shootinglulu Posted January 30, 2010 Share #1 Posted January 30, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Please can anyone tell me, how does the 24 Lux compare to the 24 Elmarit at 2.5 and above?..on m8 or m9 Cheers:rolleyes: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 30, 2010 Posted January 30, 2010 Hi shootinglulu, Take a look here 24 Summilux v 24 Elmarit. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Logic108 Posted January 30, 2010 Share #2 Posted January 30, 2010 I would recommend a subscription to Sean Reid's website. He covers this topic in much detail and if you are seriously considering the 24mm lux you should take a look. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yanidel Posted January 30, 2010 Share #3 Posted January 30, 2010 It's good question. Sean Reid covers indeed a lot of it though to me it remains unclear how the 1.4 of the Lux impacts DOF vs 2.8. Indeed, I usually need to be 1-2 meters away from my subject for it to represent a significant part of the frame. I wonder how much more background separation one gets at 1 and 2 meters at 1.4 vs 2.8 with the Lux. If one lucky owner could run a test it would be great. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted January 31, 2010 Share #4 Posted January 31, 2010 About $4000. That's the biggest difference. Unless you need the extra stops the Elmarit is one of the finest 24s ever made. The Lux is amazing considering its speed though it does suffer from some purple fringing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted January 31, 2010 Share #5 Posted January 31, 2010 The difference between F1.4 and f2.8 (two stops) can be considered this way: to double FL and retaint the same visual DOF you need to stop down two stops. This is the rule of thumb used in LF i.e. shoot a 150mm on 5x4 at f22 and you need F45 on the 300mm on 10x8 for the same look of DOF. A 24 1.4 shot can therefore be considered equivalent to a 50mm at f2.8. Now imagine that compared to a 50 at two more stops down i.e f5.6 (the difference between 1.4 and 2.8). The difference is substantial. However, I would say that unless you need the speed why bother? I am seriously considering the same lens but not for DOF issues, but low light reasons. The only thing putting me off is the size and weight (and cost!) and would not give it a second thought were i not shooting a propject photographing people inside dark buildings in existing light. With F2.8 and 1/30 or 1/15 as the best I can achieve with my 2.8 lenses, f1.4 would be a godsend. In many cases thee shots would be from a distance and so the DOF would not show up as shallow even at f1.4, but I would be able to drop from D3200 as the default film to something a touch slower and retain the D3200 for those spots which are presently impenetrably dark. f1.4 and 500g is not for fun.... and my reservation is that I don't want o have to carry 500g about if I am not 100% sure its going to get anough use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacker Posted January 31, 2010 Share #6 Posted January 31, 2010 LFI July 5/2009 ran a test of the 7 wide angle lenses: "Wide Angle: Overview. The M Focal Lengths 16 to 24mm". It was tested with the M8 and M7. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted January 31, 2010 Share #7 Posted January 31, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) The two Summiluxes are unique in their ability to throw the background out of focus while presenting the characteristic perspective of a wide-angle lens. Of course, you only get the effect when the lens is wide open and the subject is close to the camera. Stopped down with a subject more than a few metres away and it's just like a slower, less expensive lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted January 31, 2010 Share #8 Posted January 31, 2010 LFI July 5/2009 ran a test of the 7 wide angle lenses: "Wide Angle: Overview. The M Focal Lengths 16 to 24mm". It was tested with the M8 and M7. How did the 24 Lux fare? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted January 31, 2010 Share #9 Posted January 31, 2010 If light is so low that you need f:1.4 at ISO 1000, then it is too low to focus by. 'Separation'? Use a 50mm Summicron. The old man from the Age of the 5cm Elmar Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted January 31, 2010 Share #10 Posted January 31, 2010 If light is so low that you need f:1.4 at ISO 1000, then it is too low to focus by.<snip> I respectfully disagree. Maybe my middle-aged eyes aren't yet as age-dimmed as an old man's, maybe the old man's shooting experience means he can use 1/15s and 1/8s where I'd need 1/30s. Either way there's almost always a highight one can use as a focusing marker. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pascal_meheut Posted January 31, 2010 Share #11 Posted January 31, 2010 I respectfully disagree. Maybe my middle-aged eyes aren't yet as age-dimmed as an old man's, maybe the old man's shooting experience means he can use 1/15s and 1/8s where I'd need 1/30s. Either way there's almost always a highight one can use as a focusing marker. I disagree too. Here is an example: Leica M9, 1/4 sec handheld, 35mm/2 ASPH wide-open, 1250 ISO, Color Temperature 950K. I had no problem at all to focus. And I'm not that young but I'm not an old man for the age of... In fact, I was focusing at f/1.4 using B&W films pushed to 1600 ISO and 1/4 to 1/15 speed 20 years ago. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/111205-24-summilux-v-24-elmarit/?do=findComment&comment=1207494'>More sharing options...
giordano Posted January 31, 2010 Share #12 Posted January 31, 2010 Color Temperature 950K. Taken by the light of molten bronze? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pascal_meheut Posted January 31, 2010 Share #13 Posted January 31, 2010 No, the candle on the table you cannot see in the picture... This was taken in an American restaurant in Paris and light is dim to say the least. Anyway, this is the color temperature as measured by the M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacker Posted January 31, 2010 Share #14 Posted January 31, 2010 How did the 24 Lux fare? The edges of the 24 Lux were not great. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pascal_meheut Posted January 31, 2010 Share #15 Posted January 31, 2010 The edges of the 24 Lux were not great. I tried the 24 lux on an M9 and it seemed quite good. 24mm/1.4 ASPH at f/1.4, 160 ISO, 1/20 handheld. DNG in C1 with vignetting correction and my usual post-processing. First the whole picture, a crop of the center and then a crop of a corner. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/111205-24-summilux-v-24-elmarit/?do=findComment&comment=1207705'>More sharing options...
shootinglulu Posted January 31, 2010 Author Share #16 Posted January 31, 2010 I am very grateful for the help here, Cheers, Lucy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheewai_m6 Posted January 31, 2010 Share #17 Posted January 31, 2010 there's absolutely nothing wrong with the corners of that lens. even at f1.4! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted February 2, 2010 Share #18 Posted February 2, 2010 I excanged my 24 Elmarit for a 24Lux and while I agree that is is very expensive lens I also have to say that with f1.4 and shallow DOF you can achieve a whole different look compared to f2.8. Here is an example: I have not compared the corners when stopped down but so far I believe that the 24Lux does really ok when stopped down. The Summilux is clearly larger and heavier. In my case I kept the 21 as Elmarit and the 24 as Summilux. The 24Lux has become one of my favorite lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yanidel Posted February 2, 2010 Share #19 Posted February 2, 2010 Tom, this is an amazing shot! I wonder though if you would not have had a pretty similar DOF at F2.8 since you seem to have been very close to your tiny subject (1 meter?) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shootinglulu Posted February 2, 2010 Author Share #20 Posted February 2, 2010 Tom, this is a gorgeous shot. Do you use a viewfinder? if not do you find the obscured field of view to be a pain when composing the picture on the M9? Cheers:) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.