jaapv Posted September 9, 2010 Share #21 Posted September 9, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have a 28 Cron, and it's utterly capable - it simply delivers every time, without fuss or fail. But from the images I've seen published (online), the 24 lux seems to deliver a very appealing, slightly dreamy result that makes the cron look exceptionally clinical. Because of this; I'd love to try the 24 out. Its size doesn't bother me (I'm one of the few that enjoys using the 75 lux), and I'm confident my brain would be able to attune itself to ballpark framing, but its price puts it squarely out of my reach. Jaap; I'd love to see some of your shallow DoF shots from the 24. Unless of course you think it would just make me want it even more; in which case... I'd rather not look. It is quite nice for romantic dinners... 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/130557-28cron-vs-24lux/?do=findComment&comment=1433903'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 9, 2010 Posted September 9, 2010 Hi jaapv, Take a look here 28cron vs 24lux. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Xmas Posted September 9, 2010 Share #22 Posted September 9, 2010 Well, congrats. With two artificial hip joints, I must admit that such joys belong to the past -- and pack my gear accordingly. Mr. Walker Hi Lars So sorry. I use small light lenses cause I always need depth of field. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenerrolrd Posted September 9, 2010 Share #23 Posted September 9, 2010 I use both of these lenses on a regular basis. When I travel I will take 5-7 lenses and then match a kit of 3-4 lenses to the subject and expected light. I like the 28/2 summicron on the M9 as I prefer beautiful balance achieved in the design. The images are crisp but not to a fault and the color saturation is very natural. The size and balance are small especially if you change out the lens hood for a contax cg-1 hood or similar metal hood. The 28mm FOV results in the widest view possible without risking distortion (you can do it you just have to be precise in framing and alignment) . I find it easier to get consistently decent framing . This is my number one lens on the M9 . But...and this is a big one...... fast and wide really is versatile.....low light often provides some of the best opportunities. So if I wander out before dawn ...I want the 24/1.4 or if I plan to be out after sunset same choice. If you can avoid making low light equals high ISO ..the opportunity for extraordinary presents itself. The 24 rendering has the modern attributes...very sharp ,high contrast...great in soft light ,maybe not as nice in bright beach scenes. It does have too much CA which shows up in night shooting ..rumored to be correctible in C1 but not fully in LR. Check your focus calibration as I have never found it dreamy at 1.4 unless I misfocused. (which is understandable in low light) . It does have a nice bokeh and is very workable to create creative use of DOF. These are both great lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggi Posted September 10, 2010 Share #24 Posted September 10, 2010 My favorite wide angle lens is the f=24mm. Erwin Puts wrote: "With the 24 you can create a dream." When you use your 24 Summilux at f/1.4 the image becomes more dreamy I think. The f=28mm is to near by the f=35mm. I am using the 24 more often than the 35. And when the Summilux is too heavy (or too expensive), there is also the 24 Elmarit. But this is only my very personal point of view. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicashot Posted September 10, 2010 Share #25 Posted September 10, 2010 My favorite wide angle lens is the f=24mm. Erwin Puts wrote: "With the 24 you can create a dream." When you use your 24 Summilux at f/1.4 the image becomes more dreamy I think. The f=28mm is to near by the f=35mm. I am using the 24 more often than the 35. And when the Summilux is too heavy (or too expensive), there is also the 24 Elmarit. But this is only my very personal point of view. How lens's other than the Noct f/1 get the nickname 'dreamy' is silly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted September 10, 2010 Author Share #26 Posted September 10, 2010 How lens's other than the Noct f/1 get the nickname 'dreamy' is silly. I Maybe not as shallow DOF and dreamy as the noct but IMO the drawing of the 24lux wide open could be called dreamy. anyways, very subjective Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggi Posted September 10, 2010 Share #27 Posted September 10, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) How lens's other than the Noct f/1 get the nickname 'dreamy' is silly. Look at a picture shot with a wide open 24, and you understand... Also, the Noctilux is a great lens! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicashot Posted September 10, 2010 Share #28 Posted September 10, 2010 Look at a picture shot with a wide open 24, and you understand... Also, the Noctilux is a great lens! Still wouldn't call it dreamy, but interesting, yes. I guess added vignetting would take it to dreamy status Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgray Posted September 13, 2010 Share #29 Posted September 13, 2010 The Nikon 24/1.4 just kidding. However would like to mention that the DOF of the 28/2.0 wide open is quite shallow as well. Indeed. I know there is more to DOF than just pure numbers, as specific lens design does affect it, but a 24/1.4 at 1.4 has almost identical DOF to a 28/2.0 at 2.0 at all distances. Ditto for other apertures. Look at a DOF chart or even in the Leica pdfs for these two lenses. I know, the focal lengths are different and the 24 is a stop faster, which is important in many scenarios. Personally, I love the 28/2. Great FOV, small, and fast enough. But I really like 28. It's wide enough for dynamic scenes as you guys say, but not too wide. I also don't feel like it's harsh or clinical at all, but then again, I don't shoot digital with it. I find with 21 or 24 (21 especially) I end up with a bit too much on the edges while shooting people. Adding in the size and price of the 24/1.4 and 21/1.4 (never mind the price of the M9), and I have a feeling I'll never use one. I'd be much off with a vacation Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.