tom0511 Posted November 23, 2009 Share #1 Posted November 23, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Anybody here who went from the 24/2.8 to the Lux and tell me the experience? What can you do what you could not do before getting the 24? Do you use f1.4 and f2 often so that you would say the move made sense? Would you do it again? Can you post some images? Thanks a lot Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 23, 2009 Posted November 23, 2009 Hi tom0511, Take a look here 24mm choices Elmarit vs Lux. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Marty Posted November 23, 2009 Share #2 Posted November 23, 2009 If you don't need the speed I suppose the Elmarit 24mm is a good choice: I don't own it but it has a very good reputation. I do need the speed and shoot my Lux 24mm almost exclusively at f1.4, the way it draws is simply beautiful. There should be plenty of samples in the forum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
noah_addis Posted November 23, 2009 Share #3 Posted November 23, 2009 When I was shooting with the M8 I switched from the 24 Elmarit to the 24 Summilux. The 24 Summilux is the only Leica lens I've ever regretted purchasing. It's a great lens and if you need the speed it's the only way to go, but I preferred the look of the Elmarit stopped down. Also, I preferred the smaller size of the Elmarit as well as the traditional screw-in filters and hood. The screw-in hood on the Summilux was always getting knocked loose during heavy shooting, and I'm not a big fan of series filters. I'm not a big fan of the super-shallow DOF look. I prefer images with some depth and layering. I got the Summilux solely for low-light use. With the M8 the 24 'lux made sense, since it was the widest you could go without a finder and the extra speed mitigated the M8's poor high-iso performance. The M9 is better at high ISO so I feel like the lens is less necessary. Also, it requires an external finder for accurate framing, which is not ideal for an F/1.4 lens where focus is critical. With the M9, I think the 28 Summicron represents a much better value if you need a fast/wide lens. Or if you can live with F/2.8 and want to go wider, the 24 Elmarit is a truly beautiful lens. If you need that much speed or if you do like a shallow DOF in a super-wide lens, then go for the 'Lux. Otherwise, the Elmarit provides great performance in a smaller and cheaper package. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted November 23, 2009 Share #4 Posted November 23, 2009 I borrowed a 24mm Elmarit last spring for a trip to China. I loved it... Great lens. I however need speed, I shoot in some very dark places, and purchased the Lux for my M8. For the most part it was glued to my M8, I think it's the best M8 lens. Now I have a M9, and not sure where it's going to fit. But the 28mm does not come in a Lux, since I just got my M9, it's going to take some experimentation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarav Posted November 23, 2009 Share #5 Posted November 23, 2009 I previously had the 24 Elmarit and I loved it. Beautiful lens. Compact, sharp, no distortion. When I bought the 24 lux, with some reluctance due to the high price, I discovered a new world. It's a lens which draw with light. The light is simply real and magic. I use it 95% f1.4-f2.0 and 5% f2.8-f4. When I had the elmarit the aperture ring was fixed 99% to f2.8 because light is never enough. My camera is a M8.2 with internal frames but I find easier framing with the external viewfinder so with M9, when it'll arrive, I'll haven't to learn a different way of use this wonderful lens. BTW, The best lens I have. If you have the possibility to try it, experiment some shots in very low light situation and in flat light days. It's incredible how this lens converts flat-light in 3D-light. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted November 23, 2009 Share #6 Posted November 23, 2009 Sarav I agree with everything you said especially the almost 3d effect. However I am not sure it's the best lens I have... I think it tie between the Nocti f1, Lux 75mm and Lux 24mm, each special in there own way, and my choice for Night time and indoor kit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarav Posted November 24, 2009 Share #7 Posted November 24, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Sarav I agree with everything you said especially the almost 3d effect. However I am not sure it's the best lens I have... I think it tie between the Nocti f1, Lux 75mm and Lux 24mm, each special in there own way, and my choice for Night time and indoor kit. Suddenly I have not Noctilux and 75 lux, but since I bought the 24 lux I've discovered the way to go in order to shot low-light. Lux lenses seem to be in another league. As soon as I can I'd try the Noctilux, I'm more interested in the f1 version because of appearance (it seems less bulky than 0.95 and more retrò). How about easy of focussing? The 24 lux is easy at f1.4 and very easy at f2.0. What about noctilux at f1.0 and f1.2? Did you often miss the focus? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted November 24, 2009 Author Share #8 Posted November 24, 2009 Thank you for all the feedback and the discussion goes in the same direction as my "internal" discussion: 1) is the 28/2.0 more usefull than the 24/1.4 as an available light lens for dynamic images? The 24 is one step faster, and a little wider (which can be good or bad depending on the subject- but then again one also has some room for cropping when using the M9). But one would have to use the external viewfinder. But is 28 really compfortable with the internal viewfinder of the M9? 2) with 24mm one can handhold pretty long exposure times, so how often does one benefit from the 1.4/2.0 - I guess it depends 3) the 24 lux really seems to make only sense if one uses it qide open a lot - because the 24/2.8 seems to be the slightly better (and smaller) lens for less money. I am still tempted by the lux though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 24, 2009 Share #9 Posted November 24, 2009 But, Tom, it is not about available light, surely? The whole point of very fast lenses is the narrow DOF, which, in the case of the 24 and 21 makes for a rather unique combination of wideangle and selective focus. No other lens will give this effect. So it has more to do with the way one creates one's images than with available light as such. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted November 24, 2009 Share #10 Posted November 24, 2009 The whole point of very fast lenses is the narrow DOF No Jaap, it's about available light as well. Suggest majority buy a fast lens for light gathering capability in low light situations. No denying that DOF impact is attractive reason for some to buy fast lenses, but definitely not "the whole point". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 24, 2009 Share #11 Posted November 24, 2009 No, not the whole point, that is obvious, but with an M9 with good 1600 and decent 2500, handholdable to say 1/4 @ 24 mm, available light does not really mean 1.4. It might well be impossible to focus without a torch if it gets any darker. There are more fast lenses out there, but especially with the 24 and 21 the whole combination, as I said above, of narrow DOF and wide FOV sets them apart from all other lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted November 24, 2009 Share #12 Posted November 24, 2009 handholdable to say 1/4 @ 24 mm, You being a dentist, I'm glad to hear that you've developed exceedingly good hand holding skills. As a photographer, I stay away from 1/4s hand held exposures for the money shots. "Decent 2500" iso ? Look forward to seeing that for myself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted November 24, 2009 Share #13 Posted November 24, 2009 I have all three and the Summilux is of course the first choice for restricted depth of field or available light. However, I also like the Elmar, very compact and ideal if you want a more compact lens. I rarely use the Elmarit these days. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 24, 2009 Share #14 Posted November 24, 2009 We had a thread on that, Rolo. I posted a series of 10 shots of a 35 on the M8 at 1/4 second. Only one shot had shake, two were minimally soft - it is a matter of concentration. If I were paid for my photos I would think such practice unsafe, but it is certainly not unusual for old RF hands. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted November 24, 2009 Author Share #15 Posted November 24, 2009 I am very well interested as well in the combination of shallow DOF in a wide angle lens. I am not yet sure though how shallow the DOF can be with a 24mm fov. I think to remember a thread where someone wrote that its pretty much limited for subjects at short distances - if you focus over lets say 2-3m everything will be in focus anyways. Many images posted on the web from the 21 and 24lux do not show shallow DOF. SO here is my request for posting 21 and 24mm images with shallow DOF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted November 24, 2009 Share #16 Posted November 24, 2009 If I were paid for my photos I would think such practice unsafe, but it is certainly not unusual for old RF hands. Ah, that's where you've got me, Granddad. I'm a newbie with regards to rangefinder use as my experience only goes back to 1984. Playing whilst sat in the lounge is quite different to pointing it a paying customer in a once-in-a-lifetime situation. You must have experienced that in 'the chair'. With my M8 limited to 640 iso for quality reasons, I frequently found that longer than my preferred minimum of 1/30s was necessary at f1.4. I truly hope that the M9 will make that MUCH easier. What iso on the M9 matches the M8's 640 iso in your opinion ? With my two Summilux lenses I prefer to close down by a stop for improved rendering, although I'll happily shoot wide open during play time. Also makes a difference to me if the subject is square on to the camera as I don't like portraits where the near eye is pin sharp and the far eye is completely blown. That happens with my 75mm Lux at 0.75m with ease. The 24mm Lux is obviously different and can be shot to good effect. Personally, I'm sticking with my wonderful 24mm Elmarit as the M9 should make it more useable in lower light and it can be shot wide open with very minimal loss of quality. Also, the cost of improving on it is unwarranted for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rona!d Posted November 24, 2009 Share #17 Posted November 24, 2009 You can use the Elmarit wide open with very good quality and it is smaller than most 2.8/24 SLR lenses which are not as good as the Elmarit wide open. So even with the Elmarit, you have a very fast lens in terms of image quality. THAT´s why i love the M-System: Less size, more quality. With the Lux lenses i loose a lot in terms of size/comfort, for me unacceptable when doing travels. My choice is fullframe, so MP and M9. An M8 user might need a faster wideangle but with fullframe cameras, the Elmarit 24 or Summicron 28 will do fine. The ISO-improovement of the M9 does the rest for me. I use wideangles to show the surrounding which doesn´t have to be unsharp like Nocti. When i want this Bokeh stuff, i take longer lenses, even a small Cron 35 asph. does fine wide open. It´s like with sportscars, no need for a Viper when a 911 does fine on your small back yard roads;) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 24, 2009 Share #18 Posted November 24, 2009 Ah, that's where you've got me, Granddad. I'm a newbie with regards to rangefinder use as my experience only goes back to 1984. Ah-there you are You've only just started shaving! Playing whilst sat in the lounge is quite different to pointing it a paying customer in a once-in-a-lifetime situation. You must have experienced that in 'the chair'. Only too true...With my M8 limited to 640 iso for quality reasons, I frequently found that longer than my preferred minimum of 1/30s was necessary at f1.4. I truly hope that the M9 will make that MUCH easier. What iso on the M9 matches the M8's 640 iso in your opinion ? I'm not one for scientific test shots - My level of tolerance appears to lie somewhere between 1000 and 1600, with 2500 providing a pleasant surprise from time to time. -But less pleasant ones too.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted December 9, 2009 Author Share #19 Posted December 9, 2009 Thanks or all the feedback. I got a good offer to trade my 24/2.8 in and get a 24lux so thats what I did. I keep my 21 Elmarit since I feel the f1.4 is more usefull for the 24mm focal length for my taste. Thank you for all the feedback. Now I need to decide on a finder Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.