chrism Posted November 1, 2011 Share #21 Posted November 1, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I can't say I've ever understood the rationale of extreme aperture wide angle lenses such as the 21/1.4..... There was a real need for faster and wider lenses when the M8 came out - the Summilux 21 was, as near as makes no difference, like using a Summilux 35 on your full-frame M. The Lux 21, 24 and the WATE all came from the crop factor of the M8's sensor. Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 Hi chrism, Take a look here 21 Summilux ASPH - Is it too fast and too expensive?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wda Posted November 1, 2011 Share #22 Posted November 1, 2011 I happily admit that pretty much all of the current Leica lenses cost more than I can afford to pay . . . but as it happens I'm content with my 1960s Leitz lens outfit on my M8 (which I bought as a used one in May). Coming back to looking at what's available after a long time with my M2 sitting in a cupboard doing nothing, seems to me as though Leica stuff is now priced up like those exclusive Swiss watches that justify the money 'cos of "exclusivity" rather than practicality. Is that right, does anybody anybody else think so? Hughie, welcome to the Forum! Justifying the purchase of expensive goods shouldn't really be necessary. It is a personal choice and, as individuals, we each have unique criteria. But my point in responding to your contribution is to echo your contentment with the marriage of 1960s lenses to a relatively modern digital camera. If you wish to read more, do use the search facility because there are several fascinating threads on this subject. I have retained one of my original lenses bought for my M3, (50mm Summicron circa 1966). While it lacks the clinical sharpness of its much younger sibling, it does produce endearing rendering of portraits and dreamy landscapes on my digital M-bodies. Search for Thorsten Overgaard's website and you will see how a highly successful professional photographer, with state-of-the-art camera and lenses, uses a Summicron very similar to mine for much of his street photography on an M9. Ultra high speed lenses are perfect for the most challenging lighting conditions, situations faced by some professionals. I guess the minority of non-professional Leica users inhabit those low-light domains on any scale. Very nice to have but, lower cost Leica lenses generally meet the requirements of most Leica photographers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted November 1, 2011 Share #23 Posted November 1, 2011 Face it - all Leica lenses are expensive, so cost is not really the issue. In my case, 21 was the focal length I decided I wanted with my M9. At that stage, I had 75, 50 & 35 covered. I like wides, so 21 was a logical choice. The available lenses were the new Summilux 1.4 or the Elmarit 2.8 (now discontinued) - I went for the Summilux as it gave me two more stops, which increases my options for indoor and low light photography. Not depth of field. A lot of the discussion here doesn't really fit with my purpose in using an M9 - for me, the M9 is small, robust, discrete, fine glass, excellent ergonomics, simple and takes fantastic handheld images in available light. I'm over long lenses on huge and noisy SLR cameras, and I don't want to carry a flash or shoot video. The Summilux 21 fits very nicely into those purposes, thank you Leica. One day, I will add the latest Noctilux to my arsenal, and perhaps a Summilux 35 FLE, if one comes my way. Yes, there are cheaper, smaller alternatives, and they take fantastic pictures, I'm sure. I love my 50/1.4 and 35/2 (both ASPH), and I use them as much as I can. But I like the idea of these two lenses, and want to explore them. The only problem I have is that I can't lug them all around with me. At the moment, I'm carrying a 50/1.4 and a 28/2 (the 35/2 lives on my MP). If I go away for an extended period, the 21 always comes with me, as I really like wide angle images, and it sits well with the 50 and 28. I will be very sorry if this lens is discontinued, but no one is getting their hands on mine! Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted November 2, 2011 Share #24 Posted November 2, 2011 ...the Summilux 21 (on the M8) was, as near as makes no difference, like using a Summilux 35 on your full-frame M. Well, a 28mm. But who's counting? However, yes, a 21 f/1.4 goes a long way towards overcoming the M8/9 noise deficit when shooting against Nikons/Canons that are limited to f/2.8 lenses (20mm primes or 16-35 zooms) but can go to ISO 6400 or 12800. (Yes, one may be able to hand-hold a Leica M two shutter speeds slower - but that does nothing at all to stop subject motion. At least for subjects alive enough to be interesting. ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohnri Posted November 3, 2011 Share #25 Posted November 3, 2011 Most used camera: M9 Most used lens: Noctilux f/1, usually at or near f/1 Second most used lens: 21 mm f/1.4 Summilux, usually at or near f/1.4. Almost never with a VF. Shooting poorly lit, rapidly moving subjects tends to push one towards fast lenses. Better high ISO in the M10 would be welcome. Best, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted November 3, 2011 Share #26 Posted November 3, 2011 Most used camera: M9 Most used lens: Noctilux f/1, usually at or near f/1 Second most used lens: 21 mm f/1.4 Summilux, usually at or near f/1.4. Almost never with a VF. Shooting poorly lit, rapidly moving subjects tends to push one towards fast lenses. Better high ISO in the M10 would be welcome. Best, Bill So perhaps this is a naive question, but what result differences do you find between the Nocti f1.0 and your 21 lux 1.4 as to the quality differences between these 2 lenses. Also in what type of situations do you use these lenses? Street photography? As many say, is the Nocti special and the bokeh creamy from your experiences? Many say the new Leica lenses versus the older Madler designs are more clinical. Do you agree with these differences based on your first hand use of both lenses? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohnri Posted November 3, 2011 Share #27 Posted November 3, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) So perhaps this is a naive question, but what result differences do you find between the Nocti f1.0 and your 21 lux 1.4 as to the quality differences between these 2 lenses. Also in what type of situations do you use these lenses? Street photography? As many say, is the Nocti special and the bokeh creamy from your experiences? Many say the new Leica lenses versus the older Madler designs are more clinical. Do you agree with these differences based on your first hand use of both lenses? The DOF and FOV is so different that it is hard to compare the user experience. Stopped down you barely need to focus the 21 while the Noct requires more attention. Wide open the 21 is pretty sharp and the background is never too OOF. In contrast, opening the Noct demands concentration and an awareness that what is not in focus is just as important as what is in focus. Wide open, the Noct, f/1 version, is never what some would call 'critically sharp' at any point. But, it does have a special character and unique way of rendering that is often quite beautiful. I do feel the newer lenses are more uniform, more predictable, sharper and more consistent across all apertures. I do not think they are better for all photographers as I do not believe in the 'I can add flaws but I can't add sharpness' school of post-processing. Fast moving, action sports in lousy lighting is where these lenses shine in my hands but I love them everywhere. I want an M10 with even better high ISO performance. Best, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrism Posted November 3, 2011 Share #28 Posted November 3, 2011 Well, a 28mm. But who's counting? Thank you, Adan! I'm getting stupid in my old age. Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted November 4, 2011 Share #29 Posted November 4, 2011 The DOF and FOV is so different that it is hard to compare the user experience. Stopped down you barely need to focus the 21 while the Noct requires more attention. Wide open the 21 is pretty sharp and the background is never too OOF. In contrast, opening the Noct demands concentration and an awareness that what is not in focus is just as important as what is in focus. Wide open, the Noct, f/1 version, is never what some would call 'critically sharp' at any point. But, it does have a special character and unique way of rendering that is often quite beautiful. I do feel the newer lenses are more uniform, more predictable, sharper and more consistent across all apertures. I do not think they are better for all photographers as I do not believe in the 'I can add flaws but I can't add sharpness' school of post-processing. Fast moving, action sports in lousy lighting is where these lenses shine in my hands but I love them everywhere. I want an M10 with even better high ISO performance. Best, Bill Bill-Thanks you did well with such a question. I have just acquired a 75 1.4 lux (Canada) and although I have taken only a handful of shots with it I can see it brings back thoughts of my old photos from years ago, even on my M9. So I guess I like the Madler lenses, so far. Since your Nocti f1.0 is also a Canadian lens from that era, from what I understand, that was the reason for asking such a stupid sounding question, when I read it now. But thanks for your patience in answering it so well. I have a new 35 1.4 FLE and just love it. Have gone out some days and only shot at 1.4-2.0. Marvelous. So I am seeing, for me, having a few 1.4's (or better like a 1.0) can be much fun. I love wides (and sometimes teles) for landscapes, but since I have the 35, I have really had fun on the streets with it. And in this way, it has opened up a whole new approach for me to try. Hey, I'm new at this digital stuff and every day is an immense learning experience for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohnri Posted November 4, 2011 Share #30 Posted November 4, 2011 Bill-Thanks you did well with such a question. I have just acquired a 75 1.4 lux (Canada) and although I have taken only a handful of shots with it I can see it brings back thoughts of my old photos from years ago, even on my M9. So I guess I like the Madler lenses, so far. Since your Nocti f1.0 is also a Canadian lens from that era, from what I understand, that was the reason for asking such a stupid sounding question, when I read it now. But thanks for your patience in answering it so well. I have a new 35 1.4 FLE and just love it. Have gone out some days and only shot at 1.4-2.0. Marvelous. So I am seeing, for me, having a few 1.4's (or better like a 1.0) can be much fun. I love wides (and sometimes teles) for landscapes, but since I have the 35, I have really had fun on the streets with it. And in this way, it has opened up a whole new approach for me to try. Hey, I'm new at this digital stuff and every day is an immense learning experience for me. Frankly, I thought they were thoughtful questions. I have the 35mm f/1.4 ASPH and love it. I have only read glowing reviews and comments about the FLE version. I like film but digital opened a new world for me. Best, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rea1412 Posted November 4, 2011 Share #31 Posted November 4, 2011 Finally, do you think that, given the limited lens manufacturing capacity at Leica today, it might perhaps be wise to discontinue the 21 Summilux ASPH, possibly allowing increased production of lenses like the 24, 35 and 50 Summilux ASPH? Stephen Hi Stephen! No, I really hope the 21 Summilux ASPH won't be discontinued... I have just begun to save up some money for this wonderful lens . Hopefully in a few months, I would be able to afford it . Cheers! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted November 4, 2011 Share #32 Posted November 4, 2011 Question for ohnri-- What version of the Nocti f1.0 do you have? Someone told me these are the different versions they were made. v1 from? to 1982 v2 from 1982-1993 v3 from 1993-2008 Do these years sound about right? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted November 5, 2011 Author Share #33 Posted November 5, 2011 Question for ohnri-- What version of the Nocti f1.0 do you have? Someone told me these are the different versions they were made. v1 from? to 1982 v2 from 1982-1993 v3 from 1993-2008 Do these years sound about right? The LUF has a wonderful WIKI section (see tabs above) which will give you all the information you could possibly want. Just another reason why the LUF is an indispensable tool for Leica aficionados. Stephen http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/M_Lenses_x_Focal_Length Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.