Ken Rockwell on Summilux 24/1.4

[boilerdoc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Read Erwin Puts review of the 24 (2 parter) at SX21 and SX24. He seems to like the 21 and 24 a lot!!!

Steve

[jaapv]

I did and I'm not!

 

I wonder how some of the great icons in photo history would score on this fourier analyser.

 

With great resonance..

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!

[Advertisement]

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

[redbaron]

Where on earth do you insert the photo?

[swamiji]

IMHO one of the all time great lenses. Don't care what any reviewer says!

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!

[swamiji]

To post a photo, you need to "Post Reply", and on the second page is "manage attachments". It is there where you can upload photos, within limits.

[Logic108]

The 24mm Summilux is without doubt a fantastic lens. But the cost? Each to their own but I wonder why people invest so much money in the 35mm system. If you ever get to see 4x5 or 8x10 color negatives then you will change how you think about expensive gear. Image quality is teh utmost concern. For 1/3rd the price of teh 24mm summilux I could get my self a 4x5 view camera and shoot way beyond what digital can offer.

So whilst I disagree with Rockwell on a lot of things he does have a point about the summilux.

[msk2193]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Actually, Rockwell's site is one of the reviews I read before deciding what lenses to buy with the M9.

Others were Huff and Overrgard. Rockwell is much more "in your face" with his reviews and probably does well for camera manufacturers and vendors alike; otherwise they would have sued him and taken him offline by now!

 

I did select the 24 Summilux, but did go with his recommendation for the 35mm. The 24mm is indeed sharpest at f/11.

 

In reality, isn't 24mm coming close to a focal length where a center filter comes in handy (at least in medium and large format equivelant!)?

[jaapv]

The 24mm Summilux is without doubt a fantastic lens. But the cost? Each to their own but I wonder why people invest so much money in the 35mm system. If you ever get to see 4x5 or 8x10 color negatives then you will change how you think about expensive gear. Image quality is teh utmost concern. For 1/3rd the price of teh 24mm summilux I could get my self a 4x5 view camera and shoot way beyond what digital can offer.

So whilst I disagree with Rockwell on a lot of things he does have a point about the summilux.

Hmm, yes, however, you forget to add the cost of the donkey to carry the thing. And btw, I try to invest in stocks, or commodities or whatever, with little success nowadays I might add . Cameras and lenses I just buy. Edited April 6, 2010 by jaapv

[swamiji]

The 24mm Summilux is without doubt a fantastic lens. But the cost? Each to their own but I wonder why people invest so much money in the 35mm system. If you ever get to see 4x5 or 8x10 color negatives then you will change how you think about expensive gear. Image quality is teh utmost concern. For 1/3rd the price of teh 24mm summilux I could get my self a 4x5 view camera and shoot way beyond what digital can offer.

So whilst I disagree with Rockwell on a lot of things he does have a point about the summilux.

 

Oh, god. This argument started in 1913 and was settled in the 1940's. Were in the 21st century. Yes I can get a used Blad with a 80mm 2.5 for a grand... Whats the point?

[Mauribix]

Oh well, is Ken that guy who did tests comparing JPG's file?

 

But then again, it's fair to to say that Ken's conclusions are in line with the official Leica's MTF charts, so why worry?

I can't remember of any comments about Noctilux's corner, and they're pretty much the same.

It's important to distinguish each Leica lens' purpose IMHO.

 

There are different "kind" of lenses that I would group as follow:

 

-Fast low light lenses (i.e. those lenses who suffers a little bit from daylight situations when used at full aperture, but great performers in low-light) such as the 75lux, Nocti, summilux 35 pre-asph, 24lux, 21lux;

 

-Fast all-round lenses (they're good with full bright scenes as well low-light situations): i.e. 50lux ASPH, 75cron, 35lux ASPH , 28cron, 90cron ASPH;

 

-Normal all-round lenses (they're great performers with full bright scenes, and maybe a little less indicated for low-light because of their speed): 35cron ASPH, 24elmarit, 21elmarit, summaries;

 

-Daylight lenses (i.e. those lenses who give up on speed, but perform greatly in full light situations) such as 18SE, 24elmar, 28elmarit ASPH, WATE, MATE, 50elmarit, 90elmarit, 90macro elmar;

 

 

Of course, many may dissent based on their personal experiences, these are my PERSONAL OPINIONS/EXPERIENCES.

 

Personally I prefer those I called "fast all-round" lenses (usually modern ASPH) when it's up to Leica, because of their reasonably controlled main features (CA, flare, coma etc…) at full aperture, leaving you the option to play with selective focus and DOF even during the day.

Otherway, I'd use those I called "fast low light" lenses for typical low-light environment, because they tend to perform fantastically in dark scenes, and they're "minor" defects don't tend to deteriorate but on the contrary they add plasticity and drama to the subjects.

 

So, since I consider the 24lux as "fast low-light" lens, I'd use it for what it's been designed (as suggested by Jaap too), i.e. dark environments, otherway the 24elmarit would be a fair enough performer give its price.

 

Just my 2cents

[markowich]

Do you carry a fourier analyser with you when visiting galleries? Does it have wheels? LOL

 

Come on. If you had to run it through some software to tell you something it can hardly have been staring you in the face. I did not find the images at 1.4 as crisp as those stopped down but they looked pretty sharp to me and also very pleasing.

 

Keep going on about how the lens is gentle and somehow subtly soft wide open and you will create another legend...

 

what is pretty sharp to you might not be sharp enough for others. i do not need the software to judge the IQ but it acts as a quantifier.

peter

[xtoph]

surrounding ken rockwell probably takes a bit more immersion into his site and history than would be healthy for anyone.

 

i think that it's obvious he provides a lot of content, some of it useful. just the compilations of data on leica lenses is often more complete than you can easily find on leica's own websites, for example.

 

however, laced liberally into the useful information is stuff that is just plain wrong and harmful to people who are trying to find authoritative information about photography. take his former stance on raw: for ages he claimed that raw did not offer any benefits over jpg, because we output our photos on 8-bit devices. clever, yet irrelevant. i have lost count of the number of people getting into digital photography whom i've had to tutor extensively in order to get them to understand why raw can be useful, who learned from him that it was only ever a waste of time and space. (and if you prefer to shoot jpg, fine--more power to you. just don't do it without understanding what is really going on between raw and jpg.)

 

likewise his current nonsense about film being 'real raw' format. mind you, i like film, prefer it to digital in some ways, but it is not raw and the analogy is more misleading than it is useful, to say the least. (even if you're talking about undeveloped film, it still can only manifest bw or color, etc.)

 

and this is without even scratching the surface of a pile of truly bizarre proclamations of his, such as 'reviewing' cameras which haven't been released yet (not to him or to anyone else), or asserting that there never was ahousing crisis in the usa--it was just a lie spread by the liberal media. i mean, this is a guy you go to for helpful and accurate information?

 

so sure, the 24 may not be perfect, and some of his description can be derived from the mtf charts. i happen to agree that in the case of the m9, i would prefer to skip the 24mm fl and have a 21/1.4 instead (not gonna happen though, since i don't need it and definitely can't afford it). but i simply don't trust any of what he says very much, since so much of it has proven incorrect in the past.

[jaapv]

The word "sharp" is the most (mis)used and meaningless quality assigned to lenses in discussing their relative merits, imo.

[Mauribix]

The word "sharp" is the most (mis)used and meaningless quality assigned to lenses in discussing their relative merits, imo.

 

+1

[jaapv]

Where on earth do you insert the photo?

It gets sucked into the brass holes, I think....

[ezc203]

I'm not really good with words, so here is my argument for the 24mm Summilux.

 

M8 - ISO640 - f/1,4 - 1/15s - Handheld

 

 

...

[jaapv]

This thread intrigues me. An unscientific test shot.

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!

[zag]

M9 with 24mm lux: 1/16s at f1.4 iso 160. handheld.. minor contrast adjusting on DNG.

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!

[Jeff S]

Nice first post, Zag. Very Jaap-like color palette IMO. Singapore?

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[zag]

Nice first post, Zag. Very Jaap-like color palette IMO. Singapore?

 

Jeff

 

thanks.. yes singapore it is..

shot number #461 off the M9, still learning the leica system coming in from a Nikon D3 system.. started to get the hang of the stick shift...