24-21lux and M9/8 closest focus consideration

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1. For a while in film days I had a 21 Super-Angulon f/3.4, which would, in fact, scale-focus down to 15" even though the RF cut out at 28" - see ferret picture. It was a lot of fun and got me a couple of pictures that could otherwise only have been done with an SLR.

 

2. When I switched back to more modern lenses, I experimented with mounting a basic close-up lens on a 24 Elmarit - see girl picture. In fact I swapped my 21 pre-ASPH for the 24 (for a while) precisely because it was much easier to find an E55 screw-in close-up filter than one in the E60 size.

 

(And is a close-up wideangle portrait uncomplimentary? Possibly - but I'm not in the compliment business. For this series on kids hanging out on the streets, I wanted the edgy, literally "in your face" approach.)

 

It does require a bit of testing and a chart to convert the engraved focus-scale distances to the actual focus distance with close-up lens attached. And it does require scale focusing (but then the c/v lenses and the S/A also require scale focusing - just a skill to learn).

 

The focus range of the 24 with close-up lens attached was about 12" to 20", IIRC.

 

I also tried the close-up lens technique with a Mamiya 7 65mm lens to get closer than 1 meter - it worked, but not well enough. A 65 just has less leeway for scale-focusing than a 21/24.

 

3. There is always the 16-18-21 WATE, which scale-focuses down to .5m (20")

 

4. Why the 0.7m limitation on modern Leica M wide-angles (except the WATE)? Probably a mix of:

 

> lack of imagination

 

> some concern that newbies would get all upset when the RF disconnected at .7 meters anyway (I recall a couple of "why does my RF stop working at .7 meters" threads when the WATE first came out).

 

> economics and/or size concerns - a longer focus helical is required, both in rotation and physical length, to get closer focusing. And once one factors in the floating elements of the new lenses, which requires yet another helical to be made longer.....

______________________

 

Edit: BTW, while the 21 and 24 luxes take series filters, not screw-in, I note that B&H carries B+W closeup lenses in series sizes: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/10195-REG/B_W_65076614_Series_7_Close_up_NL.html

 

Uh-oh - I also just noticed they carry E60 CU lenses as well! Hmmmmmm - there goes $40.00!

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!

[Mauribix]

Ben, you nailed it too... I was pretty thinking of your shooting style with this thread, and you pictures is a perfect example.

 

Adan, you kept the words out of my mouth, very smart and effective comment as usual from you.

I agree with the "silly" fact that limiting the focus distance because it is not coupled is a bit... silly.

It's just a matter of practice IMHO as well.

 

BTW, did you buy one of these luxes? Both pictures are superb, with the ferret's one outstanding IMHO. What lens is that?

[stephan_w]

I have the new Nikon 24/1,4 and it makes me lusting for the Leica Summilux 24. The reason is not that the Nikon is a bad lens, but it looses it's focus advantage (AF) as the focus sensor zone is to limited, so I had finally to focus anyway manually. The only thing I wonder is if the rangefinder window alows to have the same control over the picture as the slr has ...... an important argument for me.

[batmobile]

I suspect the mechanics of shorter focus would increase the size, weight and cost too. Longer min focus is used as a cost/size saver on the Summarits after all. I also suspect that Leica figured the prospective buyer of the 21/24 luxes would not be worried about focusing at ultra close distances due to the difficulties of accurately determining framing and focus and the vast majority of users would not pay more and carry greater weight for something they would never use. Dont forget that not only does the RF patch stop moving, so do the parallax adjusted frame lines. Wanting a 24 lux to have this ultra close focus feature is kinda like insisting your formula one car also has cross country capabilities At some point you have to decide what you want your tool for or get a more generalist lens like a 25 Biogon which focuses down to 0.5m I believe. My 28 ZM does and offers better magnifaction to boot.

 

If you don't need the f1.4 (and I mean need rather than lust after the novelty) I really cannot understand why anyone would buy one of these super wide luxes. If you do want/need one I also cannot understand why the close focus would be a deal stopper. Its not an ideal walkabout lens by any stretch of the imagination. As for using close up series 7 filters, forget it IMHO. This is not a lens where you want to be messing about with filters due to the exposed nature of the front element, screw hood arrangement etc. Under any kind of pressure you are going to end up scratching that front element or dropping your series filter onto the deck.

 

If I go out shooting and know I am not going to encounter very low light levels I take my 28 biogon. Smaller, lighter, easier filter changes etc. Much more practical, but when you need those extra two stops one has no choice but to take along the lux. Its perfect in its element, but I do not lug it about when I know I wont need those stops. Personal choice of course.

[roguewave]

Having just acquired Jaap's Ziess 21 ZM, I have some comments about the difference between the Luxes & the Zeiss 21, 2,8. True, I can't get in as close as with the R19, but the 2.8 wide open does actually provide an interesting compromise. I have made various test images & what I've found is that I'm getting plenty of separation between foreground/principle image content, with very smooth transitions into the OOF areas. The 2.8 aperture allows a greater DOF to capture significant features, particularly in the case of people, which is not the case with the Luxes. Wide open, the 21 & 24 Lux renders spectacular bokeh (very important to me), but the very shallow area of what is in focust doesn't always work. I face this same dilemma with my 80 Lux, the finest lens I own, hands down. All said, I appreciate the comments of some of the posters in this thread, particularly Maurizio, for suggesting & explaining the pluses of the Zeiss 21. I think this speaks to the heart of the OP's (Maurizio) core issues. There isn't a "correct" answer, just a matter of sensibility & ultimate use. It just may be that a 21 or 24 lux that can be focused inside 6 inches would be a monster in both size & control.

 

My sense is that Leica's orientation to "wide angle" lenses is weighted to the architectural tradition, not the portrait or "street" perspective. The incredible lenses Leica has offered in the 35 & 28 lengths are legendary. As far as street portraiture & general reportage, they are hard to best. I don't see an extension of this tradition as Luxes get wider than 35. Yes, they are amazing lenses, but not for imaging people. The vast difference between the close focus length of the R24 & any M Lux below 35 is evidence enough.

[jaapv]

Happy to hear it works for you, Ben I like my stuff to go to a good home.

[roguewave]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Happy to hear it works for you, Ben I like my stuff to go to a good home.

 

I believe it's VERY happy on my M8.

[Overgaard]

See what you mean. Hadn't thought that much about it, but it's true that the old 21/3.4 goes really close, and so does the 19mm/2.8 on the R system.

 

I did the below near-focus with the 21/1.4 and unfortunately I don't have the other shots on a drive nearby. But the reason to use a 21mm f/1.4 would be for DOF and to use it to move close in on one subject (person or so) while still maintain the atmosphere and story of the background behind them.

 

 

This is the 24/1.4 at 1 - 1.2 meter distance. In some ways it doesn't have a 24mm look, it might as well have been taken with e 50mm.

 

 

And here is the 19/2.8 on the R at closest focus distance:

 

[roguewave]

I was speaking of the Zeiss 21mm 2.8. Here's as close as I think I can get, which is closer than with the 21 Lux & still be in focus. The bokeh on the 21 Lux is very nice. In fact it is the star of the show with that lens. The Zeiss gives me much more in focus material up front.

 

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!

[adan]

Maurizio

 

Ferret picture is with 21 f/3.4 Super-Angulon @ minimum focus (40cm?)

 

Girl was with 24 Elmarit-M + a closeup attachment lens.

[batmobile]

I think the 21 and 24 lux were specifically designed with reportage and not arthictecture in mind. You don't build a lens with 2+% distortion for architecture. I don't think anyone builds a super wide with close up portraiture in mind. The 24 ahs compromised corners at wider apertures and once again, this would suggest reportage with a subject somewhere away from the edges. Why would you build a super fast super wide for architecture anyway, let alone one for a RF!?!?!

[Mauribix]

Maurizio

 

Ferret picture is with 21 f/3.4 Super-Angulon @ minimum focus (40cm?)

 

Girl was with 24 Elmarit-M + a closeup attachment lens.

 

Thank you Adan, I knew the lens used for the girl, but the ferret's one was a mystery to me.

[Mauribix]

The bokeh on the 21 Lux is very nice. In fact it is the star of the show with that lens.

Indeed my friend, but the Zeiss qualities are absolutely superb too and you can go down to 0.5... pretty good right?

[Mauribix]

@ Thorsten:

 

I know that you were using the Super Angulon with your M9, are you still using it? I'm curious to know whether the latest firmware update fixed somehow the vignetting (red corners) issue for better or worse.

 

IMHO the rendering of that lens (yours and Adan'd sample demonstrate that) is somehow unique and pleasant. Such a pity that it needs so much PP to get the colors work with it.

 

thanks