Leica T 23mm/f2 vs Leica M 24mm/f3.8

[michaelbrenner]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Any thoughts on how these two lenses might compare (both using the T body)? Anyone out there able to post some real world pics for comparison?

[macrobernd]

Hi Michael,

 

The M Elmar 3.8/24mm is a razor sharp lens on the M9. I like it very much for landscape. On the Leica T it becomes a 36mm lens. This focal lens is the standard for street fotography. And therefor f3.8 is a little bit to slow in my opinion. If you own only the Leica T and no M I would buy the new T 2.0/23mm. Nearly 4times faster and you can use autofocus.

[dfarkas]

I'll second the opinion by macrobernd above. The 24mm Elmar is my current favorite wide-angle for the M, so I was very interested to see how it performed on the T in my review.

 

Considering the 23mm is roughly 2 stops faster, it did very well vs. the legendary Elmar. For use on the T, I would go with the 23mm. For me, the added convenience of AF and the additional speed afforded by an f/2 aperture have more value than marginally better optical performance under ideal conditions (tripod, self-timer).

[CaptZoom]

The Elmar will be easier for zone focusing (and manual focusing as well) than the T lens. Previously someone mentioned that the Elmar maybe too slow for street photography. I don't think that assessment is entirely accurate. I can be slow or lacking in very low light conditions but generally speaking street scenes require deeper depth of field than f/2. And the T should have decent high(ish) ISO performance. Very often we forget photography (photographs?) is/are about what is in focus not about what's out.

 

I'm assuming you have a T on order? If so, I would suggest getting a T system lens. Both the initial offerings seems fantastic and have AF available (which seems to me a part of the T experience).

[tomasis7]

Elmar should be good but i dont know how it affects the handling as the whole.

 

I use primarly Elmar for M body and it is nice to attach a few lenses on T. Im interested only of the body as the lenses seem quite expensive.

 

Slower speed is not issue for me as 6400 iso is more than enough.

[Winedemonium]

I think if you are a street shooter it would be possible to zone focus with the Elmar + possibly a 35mm optical viewfinder accessory (which exist from M3 days, etc). You are then just using the camera as a sort of high grade point-and-shoot, but with APS-C quality and a (potentially) high level of performance on M lenses, as this is the only non-M to have M lenses considered during design. (Open to debate I suppose).

 

Same May hold for owners of the excellent 3.4/21 SEM, which comes out at 31.5mm - quite good for street, and a compact lens.

 

BUT, I think the "native" 2/23mm Summicron will likely offer higher performance, as well as more versatility. But it does double the price almost. So I think this is a very good point (OP's question) to consider.

[tomasis7]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, for photography I do street shooting. I've been using zone focusing on camera a while (Epson Rd1, Super Angulon 21/3.4 and Voigltander 25mm viefwinder)

 

I wonder if the old SA 3.4 could fit on T? I hope so.

 

Using M lenses on different bodies would save hassle and more money if you have M bodies as well. T body seems good as a complement for wide angle lens (zone focusing).

[algrove]

Any thoughts on how these two lenses might compare (both using the T body)? Anyone out there able to post some real world pics for comparison?

 

Why not pick the T 23/2.0 and the M 35/2.0 which are more FL matched. The M 24 would be more comparable to a T 16mm.

[Dougg]

The OP question specifies "both using the T body", so the comparison is for nearly equal focal lengths for nearly equal angles of view. I know it's very early days still for the T, but I'd like to see more detailed comparison of the optical performance, setting all other issues aside.

 

Doug