jaapv Posted July 25, 2011 Share #21 Posted July 25, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) yes, well the three lenses I now have are all Crons. In my case F2.0 is sufficient, particulary when you consider that most of the Canon L's I was using had a max aperture of 2.8 anyway, F2 is a luxury . For the intended purpose, 3.8 would suit the need unless the 2.8 is markedly better. In which case I would find a second hand unit. Both 3.8 and 2.8 are stunning lenses, far beyond the capability of many a photographer and any printer. The 3.8 may be difficult to find. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 Hi jaapv, Take a look here M9 Landscapes.... 24 or 28. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted July 25, 2011 Share #22 Posted July 25, 2011 yes, well the three lenses I now have are all Crons. In my case F2.0 is sufficient, particulary when you consider that most of the Canon L's I was using had a max aperture of 2.8 anyway, F2 is a luxury . For the intended purpose, 3.8 would suit the need unless the 2.8 is markedly better. In which case I would find a second hand unit. Both 3.8 and 2.8 are stunning lenses, far beyond the capability of many a photographer and any printer. The 3.8 may be difficult to find. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Studio58 Posted July 25, 2011 Author Share #23 Posted July 25, 2011 it seems just about everything Leica is difficult to find at the moment Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Studio58 Posted July 25, 2011 Author Share #24 Posted July 25, 2011 it seems just about everything Leica is difficult to find at the moment Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesk8752 Posted July 25, 2011 Share #25 Posted July 25, 2011 it seems just about everything Leica is difficult to find at the moment The Zeiss 25 and 28/2.8 ZM lenses are both excellent and are more widely available. The 25/2.8 in particular is extremely sharp and thus well suited for landscape work. Regards, Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesk8752 Posted July 25, 2011 Share #26 Posted July 25, 2011 it seems just about everything Leica is difficult to find at the moment The Zeiss 25 and 28/2.8 ZM lenses are both excellent and are more widely available. The 25/2.8 in particular is extremely sharp and thus well suited for landscape work. Regards, Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted July 25, 2011 Share #27 Posted July 25, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Having perused the thread which asked the question of whether the M9 is a serious landscape camera, my question is:Which lens would perform that task better out of the 24/28. Most of the time with landscape shooting, take a few steps back and you can get a shot with the 28 which is indistinguishable from a 24. A 21 is trickier. But sometimes those few steps back would either put you inside a rock wall or off a steep cliff. I myself would choose the 24, which can always be cropped very slightly to a 28mm FOV, whereas there's no option for the reverse. I use a separate finder for the 28 as well, so that's not a mitigating factor. That said, my preferred landscape outfit is 21-35-135. I never owned a 24 (except Nikon) and haven't used my 28 since I sold the M8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted July 25, 2011 Share #28 Posted July 25, 2011 Having perused the thread which asked the question of whether the M9 is a serious landscape camera, my question is:Which lens would perform that task better out of the 24/28. Most of the time with landscape shooting, take a few steps back and you can get a shot with the 28 which is indistinguishable from a 24. A 21 is trickier. But sometimes those few steps back would either put you inside a rock wall or off a steep cliff. I myself would choose the 24, which can always be cropped very slightly to a 28mm FOV, whereas there's no option for the reverse. I use a separate finder for the 28 as well, so that's not a mitigating factor. That said, my preferred landscape outfit is 21-35-135. I never owned a 24 (except Nikon) and haven't used my 28 since I sold the M8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted July 25, 2011 Share #29 Posted July 25, 2011 The 3.8 may be difficult to find. A popular UK dealer told me last week that he has three copies of the lens and it is the only M lens he has in stock. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted July 25, 2011 Share #30 Posted July 25, 2011 The 3.8 may be difficult to find. A popular UK dealer told me last week that he has three copies of the lens and it is the only M lens he has in stock. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted July 25, 2011 Share #31 Posted July 25, 2011 I agree, this is an unanswerable question. I live in the Scottish Highlands, so stunning landscape is all around me all the time. The trouble I often find with anything wider than 35 is the need to fill the foreground, which often renders the actual landscape little more than pretty background. But this is highly subjective and dependent on so many different things. As many have said, wonderful landscapes can be made with just about any lens from ultra-wide to super-tele. And there's a great deal to be said for just a 50 if you really want to exercise your imagination. I suggest, if it doesn't sound condescending, you think really hard about what it is you really want to photograph. Only you will know what type of landscape you will be working in, what sort of features of the landscape interest you most, and what you want your images to look like. Anything is possible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted July 25, 2011 Share #32 Posted July 25, 2011 I agree, this is an unanswerable question. I live in the Scottish Highlands, so stunning landscape is all around me all the time. The trouble I often find with anything wider than 35 is the need to fill the foreground, which often renders the actual landscape little more than pretty background. But this is highly subjective and dependent on so many different things. As many have said, wonderful landscapes can be made with just about any lens from ultra-wide to super-tele. And there's a great deal to be said for just a 50 if you really want to exercise your imagination. I suggest, if it doesn't sound condescending, you think really hard about what it is you really want to photograph. Only you will know what type of landscape you will be working in, what sort of features of the landscape interest you most, and what you want your images to look like. Anything is possible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted July 25, 2011 Share #33 Posted July 25, 2011 24 -- you can always crop smaller, not wider. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted July 25, 2011 Share #34 Posted July 25, 2011 24 -- you can always crop smaller, not wider. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted July 25, 2011 Share #35 Posted July 25, 2011 Just to address specifically what you asked, either focal length will work of course and you could equally make a case for a 35 or other focal lengths too. The new Elmar M 24 is an excellent choice. I got one when they were first released in preference to the superb Elmarit (now discontinued) In theory it is a little better right out into the corners. Whether you'd actually notice the difference in practice is a different question;) It is a more compact and has the new style metal hood. It accepts E46 filters which is convenient if you like to use the M polariser for example It is significantly cheaper as a new purchase. In Australia at least the price has dropped more than 10% since first released. More expansive view photo - Geoff Hopkinson photos at pbase.com Best to keep it in perspective though the Elmarit M 24 ASPH. was one of the very best M designs anyway. You really can't go wrong with either. The Summicron M 28 ASPH. is a classic and a remarkable design. It is actually a little smaller than its predecessor despite being a stop faster. It does not require an external viewfinder From the balcony photo - Geoff Hopkinson photos at pbase.com Don't forget that there is a tiny Elmarit M 28 too. It is significantly cheaper than the Summicron too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted July 25, 2011 Share #36 Posted July 25, 2011 Just to address specifically what you asked, either focal length will work of course and you could equally make a case for a 35 or other focal lengths too. The new Elmar M 24 is an excellent choice. I got one when they were first released in preference to the superb Elmarit (now discontinued) In theory it is a little better right out into the corners. Whether you'd actually notice the difference in practice is a different question;) It is a more compact and has the new style metal hood. It accepts E46 filters which is convenient if you like to use the M polariser for example It is significantly cheaper as a new purchase. In Australia at least the price has dropped more than 10% since first released. More expansive view photo - Geoff Hopkinson photos at pbase.com Best to keep it in perspective though the Elmarit M 24 ASPH. was one of the very best M designs anyway. You really can't go wrong with either. The Summicron M 28 ASPH. is a classic and a remarkable design. It is actually a little smaller than its predecessor despite being a stop faster. It does not require an external viewfinder From the balcony photo - Geoff Hopkinson photos at pbase.com Don't forget that there is a tiny Elmarit M 28 too. It is significantly cheaper than the Summicron too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted July 25, 2011 Share #37 Posted July 25, 2011 Andy in response to your question, I have 35, 50, 75 Crons. And which of those lenses gives you the most satisfying landscape pictures? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted July 25, 2011 Share #38 Posted July 25, 2011 Andy in response to your question, I have 35, 50, 75 Crons. And which of those lenses gives you the most satisfying landscape pictures? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Blaster Posted July 25, 2011 Share #39 Posted July 25, 2011 I'll add another vote for the Elmar 24mm - an absolutely stunningly sharp lens, and relatively compact and light (at least compared to my chrome 1.4 50mm 'Lux!) John S. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Blaster Posted July 25, 2011 Share #40 Posted July 25, 2011 I'll add another vote for the Elmar 24mm - an absolutely stunningly sharp lens, and relatively compact and light (at least compared to my chrome 1.4 50mm 'Lux!) John S. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.