Question for 28mm Emarit and 24mm Elmar Users

[agencal]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi;

 

I am not so happy with the quality of 28mm elmarit on M 240.I am thinking of buying 24mm f3.8 Elmar which is to be told that technically one of the best wide angle in Leica lineup.

I mostly shoot travel,landscape and arthitecture so slowness is not a big deal for me.

 

I am asking to you whom have both.Can you please help me to decide.Which is technically a better lens from f4 to f8 ?

Or it is a better decision to keep 28mm elmarit and buy a 21mm SEM? By the way i have a 50mm apo and a 90mm elmarit as well.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[tobey bilek]

If you look at the MTF curves, the 24 is quite a bit superior.

 

My 28 from 1985 (49 mm filter) needs to be at F8 for it to be sharp into the very corners on the M9. Supposedly the current ASPH is better.

 

I am doing the same dilemma as you. I will pick the 24. But if you are doing landscapes, will F8 not be sufficient ? 5.6 is not terribly bad and the very corners usually are just sky or grass anyway.

 

I think 24 and 35 are the perfect wide set anyway. The 28 ASPH has the advantage of being very small.

[agencal]

If you look at the MTF curves, the 24 is quite a bit superior.

 

My 28 from 1985 (49 mm filter) needs to be at F8 for it to be sharp into the very corners on the M9. Supposedly the current ASPH is better.

 

I am doing the same dilemma as you. I will pick the 24. But if you are doing landscapes, will F8 not be sufficient ? 5.6 is not terribly bad and the very corners usually are just sky or grass anyway.

 

I think 24 and 35 are the perfect wide set anyway. The 28 ASPH has the advantage of being very small.

 

Thanks for the answer.

 

24mm is not much bigger but i thing it is a better lens than 28mm elmarit.I thing i will also buy 24mm as you.

[CrisRose]

Consider the Zeiss 25/2.8 Biogon?

 

It's excellent both at f8 hyperfocal

 

30 St Mary's Axe by Cris Rose, on Flickr

 

and wide open at closest focus

 

Moment's Thought [0017] by Cris Rose, on Flickr

 

here's a detail crop

 

Leica M9 + Zeiss 25mm f2.8 Biogon 100% Crop by Cris Rose, on Flickr

 

All shot on M9, coded as a 28/2.8, there's zero colour fringing.

[lct]

Which Elmarit 28 do you refer to? 28/2.8 asph? If so i could not say that it is inferior to the 24/3.8 that i own as well. In fact, the 28/2.8 asph is sharper on borders and corners at all apertures below f/8 and its distortion is easier to adjust in PP than that of the 24/3.8 which has a moustache shape instead of the barrel shape of the 28/2.8 asph. Not a big problem though as both lenses have a limited distortion anyway. The 24 has a bit less CA than the 28 though. I would keep the 28/2.8 asph personally for its higher speed and smaller size and would get a 21/3.4 asph instead of the 24/3.8 if i had the choice. But YMMV of course.

[jdsheepdog]

Which Elmarit 28 do you refer to? 28/2.8 asph? If so i could not say that it is inferior to the 24/3.8 that i own as well. In fact, the 28/2.8 asph is sharper on borders and corners at all apertures below f/8 and its distortion is easier to adjust in PP than that of the 24/3.8 which has a moustache shape instead of the barrel shape of the 28/2.8 asph. Not a big problem though as both lenses have a limited distortion anyway. The 24 has a bit less CA than the 28 though. I would keep the 28/2.8 asph personally for its higher speed and smaller size and would get a 21/3.4 asph instead of the 24/3.8 if i had the choice. But YMMV of course.

 

+! I have no experience with the 24, but the 28 / 2.8 asph is, as far as I am concerned a truly lovely lens, wide open, sharp all the way out and zero flare. If you dd size and price to the equation, it just gets better.

[amati]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Which Elmarit 28 do you refer to? 28/2.8 asph? If so i could not say that it is inferior to the 24/3.8 that i own as well. In fact, the 28/2.8 asph is sharper on borders and corners at all apertures below f/8 and its distortion is easier to adjust in PP than that of the 24/3.8 which has a moustache shape instead of the barrel shape of the 28/2.8 asph. Not a big problem though as both lenses have a limited distortion anyway. The 24 has a bit less CA than the 28 though. I would keep the 28/2.8 asph personally for its higher speed and smaller size and would get a 21/3.4 asph instead of the 24/3.8 if i had the choice. But YMMV of course.

 

So you have 28mm asph elmarit and 24mm 3.8 elmar aswell and you say elmarit is sharper?

 

This is strange.Becouse every review i reed says 24mm elmar is the ultimate landscape lens of leica becouse of its corner to corner sharpness.So i think i have a bad copy of elmarit or you have a bad copy of 24 elmar

[lct]

I don't read much reviews on lenses i own and i'm not the best at comparing lenses of different focal lengths admittedly but i happen to have bought these two ones new and the 28/2.8 asph has always been sharper in borders and corners at all apertures below f/8 as i said above. This does not mean that one lens is sharper than the other in general though. In the center, both are plenty sharp there is no doubt about that, with a slight superiority for the 28 at f/2.8 though .

[rramesh]

In my case I found a nice versatile Leica set to comprise a 21, 28, 50, 90 with the 28 and 50 being the primary lens options.

 

In your case you have a 50 and 90 and are considering wider options. Here a 28 would make good sense and the 28 Elmarit is a wonderful, small lens option. With this you should explore a 21, like a SEM.

[gpwhite]

Hi;

 

I am not so happy with the quality of 28mm elmarit on M 240.I am thinking of buying 24mm f3.8 Elmar which is to be told that technically one of the best wide angle in Leica lineup.

I mostly shoot travel,landscape and arthitecture so slowness is not a big deal for me.

 

I am asking to you whom have both.Can you please help me to decide.Which is technically a better lens from f4 to f8 ?

Or it is a better decision to keep 28mm elmarit and buy a 21mm SEM? By the way i have a 50mm apo and a 90mm elmarit as well.

 

Agencal, think of your APO 50 in a wider FOV with no OOF. That is the Elmar 24mm. The lens is just fantastic... maximum bite and color saturation. If you want excellent corners, use f/5.6. If you want exceptional 3D, shoot at f/3.8.

 

To me, the change in perspective from 24mm out to 21mm is very substantial, so be sure to look at that before equating the Elmar siblings.

[agencal]

Agencal, think of your APO 50 in a wider FOV with no OOF. That is the Elmar 24mm. The lens is just fantastic... maximum bite and color saturation. If you want excellent corners, use f/5.6. If you want exceptional 3D, shoot at f/3.8.

 

To me, the change in perspective from 24mm out to 21mm is very substantial, so be sure to look at that before equating the Elmar siblings.

 

 

That is great news.You have told what i wanna hear Thanks

[semi-ambivalent]

So you have 28mm asph elmarit and 24mm 3.8 elmar aswell and you say elmarit is sharper?

 

This is strange.Becouse every review i reed says 24mm elmar is the ultimate landscape lens of leica becouse of its corner to corner sharpness.So i think i have a bad copy of elmarit or you have a bad copy of 24 elmar

 

'<something> is the ultimate <something else>' is the sort of nonsense that drives sales in a lot of industries, not least Photography. The answer, I suppose, is to buy every lens Leica makes. Then one will always be sure of the quality of one's photographs.

 

s-a

[Herr Barnack]

 

...The answer, I suppose, is to buy every lens Leica makes. Then one will always be sure of the quality of one's photographs.

But in order to be sure, you would have to carry all 39 lenses with you and make every photograph with each one.

[asiafish]

Both are OUTSTANDING.  I had the 24/3.8 ASPH and currently have the 28/2.8 ASPH.  I liked the 24 so much I will buy again (sold mine to fund the M-E).

 

The 28 is a better traveler, which combined with the 50/2 makes for my perfect travel kit.  The 24 goes well into a three lens kit with a 35 and a 90.

[sdk]

I agree that both the Leica 24mm/3.8 ASPH and the 28mm/2.8 ASPH lenses are outstanding optically. The 28mm has more field curvature, which could make a slight difference with architectural photography at wide apertures, but who would do that? You generally need f/8-f/13 for adequate depth of field to get the foreground and background adequately sharp. The size difference is pretty significant, with the 24mm being larger, though not huge. The 28mm is fast enough for casual handheld indoor photography wide open. The 24mm/3.8 is a bit slow for that. For landscapes f/5.6-f/13, I think they are nearly equal, though the field curvature difference is going to show subtly even well stopped down, with foreground corners slightly better with the 24mm than the 28mm, as the 28mm Elmarit ASPH has rearward field curvature (toward infinity) that the 24mm Elmar ASPH does not suffer from. This is a subtle difference in the corners though, and in most photography will not make a huge difference.

[Carduelis]

I have had the 24 mm Elmar lens for some time and recently acquired a used 28 mm ASPH Elmarit at a very good price being attracted by its small size and light weight.  From observing quite flattish MTF curves, I was expecting the 24 mm Elmar to have superior edge to edge sharpness compared to the 28 mm ASPH Elmarit, but was pleasantly surprised how good the latter was in this respect.  IMO, it seems that the MTF curves for the 28 mm ASPH Elmarit are not doing the lens justice.  In terms of edge to edge performance particularly when stopped down, I think the lenses are both excellent and I would call it a draw.  

[sdk]

Well there are two issues with the MTFs. One is that Leica's published MTFs are computer models, not based on real lens measurements like Zeiss publishes. Two is the the MTFs are meant to show the lens behavior with a planar subject like a wall, so they don't represent the performance of the curved field of best performance for a lens, and this shows in Leica's MTFs as reduced optical performance in the corners. In real world photography, with a real lens the MTF may not do a good job of conveying what the lens can do.

Subjects are usually not a flat wall, and a lens' field curvature may actually help in some circumstances. With the 28mm/2.8 ASPH, this means that if you have a closer central subject and detailed background near the edges, such as an environmental portrait, the lens will show high performance in all the places you want it to. However, if you are taking a vertical format picture of a distant mountain in the center of the frame and a detailed foreground, the field curvature of the 28mm/2.8 ASPH is going to work against you getting everything sharp with one exposure. But the current Leica 28mm/2.8 isn't too severely curved in its field, a problem that I do have with the Zeiss 28mm/2 ZF.2 lens. That lens has far more problematic rearward corner field curvature for my typical landscapes (so for Nikon F mount I prefer the Nikon AFS 28mm/1.8G to the Zeiss, the Nikon has forward field curvature that helps make foregrounds slightly sharper, at the expense of distant detail in the edges and corners). 

[algrove]

But in order to be sure, you would have to carry all 39 lenses with you and make every photograph with each one.

There is only 39. Wow and I thought I had more to acquire what with the 70 M lenses, not to mention R and ZM.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Carduelis]

Well there are two issues with the MTFs. One is that Leica's published MTFs are computer models, not based on real lens measurements like Zeiss publishes. Two is the the MTFs are meant to show the lens behavior with a planar subject like a wall, so they don't represent the performance of the curved field of best performance for a lens, and this shows in Leica's MTFs as reduced optical performance in the corners. In real world photography, with a real lens the MTF may not do a good job of conveying what the lens can do.

 

Subjects are usually not a flat wall, and a lens' field curvature may actually help in some circumstances. With the 28mm/2.8 ASPH, this means that if you have a closer central subject and detailed background near the edges, such as an environmental portrait, the lens will show high performance in all the places you want it to. However, if you are taking a vertical format picture of a distant mountain in the center of the frame and a detailed foreground, the field curvature of the 28mm/2.8 ASPH is going to work against you getting everything sharp with one exposure. But the current Leica 28mm/2.8 isn't too severely curved in its field, a problem that I do have with the Zeiss 28mm/2 ZF.2 lens. That lens has far more problematic rearward corner field curvature for my typical landscapes (so for Nikon F mount I prefer the Nikon AFS 28mm/1.8G to the Zeiss, the Nikon has forward field curvature that helps make foregrounds slightly sharper, at the expense of distant detail in the edges and corners). 

 

Thank you for the information above which I found very informative.   I feel that field curvature for landscape photography is a particular issue with 35 mm focal length M lenses.  As an aside, may I ask whether you have arrived at any qualitative conclusions from the 35 mm ASPH Summicron and 35 mm ASPH Summilux lenses assuming you have used them.