21mm f1.4 or f3.4 for a Leica newbee/addict

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sorry but that looks simply terrible. The problem of course is M9 which su$3s at high ISO.

But this lens also has a very bad CA and doesn't create an image which looks pleasing.

It's really funny how people here tell you f1.4 is so necessary because they shoot

at night, but they use a camera which is awful at high ISO. A contradiction right?

There is something strange in spending a lot of $ on a lens and get the results like that...

Of course M10 will change that. FF NEX would be even better. Who knows what

September brings....

I'm intrigued. ISO has nothing whatsoever to do with this image. The focal point of the image is the lady's face which stands away from the background absolutely because of the limited depth of field. Without using f/1.4 how would you produce a similar shot?

 

CA on out of focus high contrast edges is a characteristic of many fast aperture wide lenses (my Canon 24/1.4 shows it significantly) and whilst the green is not especially pleasant, its hardly an image breaker.

 

September is unlikely to bring anything that can usurp optical laws.....

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Sorry but that looks simply terrible. The problem of course is M9 which su$3s at high ISO.

But this lens also has a very bad CA and doesn't create an image which looks pleasing.

It's really funny how people here tell you f1.4 is so necessary because they shoot

at night, but they use a camera which is awful at high ISO. A contradiction right?

There is something strange in spending a lot of $ on a lens and get the results like that...

Of course M10 will change that. FF NEX would be even better. Who knows what

September brings....

Do you not think you should %$#$#@#@#@ and go and play your games on a Nikon or Canon forum..............this forum is for people that love Leica and the shooting experience that you get with a rangefinder.............your comments above are distasteful and unfounded...........or something like that:mad:

[MarkP]

Back to the subject...

 

it is worth looking at these frightening statistics:rolleyes::

 

Weight 580gm vs 279gm

Length 77mm vs 55mm (incl hood)

Max diameter 70mm vs 53mm

 

Cost ($US B&H) $6995 vs $2950 :eek:

 

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!

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Back to the subject...

 

it is worth looking at these frightening statistics:rolleyes::

 

Weight 580gm vs 279gm

Length 77mm vs 55mm (incl hood)

Max diameter 70mm vs 53mm

 

Cost ($US B&H) $6995 vs $2950 :eek:

 

[ATTACH]330459[/ATTACH]

I am still negotiating prices and where to buy but the one on the left looks like the puppy that I need/want:)

[algrove]

Back to the subject...

 

it is worth looking at these frightening statistics:rolleyes::

 

Weight 580gm vs 279gm

Length 77mm vs 55mm (incl hood)

Max diameter 70mm vs 53mm

 

Cost ($US B&H) $6995 vs $2950 :eek:

 

[ATTACH]330459[/ATTACH]

 

Mark-

Good idea to compare this way with a photo. I see the 1.4 is not quite at infinity, but that is only microns. Is what is interesting though is that the 3.4 with hood about equals the 1.4 without hood. Weight and diameter (not to mention the price) to me are the biggest differences.

 

That said, I actually find the balance between the M9 and the 1.4 very nice like I do with the Noctilux. If one uses the smaller Leica lenses all the time this 1.4 lens looks behemoth, but once mounted it feels good in my hands. I must say my hands are not huge (size 7.5 glove). Hey, as we all know, large f stops require larger diameter lens barrels and heavy glass to accomplish the results.

 

Before using the 1.4, I guess I had one "wish" for something additional on the 1.4 and that would be what Sean Reid brings up- a focusing tab. Frankly though, after using the 1.4 for many weeks at a time I do not miss the focusing tab on it just like I do not miss a focusing tab on the Noctilux. It just never crosses my mind.

[MarkP]

Mark-

Good idea to compare this way with a photo. I see the 1.4 is not quite at infinity, but that is only microns. Is what is interesting though is that the 3.4 with hood about equals the 1.4 without hood. Weight and diameter (not to mention the price) to me are the biggest differences.

 

That said, I actually find the balance between the M9 and the 1.4 very nice like I do with the Noctilux. If one uses the smaller Leica lenses all the time this 1.4 lens looks behemoth, but once mounted it feels good in my hands. I must say my hands are not huge (size 7.5 glove). Hey, as we all know, large f stops require larger diameter lens barrels and heavy glass to accomplish the results.

 

Before using the 1.4, I guess I had one "wish" for something additional on the 1.4 and that would be what Sean Reid brings up- a focusing tab. Frankly though, after using the 1.4 for many weeks at a time I do not miss the focusing tab on it just like I do not miss a focusing tab on the Noctilux. It just never crosses my mind.

 

Sorry, I did note that I hadn't aligned the lens and aperture ring properly but was too lazy to go back and redo it:rolleyes:

 

I agree that once on the camera the size of the lens is less of an issue. I note your comment about the SEM of similar length to the Summilux without the hood but the Summilux really is much wider & bulkier, and of course be wise of the protruding front element the Summilux should not be used without he hood

 

Just my opinion, but I disagree wiht Sean Reid about the focussing tab (and I do recall reading his article). With tabbed focusing rings on narrower lenses the tab dose not protrude below the bottom plate of the camera when pointing down, but does so on the 21 Summilux because the lens is so wide. Furthermore I really don't think that that such a wide focusing ring benefits from a tab and I agree with you that the lens, like the Noctilux, is quite comfortable to focus as is. In fact I sometimes wish that some of the tabbed focusing rings of other Leica lenses also had some form of ribbing so they could be also be used without the tab.

[algrove]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As a reminder to those viewing posted Jpegs, your screen might not be optimally calibrated and as such shows images differently from my recently calibrated full gamut screen.

 

Also OOC Jpegs do need some work like most any photos.

[kdriceman]

 

Sorry but that looks simply terrible. The problem of course is M9 which su$3s at high ISO.

But this lens also has a very bad CA and doesn't create an image which looks pleasing.

It's really funny how people here tell you f1.4 is so necessary because they shoot

at night, but they use a camera which is awful at high ISO. A contradiction right?

There is something strange in spending a lot of $ on a lens and get the results like that...

Who knows what

September brings....

 

Nice, constructive and helpful post Snowboarder. Have you got a source for this statement: "Of course M10 will change that. FF NEX would be even better."? Because I have looked all over the Internet for technical data on these 2 cameras and can find nothing. I'd love to compare them with some factual, objective specifications.

[FrozenInTime]

Using the 21mm Summilux, I find it tend to chimp a lot more:

The temptation is to use the lens up close and wide open - which really highlights parallax error.

Before I got a M9, I was using this lens on my M6 and never really mastered parallax compensation even resorting to a frankenfinder.

 

If ever there was a lens that would benefit from live-view or an EVF, this is it.

 

About size and weight, if your street style calls for walking around with a camera on a wrist strap, the 21mm summilux is not for you.

[Scarlet]

It does not look terrible. The plasticity is great, as is the composition and do the colors. You are falling into the trap of looking at pixels instead of content - and the photographer used the right tool to create the content.

 

Hmm I both agree and disagree.

 

I realise Louis published this to give a feel for the lens, which is laudable in that it is helpful. That said, one may of course debate how much assistance one gets from a forum-formatted jpg. Still, were I to consider the choice between these two 21s, I would find it helpful.

 

I like the way the lens has captured the general light and the colours. The lens has done overall very well here. I don't like, however, how the lens - or is it perhaps the sensor - handles stronger out of focus light sources, like the "Mono" text, the red stop light or the green sign in the middle. Looks burnt through and unnatural.

 

I also find the composition a bit odd. The man looks gi-normous compared to the woman. Personally I would not have picked a 21mm lens for this but would have taken a step back and shot with a 35, or possibly a 28 to keep the (another good thing about the image) very well-balanced depth of field.

[batmobile]

Just as a final thought, be sure you want a 21mm not a 24. IMHO 24 is the perfect companion for 35mm, with 21mm leaving too big a gap. Where 21mm is extreme, 24 is dramatic and 28 is 'wide'. I hope that makes sense

 

The 21 lux is quite a bit bulkier/fatter, heavier and takes larger filters than the 24 lux. I've owned quite a few different lenses, Zeiss and Leica, and the 24 lux is a beauty with a gentle rendering that will suit a digital sensor perhaps a little better than a higher contrast lens.

 

The 21 is reportedly slightly higher contrast than the 24 and all I can say is the ability of my 24 lux to produce balanced negs (I shoot film - B&W) in contrasty light, both shadows and higlights, is unlike anything I have ever seen from any lens on any camera I have ever owned.

 

FWIW, I bought a 24 lux to shoot wide environmental portraits inside buildings with no artificial lighting. I ran out of stops with my 21 ZM 2.8 and wanted a touch longer FL. The 24 lux was the ticket and although I am constantly tempted to sell it, due to its value, I cant do it.

 

Could a 24 suit you better? The added advantage is that it is not a million miles beyond your 28mm frame lines so easier to ballpark if you have no time to hop from rangefinder to hotshoe finder. After shooting 21-28-35, I settled on 24-35 because I found the 28 framelines a PITA and next to useless for quick work as so cramped. Good 28mm utility takes a 0.58 body IMO.

[Scarlet]

Do you not think you should %$#$#@#@#@ and go and play your games on a Nikon or Canon forum..............this forum is for people that love Leica and the shooting experience that you get with a rangefinder.............your comments above are distasteful and unfounded...........or something like that:mad:

 

Actually there is no rule at this forum that you must "love Leica", as you put it. And the forum's activity extends beyond rangefinders given that also the R and S series are being discussed.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/rules.php

 

Importantly the Rules say that:

 

Provocations by others are no justification for own aggressive behaviour. If you feel provoked, either ignore and/or use the IGNORE function or report the incident to a moderator, using the appropriate button or the Private Message facility.

 

So, if you dislike the comment, report it. Though Snowboarder's post is not one which ought to be considered offensive. Yours, on the other hand, is running close to the line.

[Guest snowboarder]

 

So, if you dislike the comment, report it. Though Snowboarder's post is not one which ought to be considered offensive. Yours, on the other hand, is running close to the line.

 

Thanks Scarlet, I wouldn't even bother responding to this kind of "comments"...

Anyway I own the new 21 SEL and it's the highest quality wide angle lens.

I also own 50 Lux for example which is amazing wide open.

21 Lux is not amazing wide open and it's worse than the SEL at the higher f stops.

The best pictures from this lens are B&W and have a grainy "stylized" look -

they are B&W because of the CA this lens shows and grainy because M9 is so bad

at low light shooting - the only option is to turn it into a "style".

Of course M10 will change that. Of course a FF NEX will be more advanced than the M10...

[pgk]

21 Lux is not amazing wide open and it's worse than the SEL at the higher f stops.

 

Of course M10 will change that. Of course a FF NEX will be more advanced than the M10...

Well, what do you expect.?Its an untra-fast, ultra-wide lens. If you are expecting 50 'lux asph performance from such a lens then you are going to be disappointed. But to condemn it on its ability to deliver images shot on an M9 is crass. Unless the rumoured FF NEX is tailored to deal with ultra-wide lenses via microprisms AND software adjustment I suspect that you are going to be disappointed (again) although the rumoured M10 will probably have both. I think that you need to readjust your expectations somewhat.The 21 SEM is the best 20/21mm lens I've ever owned/used and is astoundingly good but comparing the 'lux with it is pointless because the two lenses fulfill completely different roles.

[jaapv]

Hmmm... the defects mentioned are, at least in part due to raw to jpg conversion and sensor. Especially the red letters are typical postprocessing color bleed. Having said that, correction in photoshop is dead easy. As for the wide-angle effect, I admit I prefer the 24 over the 21 in cases like this. In fact I find I prefer an 18 or 24 over 21 nearly all the time.

Anyway you'd be hard pressed to find a better 21/1.4. Or a worse one for that matter...

[IkarusJohn]

I would probably compose Louis's shot a little differently, and it begs a bit of post processing. However, I wouldn't blame the lens for the hot mono sign - I also think it performs reasonably well here. The deficiencies in the image are easily corrected, and Louis does say that he has done nothing with it.

 

In the context that he was posting to be helpful, I thought the comments were overly harsh.

 

I own the 21 Summilux, and I like the lens a lot. I like its size and heft - I'm currently carrying it and a Noct in my bag. Many people complain about weight - coming from an F5 with 180 mm f/2.8 IF-ED and AF-S 17-35 mm f/2.8 IF-ED zoom, I don't find the weight of an M9 with Summilux & Noctilux in my bag a problem.

 

However, if I was buying new, I would seriously consider the SEM over the Summilux - its rendering sounds fantastic, and unlike the Summiluxes, it performs as well wide open as it does stopped down (if I recall the praise of this lens correctly). This really means that for comparably sharp images, there's probably only a stop difference.

 

I don't think there's a bad choice here. I like the feel and balance of the larger lenses - maybe it's just me.

 

Cheers

John

[jaapv]

As I said above - I do question the choice of 21 in general. The Summilux 24 has the same beautiful rendering as the 21 wide open, even more shallow DOF and is more universal in use. (marginally smaller too) Combine it with an 18 Super Elmar and you have just about the most universal wideangle coverage you can think of.

[algrove]

Almost all good comments. Being like 5-6000 miles from home I took the 21 instead of my 24/1.4 on that trip and could not "change" lenses. The next trip I took the 24/1.4 and missed not having the 21/1.4 with me. That's me and my style.

 

When and if I work on that shot in earnest, I will use PP lens correction and of course adjust colors to suit me. Any adjustments suggested are like Jaap mentions--easy to do in PS.

 

That said all my jpegs have a more saturated look OOC than my DNG's even though I set Jpeg settings to "standard" and also set EV to -1/3 and in this shot if memory serves me right White Balance was set to Kelvin 3200 which is what I do inside and outside in mixed evening light sources. It was darker than dusk when I took the shot.

 

I never thought such an innocent little post to help out NDWgolf would create such a flurry of should have/could have comments.

[IkarusJohn]

I meant to add that if you use filters, think about the diameters of the lenses you are likely to accumulate. I carry ND filters, and a red filter for B&W (I will add to that one filter), so I don't want to have a multitude of different filter sizes rattling about in my bag.

 

Currently, I have E46 filters - for 28/2, 35/1.4 & 50/1.4 lenses; E60 filters for the Noct and 75/1.4 lenses; and a Series VIII ND for the 21/1.4. It probably shouldn't, but that can influence what lenses I carry ...

 

One of the joys of photography, for me, is thinking about what images I'm likely to want to take at any given time, and choosing the lenses to take. I quite like a reasonable spread - granted, there is a difference between 35 & 50 field of view, but 21 or 28 & 50 is a separation I find more stimulating. Similarly, if I'm taking the 75, I tend not to take a 50 - I might then take 21, 35 & 75.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Cheers

John

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[algrove]

John-

Funny you mention like-sized lens filters. I bought a 21/2.8 Elmarit-M E60 to also like you go with 75/1.4 and 50/1.0 or 0.95 lenses. With this setup I can take one filter size and carry a 21, 50 and 75. If I carry a 50/1.0 with the 21 and 75 then I take the "Mandler" setup in which all three lenses are now 6 bit coded.

 

But ever since having the 21/1.4 the 21/2.8 is feeling neglected.

 

Agree, the 28/2, 35/1.4 and 50/1.4 make for nice 46mm filter sharing, but don't leave out the 24/3.8 and 21/3.4 as well as the old Elmarit-M 90/2.8 I sometimes like to carry. Six lenses sharing one filter size is great. Years ago it was 39mm. That's why I still like the 50/2, 35/2 and older 90 Tele-Elamrit and a few other oldies. It's amazing what Leica did for so many years with 39mm openings.

 

If successfully using the new MM at higher ISO's allows one to use the new and old 2.0 lenses it would sure be a nice thing and end of saving many people some money unless they opt for the new APO varieties.