tiep Posted January 25, 2010 Share #1 Posted January 25, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) I am concern of purchase elmarit R 24. f2.8 for my R6. What quanlity of this len compare with 28 f2.8 or 35 f2.8. Please help to advice and prefer to see the photo if yes. many thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 25, 2010 Posted January 25, 2010 Hi tiep, Take a look here Leica R elmarit 24 f2.8. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
rob_x2004 Posted January 25, 2010 Share #2 Posted January 25, 2010 Maligned lens amongst those with no clue. I dont particularly like the focal length but it has been my most used lens, and is very good in lowest light situations, far better than a summilux if the lighting is not even, or if the subject is less well illuminated. If you are in northern Europe perpetually soft light maybe you will prefer leicas more contrasty lenses. In harsh light it is pretty good. You need to on top of your focusing game under fifteen feet. Mine is a later model, 3cam not ROM. You must be able to pick them up for a song these days, so theres little to lose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiep Posted January 25, 2010 Author Share #3 Posted January 25, 2010 thanks rob, it good to hear from your idea. can you share some photo taken from elmarit 24 f2.8 ? tks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted January 25, 2010 Share #4 Posted January 25, 2010 There is some old stuff from before I got to the bottom of scan and post process, nearly all the images here, here and here. The only other lens used was a 50f/1.4 for maybe half a dozen shots out of the lot. The advantage you have with the elmarits is you can digitally move the files about quite a bit and do what you like with them. The summilux tends to have to be well exposed at the subject, and doesnt take a lot of prodding round. My favourite lens length is twenty eight, but I dont have a Leica. They are a bit of a different beast, and to be honest I reckon you should be buying on the basis of your focal length needs rather than worry about lens reviews, which ought be taken as a guide to characteristic rather than absolute. Few of them address different lighting environments and the character of the exposed frame. Anyway, see of the links help. One day I should tidy the place up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted January 26, 2010 Share #5 Posted January 26, 2010 I won`t say the lens is garbage, but it has some off characteristics. The main one being things that should be well within the debth of field are only sharp on axis. The edges are not. To put another way, the edges do not take advantage of debth of field, but the center does. Or I could say only the plane of focus is sharp from center to edge. This is well documented if you search around. I sold mine and got a 21 4.0 Super Angulon R and a 28 2.8 R original version. Both behave as I would expect. I think the strange behavor has something to do with floating elements that were not sophistacated enough. Regardless pleanty of others noticed. Just because a few here don`t see it, they need to look again. I believe there was but one version made/designed by Minolta. To do again, I would get the 21/35 R zoom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted January 26, 2010 Share #6 Posted January 26, 2010 And theres a reason you woudl stick someones head at the edge of frame...on a 24:confused:. Too much time with charts shot on tripod. In the real world there is exposure time, and understanding how to use depth of field, subject placement, film types..... Ive got a really excellent hammer, drives all the nails straight. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest suilvenman Posted January 26, 2010 Share #7 Posted January 26, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Almost by accident, this post has allowed me to discover your folio work, Rob. Really excellent photography and the portraiture is superb. Ken. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted January 26, 2010 Share #8 Posted January 26, 2010 It is not heads in corners that bother me, it is nature subjects like trees. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguewave Posted January 27, 2010 Share #9 Posted January 27, 2010 tiep, Tony doesn't have a clue! Rob's work is a fine example of the strengths of this lens. It is a bit of a tiger, so you need to practice and get control of this superb optic. I have taken hundreds (if not close to 1,000) images with it and the results are spectacular. It really sings when you need to penetrate the humidity of summer or fog or haze. It is very important to compose correctly & stay on axis. Apparently Tobey is unable to do that or he wouldn't make this absurd statement. I use this for film & with my R8/DMR. I recently purchased a second one for my son to use with his R4. He loves it & has no problem with edges as he shoots straight. It is a real gem. It far outshines the 28, in every way. The real issue is how you plan to use a wide angle like the 24. For both Rob & myself, we love & shoot people. This lens lets you get real close, almost intimate with people. It is rather small & unobtrusive as well. Rob always undersells everything, but just take a long look at his work. I have many street portraits posted on the forum that employed the 24. You can judge for yourself. I really hate it when people talk rubbish because they can't use fine tools. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiep Posted January 27, 2010 Author Share #10 Posted January 27, 2010 Thanks you all for your help. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.