ASPH and M9 are a marriage made in heaven. No aux. viewfinder needed. The 28/2, 50 Lux and a 90 mm of some flavor is a great combo kit for most applications. Lenses like the 21 or 24 Lux and Noctilux(s) are really need based speciality lenses IMO ... worth it IF you need them on a fairly regular basis for the type of work you do, or a look you want. In the low light conditions I shoot in on a regular basis, the difference between 24/2.8 ASPH on the M8 and 24/1.4 ASPH on the M9 is the difference between getting the shot ... or not. Horses for courses. -Marc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sclamb Posted November 5, 2009 Share #88 Posted November 5, 2009 This applies exactly to my 21 lux on my M9. Certainly this does not rise to anything close to the level of a design flaw as some others have intimated. Even shooting against a blown out sky it is easy to correct the CA so that it is all but invisible in prints at 40 inches plus on the long side. If I REALLY need to avoid the CA I will use my WATE which has less than my 21 lux (though still some). The 21 lux is a fantastic lens and well worth every penny. Best, Bill So Bill, having seen the OPs pictures at the start of this thread, do you think they are OK or does his lens seem to behave differently to yours? Simon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sclamb Posted November 5, 2009 Share #89 Posted November 5, 2009 Hi Jono and Simon. I've been coming to the same conclusion. I love the 28 cron and images you guys have been posting with it on the M9 have looked magnificent. My thinking was that once I get the M9 having a true 21/1.4 would be pretty special, but I'm beginning to lean toward your suggestion indeed. Thanks.....Peter Well personally I would love a 28/1.4. If Leica ever produce one then I may have to trade the 24/1.4 or a kidney, but thus far the 24/1.4 is an exceptionally good lens. Yes it has CA at wider apertures, but not all the time and it is easily dealt with. But the detail in the pictures is astonishing. Simon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted November 5, 2009 Share #90 Posted November 5, 2009 Well personally I would love a 28/1.4. If Leica ever produce one then I may have to trade the 24/1.4 or a kidney, but thus far the 24/1.4 is an exceptionally good lens. Yes it has CA at wider apertures, but not all the time and it is easily dealt with. But the detail in the pictures is astonishing. Simon Simon, Sadly for my bank account, if Leica does bring out a 28/1.4, I will also be rushing down to my Leica dealer. The only 28 I currently have is on my Tri-Elmar and I really like the FOV on my M9. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohnri Posted November 6, 2009 Share #91 Posted November 6, 2009 So Bill, having seen the OPs pictures at the start of this thread, do you think they are OK or does his lens seem to behave differently to yours? Simon His shot is of a building and mine are of foliage so it is difficult for me to say if his lens is different from mine. I will say his shot looks as if it would be simple to correct with a bit of post processing. I have yet to find a shot of mine where I could not easily deal with the lateral CA. They all look fine when printed, even large prints of over 40 inches per side. In low light I have found no problems thus far with CA even with strong light sources in the frame. If someone wants a lens to use outdoors in the sunlight and never wants to do post processing and can't abide the lateral CA then I would advise against the 21 lux. Best, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
clam2033 Posted November 16, 2009 Share #92 Posted November 16, 2009 Are you shooting with or without the IR filter? There is some suggestion that the IR filter is problematic with cameras other than M8. Hi, I took delivery of my copy yesterday. Whilst I haven't been able to test fully yet, initial shots suggest a very high degree of CA in high key shots. Also noticeable in highlights. It seems fairly independent of the aperture - from 1.4 (where I could tolerate it) right through to F16. I shot RAW into lightroom and also shot the same scene using a Hasselblad H3D & Nikon D3 (and WA lenses). Will post comparisons tomorrow night so you can see what I'm talking about. Has anyone else experienced this on the M9 ? I need to figure out if I have a bad copy or whether it is the interplay with the camera. Rgds Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicaiste Posted November 16, 2009 Share #93 Posted November 16, 2009 Yes indeed, if you love 28mm then go for the Cron and M9. Ah but wait, what about the 28/1.4 - will we ever see it Simon The DOF of the 21/1,4 @ f1,4 on the M8 is pretty close to the DOF of the 28/2 @ f2 on the M9. At 1 m the difference will be 0 mm, and at 3 m it will be 5 mm. Online Depth of Field Calculator Lucien Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgray Posted November 16, 2009 Share #94 Posted November 16, 2009 Are you shooting with or without the IR filter?There is some suggestion that the IR filter is problematic with cameras other than M8. I don't think it's some suggestion, the IR filter should be totally problematic on any full frame camera at 21mm. And not something minor like CA, but huge color vignetting in the corners. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.