24 summilux, 50 lux and the 0.95

[jackal]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Guys, thinking out loud here about having a big reshuffle this year partly because I sold some lenses last year that I shouldn't have and secondly because all I see is values going up so its not a bad place to have some money tied up.

 

First thing I need to decide is whether to go for the 24mm Summilux or not. Its a lens I have long lusted after as I love the prospect of shallow dof at 24mm. The problem is I am worried that it won't see much use. I find 24mm very wide on the M9. Question is, does anyone use this combo much or does it stay in the bag. What sort of subjects do you shoot with it ?

 

Second thing I need to decide is the 50mm summilux vs. Noctilux. Now my gear is used 90% for work so sharpness and resolution does matter. To this end I slowly sold off the lenses that weren't so commercially viable like the F1 Noctilux, the 75 summilux and also the 18mm Zeiss as it was just too wide. In the same vein I will be selling my 2 ultron and buying another 28 summicron which to me was in a different league. But as for the 50mm's, how good is the 0.95 as a regular 50mm ? Is it as large as the F1 ? I gather that the 50 lux is incredibly sharp and an amazing lens so it would probably do my needs but one cant help thinking about the 0.95. That said, for the money I could by back an F1 for its special look and get a 50 lux to boot ! Is the character of the 0.95 sufficiently less 'characterful' (compared to the old F1) to mean that you may as well plump for the 1.4 because the only thing you're losing is a stop ?

 

I think after those 2 decisions the rest will be simple. An apo 75mm F2 is definitely on the cards. I'd like to pick up a 21 elmarit ASPH to fill in that focal length as well and I will probbaly upgrade my 35 lux to the new one when they become available. That makes, 21 f2.8, 24 f1.4, 28 f2, 25 f1.4, 50 f0.95 or 1.4, 75 f2

 

Last question is about the 90 F2 and the 135mm . I used to have an old pre-asph 90mm cron on my M8 which was a nice lens but teh framing was so small. What is the 90 and 135 like on the M9 ?

[Advertisement]

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

[vanhulsenbeek]

May take you a year to get part or whole of this stash: very few or no lenses available now. But dreaming helps

[chris_tribble]

IMHO 50 / 90 / 135 work well as standard > long solutions. The 75 didn't do it for me and I sold mine (great on the M8, but for portraits on the M9 I love the 90). re the 50, as a working lens, I'd stick with the 50 lux asph. It's such a good piece of glass and so easy to use. 135? I don't use mine that often, but when I do I'm glad that I have it. It gets me close when I can't get in there physically. If I'm in the hills, my standard kit is the 28 asph + the 135 3.5 A-T. Interiors / events I often use 18 / 28 / 50 / 90 working with 2 bodies. Street, the Perar 35 is proving to be a favourite - or the 35 cron.

[!Nomad64]

Jackal,

 

however said that you and you only can know if a peculiar lens will stay in your bag rather than not, I guess that you DON'T have a 24 mm and are just wondering whether you might eventually make an use of it.

In this case the answer is pretty simple: do not buy what you do not need. It's useless to ask yourself "Could it turn useful someday?" When it comes to such a peculiar lens the world splits in two: those who can't do without it and those who'll never need it.

This said, I and stress I, would use this lens in poorly lit interns, at close distance from my subject.

 

Summilux vs. Noctilux. I can't speak upon direct experience as I do not own neither (yet), but from what I could learn from others, the new Noctilux is an excellent lens at any apertures and at slower apertures its signature is pretty similar to the ASPH 'lux one. But it's not to be taken as an all-rounder. First, because it's huge. It's larger and heavier than the previous Nocti f1. Second, is more prone to purple fringing. Third, you mentioned it's for work. In this case the 'lux at 1.4 is easier to focus than the Nocti at 0.95. The 'lux should reward you with a higher percentage of success. I don't think you'll badly need that extra stop at any cost. What you get at 0.95 the 'lux can give you at 1.4 by pushing the ISO up one stop. The M9 behaves very well under this point of view.

 

Then, IMHO the final list of the lenses you drafted is way too crowded. IMHO pairs such as 21 and 24 are too close as well as 24 and 28, 28 and 35, 50 and 75, 75 and 90. You don't have to cover any possible angle with a lens. You can compensate by feet. This will also force you to discover new points of view and potentially to taking alternative shots. If you really want a continuum angle coverage you'd better get a SLR with a couple zooms.

For starters you may want to get the lens you use more, then expand with a wider and a narrower one. Let's say you start with the 50, you'll then go for the old classic trio, 35, 50, 90 or 28, 50, 90.

This should cover the 95% of your subjects. Remember that not so long ago photographers did everything with just three lenses or less. I do not remember anymore who said that every time you change a lens you lose a picture, but he was a bright one. Then you'll eventually extend towards wider or narrower. It could be then 21, 28, 50, 90 or 24, 35, 50, 90.

 

Finally, 90 and 135 on the M9 are exactly as they were meant back in film time. Bear in mind that the M9 viewfinder is different than the M8's one. Roughly, the M9 lines for the 90 should frame an area of intermediate size between 50 and 75 on the M8 and the 135 lines on the M9 should frame an area slightly tighter than the 90 on the M8.

Besides, 135 tests the limits of the rangefinder and you might find very opportune to add a 1.25 or 1.40 magnifier.

 

Hope this helps,

Bruno

[jackal]

Thanks for that, its interesting what you say about the 0.95

 

The F1 always made its own case because nothing else looked like it so a 50mm lux could never be a substitute in its place. From what i'm hearing though, the look of the 0.95 isn't so far away from the Lux so really all you're getting is another stop which as you say, is easily recovered from elsewhere. I think if anything I am leaning toward the 50 lux and if anything, buying back a used F1 again.

 

I hear what you're saying about a crowded line up but in my world the difference between say 24 and 21 can be pretty significant and ideally i would be able to cover all lengths between 21 and 75. I shoot cars mostly and a car changes the way it looks quite dramatically through the various focal lengths. Some cars don't work wide and some cars do and some clients are very picky about the perspective and the way you accentuate or portray the shape of the car. Also, very often the distance to subject is not so easily controlled. My M9 is often on the end of a long rigid rig which is attached to the car or it's in a tracking vehicle with limited ability to direct or control distances and what I can or can't fit in frame.

 

I do miss some of the M8 combinations. I used to shoot 18m on the M8 which gave me a very dramatic shot with tons of landscape in the backgroudn but the car was never too small. The same was true of the 24mm. Of course I can still crop on the M9 and get the same result but it would be nice if leica made a M8 1.333 crop camera that was a higher resolution sensor.

[01af]

I need to decide is the 50 mm Summilux vs. Noctilux. Now my gear is used 90 % for work so sharpness and resolution does matter. [...] how good is the 0.95 as a regular 50 mm?

It definitely is usable as a regular 50 mm lens even for demanding applications if you don't mind the size and weight (and viewfinder obstruction). Yet the Summilux-M 50 mm Asph at apertures between f/1.4 and f/2.8 is a tad better still. If you don't desperately need apertures wider than f/1.4 then the Summilux-M 50 mm Asph is the better choice.

 

 

Is it as large as the f/1?

Even larger actually.

 

 

Last question is about the 90/2 and the 135 mm. I used to have an old pre-asph Summicron 90 mm on my M8 which was a nice lens but the framing was so small. What is the 90 and 135 like on the M9?

The 90 mm framelines on the M9 are slightly wider than the 75 mm framelines on the M8. The 135 mm framelines on the M9 are slightly narrower than the 90 mm framelines on the M8. The 1.4× eyepiece magnifier helps a lot.

[ldhrads]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I can't speak to the 24 lux, although I did shoot it once on the M8 and It was nice. I shoot a 25 on the M9 (zeiss biogon) and it's somewhat wide "for my tastes"

 

As for the 0.95 Noctilux, I love it, it can be used all day long and I've carried it all day long. It's heavy, but it's a joy to use. It takes a little practice to nail the focus, but once you get it, it's really great IMHO

 

I love my 90/2 pre asph on the M9, it's remarkable great bokeh, easy to focus, not too heavy. I put a thread on earlier "90 vs 105" take a quick look. I find it easy to frame on the M9, much easier than on the M8

[IkarusJohn]

My line up is 75 Cron Asph, 50 Lux Asph, 35 Cron Asph & 21 Lux Asph. What you're proposing looks very crowded to me.

 

You were asking about the 24 Lux - I was tossing up between the 24 & the 21. The additional view finder was a bit off-putting, but in the end I felt that the 21 suited my line up better. I love the drama the wide angle gives, and used properly (filling the frame and identifying the subject properly, the isolation the narrow depth of field gives is wonderful). The 24 seemed too close to my 35.

 

The 35 Cron was initially my favourite lens (wonderful rendition), but the 50 Lux now lives on the camera. I would have no use for the 0.95 Nocti - I simply don't see the point, except for specialist use. The 50 Lux is such a fine lens.

 

For portrait lenses, the narrow depth of field inherent in telephoto lenses, combined with relatively fast apertures like f/2 can be problematic. I find the 75 Cron relatively unforgiving - I doubt I would use a 90 or 135 with my M9.

 

Looking at your proposed line up, there are many lenses there I doubt you'd use, or rather with careful selection you could do the same or better job with fewer lenses.

 

Cheers

John

[gravastar]

There's an important difference between the Summilux at F1.4 and the Noctilux 0.95 at F1.4. The illumination from 1/3 out to the corners of the frame could be one stop or more better with the Noctilux. I've never measured it accurately but it's very very noticeable. There's little difference in the central region.

 

I think there's more information about this on Sean Reid's site in his review of fast 50s but for some reason my recently renewed subscription is no loger active.

 

Bob.

[dseelig]

My lens lineup is wate, 24 lux 35 lux 50 lux 75 lux and a 90 cron. When shooting in daylight I will carry everthing but th 75 at night I take th 75 luc and drop the wate and the 90 cron. When I eed the 24 lux it is great to have my most used lens is the 35 lux then the 50 then th3 90 or 75 and the 24 about the same last is the wate . Hope that helps. PS The 21 lux was never considered as it si too wide and a bit bigger then the 24 lux.

[Timmvers]

I don't have much experience with the 24mm, but if you get the 28 summicron( which I own and love on the M9) then I think you would have to go 21mm or they are just too close.

 

The latest 50 lux is fantastic! I sometimes travel with this lens only. The 50 noct is bigger than the old F1, but much improved (Read Erwin Put's review or Steve Huff's on www. Stevehuffphoto.com). IMO if you get the 50 noct them you should get the 50 cron. The 50 cron is small, does not block the viewfinder and on an M9 it is fantastic!

 

I in the 90mm area I would get the 90 APO. Or if you want to keep it small and travel ready then go 90 tele-elmarit.

 

Hope this helps.

JT

[vdb]

I am a huge fan of the 24 lux. I use it >50% of the time for street portraits....very close up. The 50 lux is arguably the finest 50 mm lens of all time. Feel free to visit my zenfolio site for many examples.

[doug_m]

The 50 lux ASPH is a great and very versatile lens. The nocti 0.95 is a great lens but much less versatile due to size and the fact that it focuses down to only 1m.

 

The 75 cron is absolutely superb and for my use better than the 90 cron due to it's superior rendering and focusing down to 0.7m.

 

The 24 lux is also a great lens but is not very versatile. It is very pricey so think twice before buying this one.

 

Good luck.

[Mmark]

Typically I use 24lux, 50/0.95 Noctilux and 90 Elmarit. No 135mm.

I bought 24lux because 28lux does not exist, and I love it! It's surprisingly useful, easy to use and hard to be replaced with anything else. Can be used without external VF which is the biggest plus comparing to 21lux.

I had Noctilux 1.0 and 50lux and had both of them in my bag. Bought Nocti 0.95 and sold both a week later. 0.95 is for sure the best 50 ever made. Easier to use than old Nocti, at 1.4 very similar to Lux.

If you can afford 0.95 go for it!

 

Some stats; Noctilux is getting ~65% of use, 24lux ~30% and remaining 5 goes to 90mm.

[Xmas]

Hi

 

Leica publishes the technical details no need for 3rd partys to duplicate...

 

Leica Camera AG - Photography - Lenses

 

The Noct (either) are super speed lenses, but you may have more focus shift with the f/1, both are large... you may get (i.e. more) veiling flare with either, then the lux.

 

The 25/24 is easier to use than a 21 but if your back is at a wall you may need both, The CV f/1.9 (LTM) has a different signature from the CV f/2 28m, easier to code the LTM adapter.

 

Getting any of the lenses is gonna be difficult.

 

Noel

[tgray]

If you don't need the f/1.4 of the 24 Summilux, or the ~f/1 of the Noctilux, I suggest you get the 28 Summicron and the 50 ASPH Summilux. They are smaller and cheaper. And maybe even sharper . And if the run-of-the-mill DOF calculations are to be believed, the DOF at 24mm and f/1.4 is roughly the same as it is at 28mm and f/2. I know specific lens designs influences DOF, but still, it's a starting point.

 

It sounds like 24mm might be a bit wide for you anyway. And if you are buying a 28 regardless, it's pretty close to that. I seriously can't imagine why'd you'd need/want a 21, a 24, and a 28. I'd think about getting the 28/2, the 50/1.4, and maybe buying another lens if you feel like it, like the 35/1.4 ASPH or one of the 75's or a 90, and use the rest of the cash for a vacation

[Marty]

Must admit that my Summilux 24 stays in the bag too often. The wide angle is not easy to use. But sometimes it is the only angle that works, and when it does come out it produces magic every time - esp. wide open. So I would never part with it.

[rob139]

I don't understand why people still need to give the not asked for 'advice' that the OP doesn't need this or that focal length, because it would be 'too crowded' in the lens setup. OP explained quite clearly that nearly every focal length available is useful for the kind of work he (or she) does.

 

 

 

I hear what you're saying about a crowded line up but in my world the difference between say 24 and 21 can be pretty significant and ideally i would be able to cover all lengths between 21 and 75. I shoot cars mostly and a car changes the way it looks quite dramatically through the various focal lengths. Some cars don't work wide and some cars do and some clients are very picky about the perspective and the way you accentuate or portray the shape of the car. Also, very often the distance to subject is not so easily controlled. My M9 is often on the end of a long rigid rig which is attached to the car or it's in a tracking vehicle with limited ability to direct or control distances and what I can or can't fit in frame.

 

 

Rob

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[ohnri]

The Noct will give you a chance for a look that the 50 lux simply cannot duplicate.

 

On the other hand, the Noct 0.95 will also do everything the 50 lux will do. For me, the choice would be easy, get the Noct.

 

Since I am very happy with my old f1 Noct, I need neither.

 

The 21 lux is also a great lens and you can't go wrong with one of those either. I just travelled internationally with just my M9, 50 Noct and 21 lux and the only lens I used was the 21 lux, naturally, without any cumbersome external VF.

 

For your car shots, the weight of these lenses will not be a significant issue.

 

Enjoy.

 

Bill

[jackal]

I don't understand why people still need to give the not asked for 'advice' that the OP doesn't need this or that focal length, because it would be 'too crowded' in the lens setup. OP explained quite clearly that nearly every focal length available is useful for the kind of work he (or she) does.

 

 

 

 

Rob

 

Because on forums it's very very common for people to transpose the question onto themselves and almost unconciously answer it according to their own personal situation rather than the OP's and thus in the process, justify what lenses/car/hifi/watch choices they have made themselves. People generally want others to do the same that they have done, thereby reaffirming the decisions that they have already made.

 

I mean no offence by this but it's the truth. And thanks for pointing that out Rob. In my work there is a world of difference between 28 and 24. Also, there is nothing wrong with owning more than you need ! If truth be told, I don't even need one porsche but believe you me if I had the means there would be a 2.7RS a 964RS, a 993RS a 996RS a 997GT2RS, a 997GT3, a 3.2CS a 993TurboS, a 965, a 917, 959 and a Carerra GT all in the garage.

 

Just come back from a shoot actually and boy I could have done with a decent 24mm. Had to use the 24-70L on the 5d instead which was no great hardship as the viewfinder on the 5d is stunning.