Ken Rockwell on Summilux 24/1.4

[vintola]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been contemplating to buy Summilux 24/1.4, but after reading Rockwell's article about this lens, I have started to think again. Below are a couple of Ken's opinions, I am worried about. What are Your experiences of this lens?

 

"Be forewarned: on the M9, the 24/1.4 looks poor (by LEICA standards) at the sides at f/1.4 if you go off and shoot the horizon at infinity. Look instead at things about 50 feet (15 meters) away at the sides, and you'll find them much sharper. This will drive nerds nuts, but Leica's SUMMILUX have usually been designed this way, since that's the way interiors and streetscapes curve."

"This SUMMILUX-M is a very special-purpose lens. It is designed for use in very low light. In daylight, and if you're counting pixels on an M9, it is among LEICA's softest current lenses. (see comparisons.) Of course having the softest LEICA lens is like having the slowest Ferrari."

"If shooting a landscape all at infinity, the sides are soft on the M9, getting best only by f/11!"

"So? You don't use this lens for shots outdoors at infinity, for which the LEICA SUMMICRON 28mm f/2 ASPH is worlds sharper at large apertures."

"I'm an outdoor, nature and landscape shooter. Even if I wanted a 24mm lens, I cannot accept the optical, mechanical and logistical compromises made in this lens to get to f/1.4 with this wider angle-of-view. I shoot a lot of things with straight lines, and the distortion of this SUMMILUX-M will drive me up a wall. It will not correct without very special software tools."

 

The whole test's link:

 

LEICA 24mm f/1.4 SUMMILUX-M ASPH (2008-)

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[harryzet]

ken rockwell, the george w. bush of photography

[zeitz]

Oh. Ken Rockwell said the lens is bad. I must immediately cancel my order and not plan to take pictures at this focal length in low light.

[MacSpikes]

Ken who?

[Arif]

Although there have been occasional signs of intelligence in the Nikon reviews in the past, this particular review is a classic case of CRI (Cranial Rectal Inversion). For example, according to the reviewer "The LEICA 24mm f/1.4 SUMMILUX-M ASPH is sharp, if you have it in focus".

 

I am extremely happy with this lens on the M8 and the M9. It is a wonderful lens and I bought mine after Bill Palank allowed me to use his when he was in Tokyo. It is a great set with the 35 lux or the 50 lux.

[Marty]

Some of it is not far off the truth. Theoretically the finest details may be slightly softer at f/1.4 than e.g. with Summilux 35 or 50. Don't forget we are talking about the cutting edge of fast wide angles. It vignettes at f/1.4, and it distorts a little more too. Theoretically. In practice it will blow your socks off. I use it almost exclusively wide open and I don't think it is capable of taking bad pictures. If you want to be sure - it is not the cheapest lens out there - try it out at a dealer. Take some portraits, low light if possible, and be convinced: this is a low light miracle worker. I am not a landscape expert but do question KR's complaint about having to stop down, I think it is quite normal...

Edited April 3, 2010 by Marty

[rosuna]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

His real name is Roswell. He landed on the US in 1948.

Edited April 3, 2010 by rosuna

[sanyasi]

One hopes this guy is writing a parody or send up, otherwise he is a jerk:

 

The Leica Man

[Redridge]

Ken is wack!..... though, google hits his web site right up there.

[d2mini]

One hopes this guy is writing a parody or send up, otherwise he is a jerk:

 

The Leica Man

 

I find that article hysterical either way.

 

Reminds me of the Chuck Norris Facts

All Chuck Norris Facts & Jokes | Chuck Norris Facts

 

and even more appropriately... the Ken Rockwell Facts

The Original Ken Rockwell Facts | Time to Think

[anupmc]

....

 

and even more appropriately... the Ken Rockwell Facts

The Original Ken Rockwell Facts | Time to Think

 

Hysterical! Thanks for the link

[Eastgreenlander]

I have this lens and I love it. I find his description of the lens completely off and IMO it is just as sharp as my 50 summilux asph.

[rennsport]

From the review:

 

"I wouldn't buy one of these. I'd get the 21mm version instead.

 

I have no idea why anyone would want a 24mm lens on a LEICA, since you have to use a separate viewfinder, and you don't with a 28mm lens."

 

 

What an oxymoron!

[ndjambrose]

I don't much care for this writing style (too much shock jock for my tastes) but I wouldn't discard his claims out of hand. If you read the MTF chart for the lens you'll see its described behaviour is inline with his observations.

[noah_addis]

From the review:

 

"I wouldn't buy one of these. I'd get the 21mm version instead.

 

I have no idea why anyone would want a 24mm lens on a LEICA, since you have to use a separate viewfinder, and you don't with a 28mm lens."

 

 

What an oxymoron!

 

While it may seem contradictory at first, it makes sense to me. The 24mm is close enough to the 28mm (at least in some photographer's opinions) that the latter makes more sense since the former needs a finder.

 

The thinking is that, if you're going to use a finder, you may as well go very wide (instead of just slightly wider than the 28). It's just an opinion, but one I happen to agree with. It's the reason I sold my 24 'Lux when the M9 came out.

 

As for the quality of the lens itself, it was great on the M8 but I never tried it on film or M9 (for reasons stated above). It may not be a top performer in technical terms, but it did the job and the speed was really necessary on the M8. On the M9 it doesn't interest me at all, though the 21 'Lux is slightly tempting after all of the red edge problems with the 21 Elmarit Asph.

[Ford30]

Aff

 

I like Rockwell site.

But I like my 24mm too

 

Jazzgig on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

It's a terrific lens in real life!

I only miss the focus tab.

[Nikkor AIS]

I think it is a pretty fair review. Saying Ken Rockwell is ... and Ken Rockwell is that... dosnt change the nasty pincusion of the Lecia 24 1.4. He admits his website is for fun. I think it's funny that people get so up set about what he writes. Like it or not Ken Rockwell has done plenty to promote Lecia to non lecia folks. I found his review of the Lecia M7 to be excellent

I also like his review of some of the classic Nikkor AIS glass..

 

Gregory

[storybrown]

Aff

 

I like Rockwell site.

But I like my 24mm too

 

Jazzgig on Flickr - Photo Sharing!.

 

This post prolly sums up the best of this thread . . .

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[rsh]

It is his opinion, and for him the correct analysis. I have not used the lens so I cannot comment. Personally, I will never need either the 21 or 24 Summilux Lenses. I have had a 21 Elmarit Asph for several years that that I take on trips, but I have used it once since I bought it. With Film or Digital on an M, I prefer and use the 28 Summicron, 35 Summicron Asph, 50 Summilux, 75 Apo Summicron and the 90 Apo Summicron. As for wide angle, my favorite Ultra Wide is the 19 Elmarit R.

[ezc203]

Ken is super critical of Leica, but I suppose rightfully so for equipment that cost so much. I'm not a big fan of his reviews (much prefer Steve's, for his practicality; and Reid's, for unbiased tests), but I do read Ken's reviews just to see what other opinions are out there. They don't mean to much to me.

 

On the other hand, the 24 Summilux is a dream. I have it and use it 75% of the time on my M8 and dabble a bit with it (20%) on my M4-P. And both combination produce stellar results. Can't complain. At all. Love the lens.

 

$6000 is a lot of money, so if you're having doubts about it. Sleep on it.