vertekijker Posted November 1, 2009 Share #1 Posted November 1, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I am verly lucky to have been able to take pictures for the past week with the new M9. It is a fabulous machine. But the switch to full format has not been all that easy. For the past years my 24mm Elm sat 96% of the time on my M8. I shot all my street photos from the hip - after years of practice I missed very few shots in terms of composition. I am now using the 28cron - comes fairly close to the '32mm' of the 'cropped' M8. The composing of the pictures is starting to get easier, but I keep taking pictures from too far away. With time that will get resolved too. But I miss my 24mm something terrible. I tried it on the M9, but it seems to be really too wide angle for street photography - I could of course crop everything so that I end up with the 1.33 crop factor after all... Seems to beat the purpose of the full frame though... I guess that the 24mm gave me also some magical tones that I have yet to discover in the 28cron. Do other members feel this too about the 24mm vs 28cron? The pictures are very sharp, but that glow seems to be missing. Maybe if I give it more time. Another alternative is to use the 35mm, but that is too tight for the kind of photography that I do. Maybe Leica can make a 32mm that gives the same magical glow as the 24mm Elm... -------------- Frans Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 1, 2009 Posted November 1, 2009 Hi vertekijker, Take a look here Switch M8/24mm to M9/28mm. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Shootist Posted November 1, 2009 Share #2 Posted November 1, 2009 Have you tried the 35 cron or Lux on the M9, which is closer to the 24 on the M8 then the 28 on the M9. Could be just what you're looking for. I suspect what you're also missing is that little extra DOF the 24 gave you on the M8. If you use a 35 on the M9 that will be cut back even further. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yanidel Posted November 1, 2009 Share #3 Posted November 1, 2009 I guess that the 24mm gave me also some magical tones that I have yet to discover in the 28cron. Do other members feel this too about the 24mm vs 28cron? The pictures are very sharp, but that glow seems to be missing. Maybe if I give it more time.Another alternative is to use the 35mm, but that is too tight for the kind of photography that I do. Maybe Leica can make a 32mm that gives the same magical glow as the 24mm Elm... -------------- Frans I fully agree, I always thought the 24mm Elmarit was much better than the 28mm Cron on the M8. Very sharp, crispy and warm colors. When the M9 comes I will go 24mm - 35mm Lux and probably sell the 28mm Cron. Only issue it that I feel the look is quite different between the 35mm Lux and 24mm Elmarit so will need to see how it goes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vertekijker Posted November 1, 2009 Author Share #4 Posted November 1, 2009 Have you tried the 35 cron or Lux on the M9, which is closer to the 24 on the M8 then the 28 on the M9.Could be just what you're looking for. I suspect what you're also missing is that little extra DOF the 24 gave you on the M8. If you use a 35 on the M9 that will be cut back even further. Yes, exactly - I could set my focus between 1 and 5 meters for f8 and didn't have to worry about focusing any longer... --------------- Frans Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vertekijker Posted November 1, 2009 Author Share #5 Posted November 1, 2009 I fully agree, I always thought the 24mm Elmarit was much better than the 28mm Cron on the M8. Very sharp, crispy and warm colors. When the M9 comes I will go 24mm - 35mm Lux and probably sell the 28mm Cron. Only issue it that I feel the look is quite different between the 35mm Lux and 24mm Elmarit so will need to see how it goes. We'll compare notes, Yanidel! ----------- Frans Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spylaw4 Posted November 1, 2009 Share #6 Posted November 1, 2009 Same problem coming up here. 24mm Elmar-M is a favourite on M8 but I hate add-on viewfinders so it looks like a 28 Elmarit is on the cards, but will it have the same "look"? At least it will have an extra stop! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishblimp Posted November 1, 2009 Share #7 Posted November 1, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) i have the same problem but even more so. I had been happy with my 28mm on my M8.2 and had my 21mm for when i wanted wider than that. My next lens up is a 50mm. So, now that I have an M9, I feel that the 21 is WAAAYYY too wide for my tastes. Also, the idea of getting a 35mm seems to be overkill (because then i'd have a 21, 28 a 35 and a 50). That's just too much stuff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
danyves Posted November 1, 2009 Share #8 Posted November 1, 2009 Same choice alternative here. From 24 on M8- my only lens used with it- to 28 Cron on M9, or not and stay 24mm ? Just that the 28 Cron does have an additional stop for low light: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted November 1, 2009 Share #9 Posted November 1, 2009 I suspect what you're also missing is that little extra DOF the 24 gave you on the M8. If you use a 35 on the M9 that will be cut back even further. That's a good point. Sometimes, for some people and some pictures, the M8/M8.2 may end up being the best choice. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vertekijker Posted November 1, 2009 Author Share #10 Posted November 1, 2009 Thank you for the feedback - nice to know I'm not alone. I think I might just start using the 24mm for street photography after all and then do some cropping to close in on the subject, so that I can keep the magic of that lens. --------------- Frans Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted November 1, 2009 Share #11 Posted November 1, 2009 When using wide lenses, 'acreage' increases very rapidly when going even to a little bit shorter focal length. So it is perfectly practical, not only to own both a 35 and a 24, but even to carry both. Those btw were my favourites in my SLR days (I hereby confess to a wasted middle age). I did not formerly use 28mm lenses, but got myself a Summicron when I bought my M8. Now I have come to love that lens on my M4 too -- simply because it is so damn good. So I will keep it. It is also the widest lens I can control completely with a flash in the accessory shoe (shame on you, Gnomes of Solms, for not providing a second flash contact). So yes, I have 24, 28 and 35mm. And 50mm. And 75mm. And 90mm. And 135mm. And a 18mm Distagon ... But I do never carry more than three. And if I could have only three lenses, they would have to be the Holy Trinity of the M2: 35, 50 and 90. The old man from the Age of the M2 (when I was 22 ...) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thompsonkirk Posted November 1, 2009 Share #12 Posted November 1, 2009 In a way there's no problem at all - it's just that we got used to the M8 crop factor & the choice between 24 & 28. In FF equivalencies the 24 is a 32, & the 28 a 37; so the choice for M8 between 24 & 28 came up only because of the crop factor: the 24 & 38 'bracketed' a 35mm FF equivalency. The 'classic' lens set for film Leicas was 28-35-50, with the 35 most often used for street photography (unless you were Winogrand; then 28). My personal choice was either to use a 35 & carry no other lens; or alternately to 'wear' the 50 & carry the 28. If you chose either the 24 or 28 on M8, a 35 would be your 'normal' M9 choice. If you don't like the way the current 35s 'draw,' then you can always use, as many do, the pre-aspherical lenses. The 35 Summicron Ver. 4 costs a bit extra because so many like the appearance of its images. I happen to like the even lower contrast of Ver. 1. The loss of a bit of DOF, mentioned above, shouldn't make much difference, if the M9 really allows an ISO boost of 1 f-stop. Stopping down should compensate. Kirk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shootinglulu Posted November 1, 2009 Share #13 Posted November 1, 2009 Do the 24 Elmarit and 35 Lux have a similar look? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vertekijker Posted November 1, 2009 Author Share #14 Posted November 1, 2009 The loss of a bit of DOF, mentioned above, shouldn't make much difference, if the M9 really allows an ISO boost of 1 f-stop. Stopping down should compensate. Kirk Good point, Kirk. ------------ Frans Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug_m Posted November 1, 2009 Share #15 Posted November 1, 2009 I have never used a 24 2.8 ASPH but I hear it is excellent. The 24 lux is also something special on the M8 and worth the extra effort to make it work on the M9. In my opinion, the 28 cron (as well as the 90 AA) are excellent but a bit "sterile" as compared to other lenses . I would hold on to any of the "exceptional" lenses one may have and use them a lot on the M9 before selling the lens off because you think FF is a game changer. Of the lenses I've used I would put the 50 lux ASPH, 75 cron, and 24 lux in this exceptional category. The 24 f2.8 ASPH sounds like it might also be that good. If I were you I would keep on trying your beloved 24 on the M9. I bet you can make it work and be happy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vertekijker Posted November 1, 2009 Author Share #16 Posted November 1, 2009 Thank you, Doug. That's what I will try before I give up on it. ------------------- Frans Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted November 1, 2009 Share #17 Posted November 1, 2009 i have the same problem but even more so. I had been happy with my 28mm on my M8.2 and had my 21mm for when i wanted wider than that. My next lens up is a 50mm. So, now that I have an M9, I feel that the 21 is WAAAYYY too wide for my tastes. Also, the idea of getting a 35mm seems to be overkill (because then i'd have a 21, 28 a 35 and a 50). That's just too much stuff. Nothing wrong with having all those focal lengths. I have all of them and use them all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vertekijker Posted November 1, 2009 Author Share #18 Posted November 1, 2009 Nothing wrong with having all those focal lengths. I have all of them and use them all. And why not use the MATE then? 28-35-50 all in one? That together with the 24mm makes for a nice - and fairly light - toolkit, doesn't it? ------------ Frans Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.