24-21lux and M9/8 closest focus consideration

[Mauribix]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi guys,

last week I was considering a new superfast wide-angle lens, and as you know the 21 and 24luxes are there, but my question/consideration was:

 

isn't the 0.7m closest focus distance a big limit for such lenses?

 

That's why I stopped myself from buyin' it.

 

I mean, I know that the RF is coupled just as low as 0.7m, but many lenses can go down to 0.5m (Zeiss ZM) or 0.3m too (CV 12), and even if you're not as accurate, you can stop them down a bit and still use a closer focus distance for a creative purpose.

(You can chimp as well... )

 

As a matter of fact we're talking about 5000€ lenses, even if I love my M9, and most of my work is made with it, for a lower price there's the 5DmkII + 24 1.4 L II available there (or D700+ nikkor 24 1.4)... so I need one more reason to buy the lux.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't like to start a clash, I'm curious about your feeling... and this is not a RF vs SLR thread, I use them both for different purposes. But I can hardly bear limitations from a 10.000€ set (M9+24lux)

 

In facts, while I could partially understand the limit of 0.7m with the 21lux (even if the possibility to go nearer to the subject is missing IMHO), and I could justify the high cost considering the fact that that's the only 21 f/1.4 available on any format out there, I can't do the same reasoning for the 24lux, it seems to me that the price of the 24lux, due to such "limitations" is at least a bit off... and the "competitors" in this respect are a bit more appealing IMO.

 

 

What do you think?

 

Apart from developing new lenses, shouldn't we expect for some really "new" features from Leica? Do you have an idea why they limited the luxes to 0.7m?

 

I heard once that closer focus distance, especially when not coupled with the RF could lead into "low-performance", but let's be serious, does anybody think of Leica concerned about "misfocussed" or bad pictures taken with those lenses as a negative promotion for the lenses themselves?

 

I'd like to hear from you.

[Ecar]

I mean, I know that the RF is coupled just as low as 0.7m, but many lenses can go down to 0.5m (Zeiss ZM) or 0.3m too (CV 12), and even if you're not as accurate, you can stop them down a bit and still use a closer focus distance for a creative purpose.

(You can chimp as well... )

Not sure I understand what you mean here. The 21/24 Luxes are f/1.4 and hard to compare to the Zeiss or CV in this respect.

Leica offers lower cost:rolleyes: 21/24 alternatives if you don't need the low-light capabilities of the Luxes and/or if you are happy with f/2.8. I can only speak for the Elmarit 24mm, which is a stunning lens.

I also have a Lux 21, which was great on the M8. With hindsight, I should probably have gone for the 24, as I find 21mm a tad too wide for frequent use on the M9. But that's just me.

I don't think I have ever felt that the minimum focus distance was an issue, but again, that's just me and your needs seem to be different.

[batmobile]

It depends on what you want. While the 21 1.4 might be the only one out there, thats scant reason if you don't want or need a 21 1.4. I wanted a fast 24 and it serves perfectly in this capacity. Most of my shooting has not been close up, but thats me. I thought it would be a problem and it is not, bec I use it for documentary work and where 0.7m is plenty close enough. Needing a fast 21/24 in M mount is the only reason and for me, I was never going to lug about an additional system to get a cheaper fast 24 into the field so bit the bullet and so got the 24 1.4 lux. Best decision I have made in a long time and I have taken a good number of keepers in teh few months I have had it.

 

I use mine on a 0.58 film body and so use the whole finder for decent focusing. My honest advice is that if you do not feel you really need this lens, you would be mad to buy it. While not big, it is bigger thn most other M lenses and expensive. I bought mine so I stopped missing shots I know I could have taken were I to have it. I also wanted to ditch my 21 and 28 2.8s and work with a single 24 beneath my 35mm.

 

Many of my shots have been of people in spaces in relatively poor light where i was force to shoot D3200 with my 2.8 lens. Now I can use Neopan 1600 at 500-640 and still have one more stop in reseverve when it is down to the wire. It also performs very well as a general 24mm lens, but thats no reason to shell out $6k when a used 24 elmarit will do nicely at $2400. Great lens, but it does not sound like you have a need for it, but more of a curiosity perhaps. at the end of the day it is a 24 that goes to f1.4 and while it does open up some DOF possibilities I think the novelty would wear off, but YMMV!

[Mauribix]

Not sure I understand what you mean here. The 21/24 Luxes are f/1.4 and hard to compare to the Zeiss or CV in this respect.

In fact I didn't compare the lenses, as for their speed, I was considering the fact that WA lenses usually can focus at nearer distances... that's all.

 

Leica offers lower cost:rolleyes: 21/24 alternatives if you don't need the low-light capabilities of the Luxes and/or if you are happy with f/2.8. I can only speak for the Elmarit 24mm, which is a stunning lens.

 

I own-owned the low-cost alternatives , that's why I needed a faster lens.

[jaapv]

I have the 24, which I think is less demanding than the 21. It is a wonderful lens when used for the purpose for which it is intended, i.e. wideangle look with separation of the subject, and of course it performs well as a normal wideangle too. But for practicality I take an Elmarit 28 when I know I will be shooting normal wideangles. So it really must fit your subjects, and yes, you cannot shoot it below 70 cm, so that must fit your program as well.

All considered, for me it has been worth the price.

[batmobile]

I own-owned the low-cost alternatives , that's why I needed a faster lens.

 

Low cost alternatives - where?!?

 

Perhaps you have answered your question. If you need something faster and M, you have no choice but these two lenses! If you are used to focusing no closer than 70cm then nothing changes. the close focus on the ZMs is IMHO a bit of a gimmick as you struggle to make use of it in the field, even with a tripod, in which case you are well out of M territory.

 

IMHO the 21 1.4 is too wide for daily application whereas the 24 makes a great mate for a 35 lux. I am still using slower 35mm lenses in wait for the new lux asph and have found myself making the 24 lux work due to a need for the sheer speed (not OOF). I could never have done that with a 21mm which IMHO is much more extreme looking (and was when I used the ZM before I got the lux 24.

[Nikkor AIS]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

 

 

 

Test images taken with the Nikkor 24 1.4 AFS and my my D3 in camera store,

Nothing wrong with the Nikkor 24 1.4 I tested last week. However, Im still getting what I need out of my Nikkor 28 1.4 AF-D for the my Nikon system so Im not going to buy just yet.

 

 

 

 

Nikkor 24 1.4 AF-D on D3 taken yesterday.

 

 

I use my fast wide primes a whole bunch. To me there indispensable. There is a look you get that I just find to cool for words. I bought a Voigtlander 28 1.9 ASAPH for way cheap compared to the Leica fast primes just to have something close for my Lecia system. now in saying that I almost always shoot with two Nikon D3 and two Leica M bodies at the same time. Well one at time , but I have them with me if you know what I mean. I think go together perfectly.

While Im sure that either the 24 1.4 or the 21 1.4 leica would be amazing I wouldnt think twice about checking out the the Nikkor 24 1.4 AFS first with a D3s.

Im going to finish my thoughts on the next post. As I want to use some more photo's to illustrate my point and Im limited to 5 .

 

Gregory

[Mauribix]

Low cost alternatives - where?!?

That was ironic...

 

Perhaps you have answered your question. If you need something faster and M, you have no choice but these two lenses! If you are used to focusing no closer than 70cm then nothing changes. the close focus on the ZMs is IMHO a bit of a gimmick as you struggle to make use of it in the field, even with a tripod, in which case you are well out of M territory.

 

Well, maybe I didn't make it clear enough before, but what I'm talking about is not if I need an M lens or not, I'm talking about the limitations of these lenses, and whether they worth the expense or not.

Last weekend, shooting at a wedding, as a professional I would have loved to have a fast 24/21 lux with my M, but as a matter of fact I ended up shooting with the D700 because it let me get closer to my subjects.

That's my point, I don't want to criticize optical qualities or whatever, simply, with a WA lens a closer focus distance is often useful, and I'm curious to know whether other people found the same as a limit with the 21-24luxes, cause it's a bit annoyin' IMHO with such expensive lenses. That's all.

[jaapv]

I'm not sure all brides would welcome being photographed from 50 cm I think, for the 24 at least the shortest distance is not much of a limitation.

[Mauribix]

 

 

 

 

Test images taken with the Nikkor 24 1.4 AFS and my my D3 in camera store,

Nothing wrong with the Nikkor 24 1.4 I tested last week. However, Im still getting what I need out of my Nikkor 28 1.4 AF-D for the my Nikon system so Im not going to buy just yet.

 

 

 

 

Nikkor 24 1.4 AF-D on D3 taken yesterday.

 

 

I use my fast wide primes a whole bunch. To me there indispensable. There is a look you get that I just find to cool for words. I bought a Voigtlander 28 1.9 ASAPH for way cheap compared to the Leica fast primes just to have something close for my Lecia system. now in saying that I almost always shoot with two Nikon D3 and two Leica M bodies at the same time. Well one at time , but I have them with me if you know what I mean. I think go together perfectly.

While Im sure that either the 24 1.4 or the 21 1.4 leica would be amazing I wouldnt think twice about checking out the the Nikkor 24 1.4 AFS first with a D3s.

Im going to finish my thoughts on the next post. As I want to use some more photo's to illustrate my point and Im limited to 5 .

 

Gregory

 

Gregory, I think you nailed it.

 

Thank you for your post and thoughts.

[Mauribix]

I'm not sure all brides would welcome being photographed from 50 cm

 

Jaap, it depends a lot on how/what bride you shoot...

[jaapv]

There is that of course. But seriously, wouldn't the wideangle perspective be a bit unflattering when used for humans. I mean, I can visualize a slice of wedding cake close in the foreground with the happy couple oof behind it etc , but wouldn't the current closest focus be enough for that type of shot? I mean something like this. Sorry for the snapshot content, but just as illustration.

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!

[Ecar]

In fact I didn't compare the lenses, as for their speed, I was considering the fact that WA lenses usually can focus at nearer distances... that's all.

Understand now. Perhaps there's some kind of optical trade-off involved, which is way beyond my limited knowledge of optics.

I guess that if you need both close focussing capabilities and f/1.4 only Canikon will be able to come to the (bride's) rescue.

[Mauribix]

There is that of course. But seriously, wouldn't the wideangle perspective be a bit unflattering when used for humans. I mean, I can visualize a slice of wedding cake close in the foreground with the happy couple oof behind it etc , but wouldn't the current closest focus be enough for that type of shot?

 

Jaap, seriously I use to shoot people with any wide angle, the way you frame does the trick.

Sometimes I found myself tryin' to close focus the bride's hands, maybe with a "close-up" on the ring willing to frame her chest/head in the same shot, but with a 0.7m focus distance you'll get a limited framing possibility in this respect... (you'll include much more space in the frame).

[Mauribix]

Here is a comparison:

 

I was shooting with the CV15 (with the M8) and my assistant with the D700+15mm, both of us with our closest focus distance... The difference is huge IMHO, and I consider the fact that a 15mm lens on the M8 is 35mm equiv. to a 21.

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!

[batmobile]

Mauribix,

 

I think the 0.7m limit is essentially inherent within RF lenses. Have you used the ZMs with their uncoupled closer focus? I have and it is pot luck and no use to me at all, personally.

 

These lenses are totally worth the expense if you must have a fast M 21 or 24. I don't think there is any more to it than that. In my work it is not a limitation and were it to be, a SLR lens would make much, much more sense anyway. I use my 24 lux as I use any other RF system lens and so close focus does not really enter into my mind as 0.7m is what I am used to with every other lens. I don't think the min focus is anything that can be pegged to these lenses because its inherent with the RF system.

 

As you will prob hear about the 24, it performs superbly wide open IMO but is not a scalpel. What I like best about the lens is that it always seems to deliver perfect contrast. I shoot B&W and love the negs I see under the loupe and to be honest, even with w 24mm, the slightest subject or movement on your part ruins focus so were the focus to be 0.5m or so, it would be really tough I think, esp if your subject is off centre. Youd struggle to nail focus.

 

Most of my f1.4 shots have been at distances of 2-3m or beyond but every now and again I end up shooting f1.4 and close up. I do notice a real improvement in quality as you stop down tho. if you really want to shoot up close a lot for the OOF and are not after the lens for the speed/shutter speed need then I would suggest it is not the right lens or systenm for your needs. Jaap might disagree but it sounds like you are talking SLR territory.

 

That was ironic...

 

 

 

Well, maybe I didn't make it clear enough before, but what I'm talking about is not if I need an M lens or not, I'm talking about the limitations of these lenses, and whether they worth the expense or not.

Last weekend, shooting at a wedding, as a professional I would have loved to have a fast 24/21 lux with my M, but as a matter of fact I ended up shooting with the D700 because it let me get closer to my subjects.

That's my point, I don't want to criticize optical qualities or whatever, simply, with a WA lens a closer focus distance is often useful, and I'm curious to know whether other people found the same as a limit with the 21-24luxes, cause it's a bit annoyin' IMHO with such expensive lenses. That's all.

[jaapv]

Ì won't disagree at all .Horses for courses However, the ultimate tool would be to use the Elamrit -R 16 semi-fisheye for such shots I suppose. Even on the M9 it will let you get to 20 cm or closer, and scale-focus is fine. Then the perspective will have the same function as OOF has with fast WAs

[Nikkor AIS]

While the Nikon D3 platform is "hefty" I dont think it's size or weight is prohibitory big for a girl..In fact I think she likes the size and weight of the camera/ lens combo. Girl power

 

Here is shot of Kat with D3 and and Nikkor 16 mm 2.8 AIS. She has no problem using the D3 and the 28 1.4 combo which is about the same weight/sizes as the Nikkor 24 1.4 AFS.

 

 

The thing is about carrying two systems is that for me you have the best of both worlds. And if you need versatilely of using lens like the 8-16mm fish-eye's and or super fast telephoto's you got them. And for me my whole leica system fits in a small National geo bag and counter balences nicely with one D3 on the other side and one D3 down the middle.

 

I wish tell you more about the Leica 21 1.4 /24 1.4 lenses but hope that my experience in shooting with both Nikon and system is some benefit to your decision. I didn't mean to make it a 'girl thing" but I know might chime in and say the D3 and 24 1.4 AFS is to big and heavy which in just silly from my experience watching Kat use my camera.

 

 

 

Lecia M7 on Voigtlander 15 4.5 ASAP with Ektar 100 film.

 

Gregory

[Nikkor AIS]

Your very welcome Maurizio, it is pleasure .

 

One more taken by Kat with the Nikkor 28 1.4 AF D on D3

 

While agree that shot I posted taken of myself by Kat is less than flattering, In truth it was with a 16mm fisheye and no one looks to good in a fish-eye.

 

Thanks to Kat to letting post/use her images

 

Gregory

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[roguewave]

I think it's important to understand there is a fundamental difference between the capabilities of the digital M's & the R system. No lens in the M line will let you do what the R19 allows me, with my DMR.

 

 

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!