gpwhite Posted February 2, 2015 Share #81 Posted February 2, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Not so sure given the sofness of the lens (at least mine) in the corners at full aperture. lct, I am not familiar with any WA that has better corners at f/3.8 than does the Elmar-M 24mm. True they are not as good as at f/5.6, but the corners are still quite sharp with the lens wide open. If your images are really soft on M240, it might be worth having it looked at. In any case, my point was that a bit more speed and separation would be very welcome for my view. That is why I also purchased a lovely Elmarit-M 24mm ASPH about one year ago. Of course, any time to the aperture is expanded, the corners are compromised. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 Hi gpwhite, Take a look here Elmar 24 mm f3.8 lens. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ShawnK Posted February 2, 2015 Share #82 Posted February 2, 2015 Past Oct I got my first Leica (moved from Nikon D800e, Hasselblad H series+++). Paired my new M(240) w new 24mm Elmar & now 75mm. Search my post & U'll c 24mm Elmar w/M(240). Haven't posted any w/75, but w/new current model V-Lux. My next lens will be 135mm too. 24mm on M 240, is just fantastic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted February 3, 2015 Share #83 Posted February 3, 2015 Not so sure given the sofness of the lens (at least mine) in the corners at full aperture. This is mine, wide open on the M9. Full image with 100% enlargement of lower right extreme corner. Default Lr sharpening. Focus is in the middle of the tower, therefore the window could have been sharper at infinity. Never seen a better 24mm lens at f/3.8. 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/190798-elmar-24-mm-f38-lens/?do=findComment&comment=2758298'>More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted February 3, 2015 Share #84 Posted February 3, 2015 First picture: same as above but slight sharpening to better show leaves detail. Second picture: just the corner detail with "proper" sharpening. I love my 24/3.8... well, I just miss three more stops 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/190798-elmar-24-mm-f38-lens/?do=findComment&comment=2758306'>More sharing options...
lct Posted February 3, 2015 Share #85 Posted February 3, 2015 Thanks for sharing. Your first pic is the kind of results i have also. A 24/2.8 or 24/1.4 would do better i suspect but i have no experience with them and my R 24/2.8 is hardly better. Not a problem for me really as i use the 24/3.8 on crop cams mainly and i find it a fantastic lens there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted February 3, 2015 Share #86 Posted February 3, 2015 I had the 24mm Summilux (on the M8) and it was a wonderful lens. Really wonderful. It is big and heavy for a M camera, in my opinion, and the focus is a bit stiff (the ring does not have a metallic lever). I loved this lens. Now I have a 35mm Summilux and a 75mm Summilux and the M240. I need a wider complement for street photography at short distances (I feel the 35mm is a bit too narrow for that). I also want a small lens. I am considering the 24mm Elmar or the 21mm Super-Elmar, but I am more inclined to the Super-Elmar. Corner definition is not that important to me. Maximum aperture, size, handling and DoF are. This thread is very interesting! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nic Posted February 3, 2015 Share #87 Posted February 3, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) 2.0/28 mm could be also very interesting ?! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted February 3, 2015 Share #88 Posted February 3, 2015 I recall Putz rating the corner definition of the 24 f3.8 better than the other 24mm Leica lenses. Mine is superb - absolutely tack sharp by f5.6 and still excellent wide open. Wide open there is a slight softening towards the edges, but its still a remarkable performance. The MTFs also show the 24mm f3.8 to be ever so slightly sharper in the outer field than the 21mm f3.4 as I recall. I think the decision should be based on focal length. With two two lenses at this level, it would be bonkers to make it on the basis of resolution and ignore the field of view difference. FWIW my 28 f2.8 asph is superb in the corners and overall performance really impressed me, so much so that I could not have expected the 24mm Elmar to be any better on the MM, but it is. You can just detect more high frequency detail and contrast in those details, but to be honest it will take a better sensor to really separate these lenses meaningfully.... like 50MP, or 36MP monochrome. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted February 3, 2015 Share #89 Posted February 3, 2015 2.0/28 mm could be also very interesting ?! It is. Very tempting. A great design. But I have a 35mm and 28mm FoV is too close. For really short distante street photography, is the different FoV of 24 and 21 significant? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted February 3, 2015 Share #90 Posted February 3, 2015 ................ For really short distante street photography, is the different FoV of 24 and 21 significant? The FoV can be significant but very rarely decisively so in my experience. I do think the bigger difference between a 21 and a 24 is that a 24 can produce more natural-looking images than the 21, less obviously produced by a very wide-angle lens, less likely to get between you and the subject, if you see what I mean. I don't know whether this is a very subjective thing, but I sense it quite strongly in my own photos, and it is certainly a real and sometimes distracting phenomenon when there are faces at the edges of the frame. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gpwhite Posted February 3, 2015 Share #91 Posted February 3, 2015 The FoV can be significant but very rarely decisively so in my experience. I do think the bigger difference between a 21 and a 24 is that a 24 can produce more natural-looking images than the 21, less obviously produced by a very wide-angle lens, less likely to get between you and the subject, if you see what I mean. I don't know whether this is a very subjective thing, but I sense it quite strongly in my own photos, and it is certainly a real and sometimes distracting phenomenon when there are faces at the edges of the frame. I like the drawing of my Elmarit-M 24mm ASPH better than either my Elmar-M 24mm or Summicron-M 28mm ASPH (all shooting wide open). My point is that FOV across the three lenses is pretty close, but their individual characters really come through. I usually carry the Elmarit and the Summicron (and use a 50mm for those distant, cropped shots). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Gunst Lund Posted February 4, 2015 Share #92 Posted February 4, 2015 Yes they are totally interchangeable. They look like the same hood to me, but i may be wrong of course... The lens hood is also on the outside similar to the one for 35mm 1.4 Asph FLE however on the inside there are differences. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Gunst Lund Posted February 4, 2015 Share #93 Posted February 4, 2015 When I got my Superlative-Elmar 24mm, I wrote to Leica and asked why the lens could not be opened up to f/3.4 maximum opening, or more. If you look into the diaphragm, you can see that the blades reduce the aperture point substantially within the narrowest lens element (and this is true also for the already Super-Elmar-M 18mm). Leica wrote back to say it adopted the best design and avoided answering my question directly. Given that optimal center performance with the lens is f/3.8, it seems Leica could have included 1/2-stop more light with still excellent results. The fact that you can see the blades has noting to do with the actual size of the pupil/ how the max aperture is calculated, you can't just 'open up' lenses like that. A quick way to test this is to use a point light source out of focus (a led or similar shot at 1 meter and the lens focused at infinity) and shoot the lens wide open; The OOF highlight will be pefectly round, then stop down half a stop, and the OOF will be shaped from the number of blades in the aperture. Only few Leica M lenses has round enough aperture opening to hide this effect. BTW the lens is outstanding! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted February 4, 2015 Share #94 Posted February 4, 2015 The lens hood is also on the outside similar to the one for 35mm 1.4 Asph FLE however on the inside there are differences. The 35/1.4 FLE has the same hood as the 21/3.4 asph (12465) and both seem to have exactly the same outside and inside as the 12464 of the 24/3.8. But again i may be wrong... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted February 4, 2015 Share #95 Posted February 4, 2015 Why Leica uses two different numbers for those hoods? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Gunst Lund Posted February 4, 2015 Share #96 Posted February 4, 2015 I have both hoods; 12464 and 12465 I unmounted the hoods from the lenses and compared them in-side by in-side and could see they where different, thats why they have different part # Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted February 4, 2015 Share #97 Posted February 4, 2015 Why Leica uses two different numbers for those hoods? I would love to know the answer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted February 4, 2015 Share #98 Posted February 4, 2015 Having tried both hoods (12464 & 12465) on both lenses (35/1.4 and 24/3.8) I cannot see any difference whatsoever. The threads and dimensions as well as the shape and finish both inside and out are the identical. And the plastic caps that cover them are the same (14212), so as far as I'm concerned they are completely interchangeable. But I'm curious to know why they have different numbers, and whether there's a subtle difference I'm missing. What things we have to worry about! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted February 4, 2015 Share #99 Posted February 4, 2015 Why Leica uses two different numbers for those hoods? Maybe the alloy type is different and must match the rest of the lens ? Do they have the same weight ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Gunst Lund Posted February 4, 2015 Share #100 Posted February 4, 2015 ;-) I agree the difference is slight, much less than I remembered, the chamfering is a few millimeters different internally, only millimeter peepers will notice! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.