21 or 24 Lux

[novice9]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I know there have been prior threads on this topic, but I'm thinking of purchasing one of these prior to year end and price increase and would love to hear thoughts those of you that own an m9 and one or both of these lenses. Have also read the putz and steve huff reviews, they frankly confused me a bit as putz seemed to feel the 21 was a bit sharper and huff the 24. i currently own a 35 lux ashp, 50lux non-asph and 90 apo cron.

 

thanks!

[edgarangelone]

I will personally buy the Leica 50mm F1.4, and I think you are set (if you shoot film or M9).

 

Edgar

[jaapv]

I bought the 24. If I pay that kind of money for a lens I want to use it. The 21 is more specialized, the 24 more practical for regular use. And it is a perfect match for the 50 Summilux asph, Edgar.

[Walt Calahan]

Coming from the film end of the question, I prefer the focal length jump from my 35 mm to the 24 mm.

 

Again it's all a matter of taste. A friend loves the 28 mm, so jumping to the 21 mm makes sense to his way of seeing.

 

If you were shooting with an M8.2 I'd say go for the 21 mm.

[doug_m]

The 24 lux is great but pricey as you know. The 21 would be too wide for me on the M9. I thought the 24 might be too wide on a FF RF as well, but so far I like it a lot and do not use a finder on the M9.

 

And for what its worth, I have not seen much if any cyan corners using the 24 lux/ M9 with the IR/UV filter left on. I kept my M8.2 and prefer not to take filters on and off although I know most forum members disagree.

 

 

The only thing I do not like about the 24 lux is that the lens hood does not screw on quite tight enough for my taste and I've noted it to be the same on two other copies of the same lens. I fixed this by putting two small pieces of gaffers tape on the outside and underside aspect of the lens/hood joint. Also, if you buy either a 21 or 24 lux make sure the lens hood is square when the lens is mounted.

 

Good luck.

[rapman1959]

I just received my 21mm 1.4 leica. I like the ability to go wide as I like to shoot landscapes. I took it out today in the snow and got this shot. Thought it worked better in B&W.

 

 

Adolfo

[stealthman_1]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I doubt very highly the difference in sharpness between these two gems is what I'd make a decision on. I own the 21 and what it really should come down to is what is your need and your shooting style. I like environment to complement the subject, I'll take this over detail at these types of focal length so I'll go for the wider one. It's really about how you envision shooting it. If you get that right, you can't go wrong with either lens from a performance standpoint.

[glenerrolrd]

I have both lenses and find the performance of both lenses to be exceptional. These lenses were designed to provide best in class performance wide open at 1.4 . The 2 stop advantage over the 2.8 versions is meaningful for low light photography.

 

FOV should drive your decision:

 

On the M8/M8.2 ....its the difference between a 28mm and a 32mm FOV. Just like deciding on a 28 verse a 35. I prefer the 21 (28FOV) for street photography on a M8. On the M9 ....I prefer the 24 .

 

How the lens pairs with your other lenses is also important. This was mentioned but if you favor say a 28/2 then the 21/1.4 might be a better choice. If its the 35/1.4asph (which you mentioned) then the 24/1.4 makes a nice pairing.

 

You should note that the advantage of these lenses is speed not optical performance. They are both great but not better than the 21 24 2.8 asph or the 28/2 asph. These older designs have the advantage of much smaller size and weight.

 

All of these lenses are exceptional . The signatures (how they render ) are different but it would be hard to find fault with any of them.

 

On an M9 I actually prefer the 28/2 for the combination of performance and handling....but the 21/24asph will likely become harder to find and more expensive. The 28/2 asph can be found used .

 

Buy the 24 1.4 asph if you expect to be using an M9 ..simply because you will likely use it more.

[j_lir]

i have a 21 that was wonderful as a 28 1.4 on the m8.

now on the m9 i would prefer a 24 as well.

 

the 21 is stellar, always bring it with me on jobs for the wider side.

 

hope this helps, grab a 24 -- if you are unhappy we can swap!

 

thanks

[marknorton]

I have both and I use the 24mm much more than the 21mm, both on the M8 (where the 24mm is is the widest supported by the viewfinder) and on the M9 where 24mm is often as wide as I want to go.

[Ecar]

i have a 21 that was wonderful as a 28 1.4 on the m8.

now on the m9 i would prefer a 24 as well.

 

the 21 is stellar, always bring it with me on jobs for the wider side.

 

hope this helps, grab a 24 -- if you are unhappy we can swap!

 

thanks

 

Same here. The 21 was perfect for the M8 but is now somewhat too wide for the M9, at least for me. I guess I'll leave the UV/IR filter on and keep using it on the M8:rolleyes:

Unless you'd like to go seriously wide, I'd get myself the 24 Lux - it will probably see more use.

[magd0328]

Novice 9, I think others here have given good advice. I think a 24mm is generally a more usable focal length and would go very well with the 35mm you already have - not too much of a gap between them. But it depends what other lens buying plans you may have. If you are considering buying a 28mm at some point, I think a 21mm would fit better with it.

[erlingmm]

Very happy with the 21, especially cityscapes, architecture shots, indoor & outside. Don't have the 24 though, 28 is my next step up.

[innerimager]

On my M8, my 24/2.8 asph was about my most used lens. Now that it's gone for an M9, I'm using a 35 a lot, but also the 28/2 asph. So if I go for a wide lux, it will be the 21, as the 24 elmarit is just too nice to let go, and with the 28 cron being the widest without a finder, even the 24 won't get used that much. My decision is 21 lux or WATE. I think the 21, as I do a lot of shooting where I need all the light I can get.

[peter_n]

Very good advice in this thread. I agree with Roger, FOV and how the lens works with your current kit is important. Have you tried the two focal lengths? You may just like and be comfortable with one much more than the other. In my case I spent two years with a 21 and it never really worked for me, sold it for a 24 and never looked back. You should at least try each focal length in a store or preferably outside one. There's also the consideration of how the lens works with the nearest lens in your kit, the 35. A 24 will work better with a 35 and as others have pointed out a 21 will pair well with a 28 if you had that lens. I'd recommend a 24 just on the basis of what you currently have and I think you would use it more but I would encourage you to try both before you buy. The comparative sharpness wouldn't come into it for me.

[novice9]

Thanks all for the great advice. I do think the 24 probably makes more sense, though I remain undecided. Roger -- I was perusing your website -- great site, by the way -- and was wondering if you have any shots posted with the M9 with the 2 lenses (I couldn't find any), or are you still working with the M8? Thanks!

[j_lir]

just to eat my words,

i could not have achieved this with a 24mm field of veiw.

 

from last night, kill hannah @ the metro chicago.

 

[glenerrolrd]

Thanks all for the great advice. I do think the 24 probably makes more sense, though I remain undecided. Roger -- I was perusing your website -- great site, by the way -- and was wondering if you have any shots posted with the M9 with the 2 lenses (I couldn't find any), or are you still working with the M8? Thanks!

 

Thank you for kind comments. The simple answer is not yet. The 21/1.4 shots on the M8.2 are in the most recent Paris collection (still way too many images). This is where I was trying to see how the lens performed in extending my night shooting.

 

My initial work with the 24/1.4 on the M9 shows that it renders in a similar way and that the combination is better ....higher effective ISO..1000(M9) vs 640(M8) and wider view (24(M9) vs 28(M8.2).

 

The lenses were designed together at the same time and Leica would tell you that the 21 has a slight edge in performance ..but its so slight that its not relevant . I would never discourage the selection of the fastest Leica glass..because it extends the range of uses . However I still really like the 21 and 24 elmarit asph for their stunning performance and smaller size .

[noah_addis]

Don't choose based on sharpness or any reviewer's perception of quality.

 

The main difference between these lenses is focal length and size, and those are far more relevant in my opinion. The 24 may allow you to isolate your subject a tad better wide open than the 21mm, but there was not a huge difference on the M8.

 

I tested both on an M8, admittedly not on an M9, and they are both amazing lenses. They are also amazingly large and expensive.

 

I went with the 24 since on the M8 it didn't require a finder. I've since sold it, because with the M9 it's not a focal length I personally need.

 

I think you'll find both lenses to be equally good, and no one here can tell you which focal length will work best for you.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[NBeddoe]

The 24 is a very very good lens. I think the differences in quality that Erwin Puts noticed would be far too small to be noticed by anyone who isn't shooting an MTF test chart. This worked it pretty hard on the M9 and it coped admirably.

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!