Peter H Posted March 29, 2015 Share #1 Posted March 29, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Has any of you regularly used both a 24 Summilux and the current Elmar-M 3.8? I own the 3.8 which is an excellent lens, one of the best I'd say, but living where I do ( the extreme north-west of Scotland) a great deal of my photography is in low-light or of indoor events and so on, and so the Elmar is often a little slow. Even when I'm in London or travelling I'm often photographing in the streets in the evenings, a time I love for its photographic opportunities. Thus my most used lenses are my 35 and 50 1.4s, but 24 is a focal length I like. The 1.4 would be the obvious answer if its image characteristics were the same or similar to the Elmar, but I don't know whether that is the case, so your opinions would be very welcome. It's too expensive a lens for me to take a punt on. PS. I use them on an M (240), almost always printing in colour. I've tried searching but not found quite the comparison I'm interested in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 29, 2015 Posted March 29, 2015 Hi Peter H, Take a look here 24MM, 1.4 and 3.8. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
batmobile Posted March 29, 2015 Share #2 Posted March 29, 2015 I own both lenses, although I have not used the lux in a while due to circumstances and it being in storage far away. I'm not sure which imaging characteristics you are interested in, but I would say the 24 lux is one of the most remarkable lenses I have ever used. It has the unusual characterisistic of a slight drop in contrast from f2 towards middle apertures, but amazing local contrast. In middle apertures it is not harsh at all and a gentler lens than the Elmar, which is more 'perfect' and higher in contrast. Once matched with my MM, I was amazed how much sharper it was wide open compared to on film. Its a truly incredible lens, if you are OK with the weight and size. While not quite as sharp at f1.4 as the 21mm lux, it improves more quickly and I think a very fast 24mm is much more useful than 21mm. I cannot recommend it enough and would recommend you pair it with a CV 35mm f1.2 II, which is incredible at any price (for B&W). Not sure how it does for colour. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrp Posted March 29, 2015 Share #3 Posted March 29, 2015 Leica's slower wide angles are highly corrected and produce stunning results, at the expense of speed. The wide Summiluxes are much bulkier and, inevitably, less well corrected. For example, the CA will be worse and the focus zone much less planar (flat). However, if you want subject isolation or need faster shutter speeds, the wider apertures will help, if you can't raise the ISO. Crudely, the slower lenses do architecture and landscapes, while the Summiluxes are for hand held indoors and effects, I'd say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted March 29, 2015 Share #4 Posted March 29, 2015 I don't know the 3.8 but I own the 24 Summilux, I wanted to buy it only to wait for the 28 Summilux , but now I keep it , it's an amazing lens some shots here --> https://www.flickr.com/photos/erick-boileau/16283568694/in/photostream/lightbox/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
darylgo Posted March 30, 2015 Share #5 Posted March 30, 2015 The Elmar-M is a landscape shooters dream lens, sharp wide-open, however shot at f16 it is plenty sharp despite diffraction. The Summilux isn't the sharpness king like the Elmar-M (if pixel-peeping) however it is an outstanding lens and leaves nothing to be desired. The Summilux is known for it's extreme field curvature and this could be used to advantage as the corners focus closer than the center. I can't tell the difference in real world shooting, they're arguably the best 24mm lenses available for any system, superior to Nikon and Canons f1.4's despite their fine reputations. The Summilux takes series 7 filters in the lens hood or adapter/72mm. It balances well, a bit front heavy compared to the Elmar-M but the overall size fits the M body nicely. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted March 30, 2015 Share #6 Posted March 30, 2015 Just an addition to my earlier point, I was trying to say that the 24mm lux has 'character and soul', which is a rare thing with the modern asphs. In its imperfections lie qualities that make prints you tend to love. In the case of my copy, its only against the Elmar f3.8 that you see its minor deficiencies. Stopped down it performs incredibly well for landscapes and does not seem to suffer much loss in resolution even at f11. I don't feel that the internal 28mm lines are very nice on digital Leicas (too cramped) so think a hotshoe finder is a good idea with anything wider than 35mm, especially for street use. While there is excitement regarding the 28mm summilux asph, the 24mm is something very special, as I recall Sean Reid also concluding. Mind you, he seems to like the 28mm a lot too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted March 30, 2015 Author Share #7 Posted March 30, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Just an addition to my earlier point, I was trying to say that the 24mm lux has 'character and soul', which is a rare thing with the modern asphs. In its imperfections lie qualities that make prints you tend to love. In the case of my copy, its only against the Elmar f3.8 that you see its minor deficiencies. Stopped down it performs incredibly well for landscapes and does not seem to suffer much loss in resolution even at f11. I don't feel that the internal 28mm lines are very nice on digital Leicas (too cramped) so think a hotshoe finder is a good idea with anything wider than 35mm, especially for street use. While there is excitement regarding the 28mm summilux asph, the 24mm is something very special, as I recall Sean Reid also concluding. Mind you, he seems to like the 28mm a lot too. Thanks Tom, and everyone, this and the other views are very interesting and helpful. I'm not a serious architecture photographer so flatness of field is not a top priority, though it is helpful when a geometrical background can be conveyed reasonably accurately. But to be clear, are we talking about plane of focus, or distortion? Anyway it sounds to me as though its imperfections in this regard are unlikely to be noticeable in reality for the type of spontaneous shooting I intend to use it for. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Gunst Lund Posted March 30, 2015 Share #8 Posted March 30, 2015 The Leica M Elmar 24mm 3.8 has no distortion and has a flat focus plane - in practical use. Sharp into the corners even wide open. It needs a little closing down 4.0- 5.6 to get the far corners completly chrisp sharp. The nikkor 24mm 1.4 AFS has no distortion and has a flat focus plane - in practical use. It needs a little closing down 2.0- 2.8 to get the far corners completly chrisp sharp. As far as I have seen the Leica M 24mm 1.4 has a curved focus plane... A flat focus plane and corner sharpness are paramount for my images when stitching architecture or for product photography. I have no problem with curved focus plane when shooting portraits Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted March 30, 2015 Share #9 Posted March 30, 2015 Along the same theme I have both the 3.421 SEM and 1.4/21 Summilux, and I think the same issues exist. The SEM renders very transparently and neutrally' with minimal distortion but the Summilux has more distortion (fine except for precise architectural) but loads of 'character'. I think that it has been written (Putts) that the 21 Summilux is perhaps just a bit better corrected than the 24, but I could be wrong. I also have the 3.8/24 Elmar-M which renders much like the 3.4/21 SEM - lovely lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarav Posted April 1, 2015 Share #10 Posted April 1, 2015 24 Lux is not as tack sharp as a 35 Lux FLE or 50 Lux ASPH but when you print a shot all its magic is evident. Shots are a lot better on prints than on screen. I don't know why, but that is my experience with it. Curvature of field is evident; good one for street photography, for architectural shots, 24 SEM is on another league. SEM is very very small and practical, Lux is second to Noctilux in size (in my lens set) and quite heavy, external viewfinder sometimes is mandatory (and camera becomes heavier again). Sara Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Gunst Lund Posted April 1, 2015 Share #11 Posted April 1, 2015 Just for the record; 24mm Elmar 3.8 is not called Super Elmar by Leica so 24SEM is not a nice abbriviation Although I complemtely agree that it is super good! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarav Posted April 1, 2015 Share #12 Posted April 1, 2015 sorry ;-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted April 1, 2015 Share #13 Posted April 1, 2015 I don't think the 'extra low light performance' is worth the money ....... With 21/24 I can handhold down to 1/15sec with no problem and 1/8 if steadied against something....... and you can use 800/1600 iso without much of a quality penalty..... and that gets you images of almost anything except black cats in a coal bunker on hogmanay...... The extra shallowness of DOF may be useful ...... but not much at 24 ..... at 28 and 35 it makes a big difference. If I was a pro and the investment was tax deductible I would be tempted .... but the 24/1.4 otherwise is a step too far...... even for someone as financially incontinent as me.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted April 1, 2015 Share #14 Posted April 1, 2015 Its certainly a hell of a lot of money, but when light is really low and you are shooting film at ISO 3200-6400 at f2.8, those two stops are very useful. I don't use mine much, but when you need the speed you need the speed. With digital, where a clean 3200 is achievable, its less of an issue, I agree. I bought mine when shooting a specific project, but were I doing such work a lot, its a lens that would be used a lot. I think documentary photographers are probably most likely to enjoy this lens. Building interiors often have shockingly low light levels. I don't think the 'extra low light performance' is worth the money ....... With 21/24 I can handhold down to 1/15sec with no problem and 1/8 if steadied against something....... and you can use 800/1600 iso without much of a quality penalty..... and that gets you images of almost anything except black cats in a coal bunker on hogmanay...... The extra shallowness of DOF may be useful ...... but not much at 24 ..... at 28 and 35 it makes a big difference. If I was a pro and the investment was tax deductible I would be tempted .... but the 24/1.4 otherwise is a step too far...... even for someone as financially incontinent as me.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Gunst Lund Posted April 1, 2015 Share #15 Posted April 1, 2015 Building interiors with a slim depth of field... most would stay away from that and stop down... on a tripod Clients love the look from 24mm 1.4 yes but mostly stopped down to a resonable dof otherwise only for arty images IMHO Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted April 1, 2015 Author Share #16 Posted April 1, 2015 I don't think the 'extra low light performance' is worth the money ....... With 21/24 I can handhold down to 1/15sec with no problem and 1/8 if steadied against something....... and you can use 800/1600 iso without much of a quality penalty..... and that gets you images of almost anything except black cats in a coal bunker on hogmanay...... The extra shallowness of DOF may be useful ...... but not much at 24 ..... at 28 and 35 it makes a big difference. If I was a pro and the investment was tax deductible I would be tempted .... but the 24/1.4 otherwise is a step too far...... even for someone as financially incontinent as me.... Thanks for this, but I was't asking about whether fast lenses are useful. I know that I need 1.4 or 2.0 sometimes, hence my attachment to my 35 and 50 Summiluxes, which allow shots that I couldn't get at 3.8, usually because of the slow shutter speeds I'd have to use, which would produce the sort of subject motion blur that would make the photos something quite different from what I want. As I said, I want spontaneous photos, usually of people in some kind of motion where 1/8 or 1/15 is simply no use to me. I don't want "effects" either, but I have to accept that wide apertures produce a narrow dof, but I avoid making it a feature of the photo because I don't really like it. It's a price you pay for working in low light. So, I know the speed could be useful. My question was whether the look of the 1.4 24 is significantly different from the 3.8, which many have tried to answer. PS. My photos are not exclusively of this kind, but these are the circumstances in which fast speeds are the only answer. In other circumstances my 3.8 is an absolutely fantastic lens. Hence my question, and thanks again for your perspective. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted April 1, 2015 Share #17 Posted April 1, 2015 My question was whether the look of the 1.4 24 is significantly different from the 3.8, which many have tried to answer. I have tried the 21/1.4 once and have the 21/3.8 which is as you say a fabulous lens. I do however have a Canon 24/1.4L which I've used extensively - by no means a poor lens but its not as fabulous wide open as I would like, but then again my brief use of the Leica 24/1.4 suggests that whilst not bad, its still not quite as good as might be longed for either. And being honest about it this is hardly surprising. The Canon probably has fewer design constraints and it is big, whilst the Leica is more constrained as it is smaller (from memory - I haven't checked dimensions but it should be!) and designed for a narrow M mount lens throat. So why this preamble? Well in my limited experience of the fast Leica, and considerable experience of the Canon, I'd say that neither is going to give the look of the 3.8. The problem is comparing edge of the envelope, pushed and probably somewhat compromised and stressed lens designs with an outstanding one. The fast lenses do what they do - deliver well in low light conditions with 'narrow' depth of field - but they don't seem to deliver as fabulously as might be hoped. And the 3.8 does. So in my opinion, trying to match the 'look' of a small aperture, outstandingly good lens with a fast aperture equivalent is going to be difficult - they are different beasts with different design requirements and differing performance. If you were talking about a more 'normal' focal length I think there would be less difference, but ultrawide fast aperture lenses are inevitably a compromise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted April 1, 2015 Share #18 Posted April 1, 2015 Well it strikes me you have only two solutions: Sell a kidney and buy a 24/1.4 Buy a Sony A7s and a novoflex adapter for your 24/3.8 My heart would choose the first solution ..... but my head would suggest the second .... I think even with few more stops headroom you may struggle. I spend a lot of time taking photos of low light interiors and even with very fast lenses invariably resort to a propped up camera or manfrotto pocket tripod and exposures on timer. Moving subjects in low light makes it almost impossible without a very high iso camera .... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted April 1, 2015 Author Share #19 Posted April 1, 2015 ..........I think even with few more stops headroom you may struggle. I spend a lot of time taking photos of low light interiors and even with very fast lenses invariably resort to a propped up camera or manfrotto pocket tripod and exposures on timer. Moving subjects in low light makes it almost impossible without a very high iso camera .... No, I don't struggle with the 35mm 1.4, it does everything I need a lens of that focal length to do. I'm not taking photos of interiors though, I'm just taking interior photos, which is different of course. And I'd have to trade something in to justify buying a 24 1.4 which is why I'm so keen on receiving opinions here, and I'm very grateful to get so many, but as is so often the case, it's such a personal thing that I'll have to make my own mistakes in the end! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted April 2, 2015 Share #20 Posted April 2, 2015 No, I don't struggle with the 35mm 1.4, it does everything I need a lens of that focal length to do. I'm not taking photos of interiors though, I'm just taking interior photos, which is different of course. And I'd have to trade something in to justify buying a 24 1.4 which is why I'm so keen on receiving opinions here, and I'm very grateful to get so many, but as is so often the case, it's such a personal thing that I'll have to make my own mistakes in the end! I seem to recall that Jaap has, or previously had, a 24 Summilux. Why don't you also ask him as it doesn't look like he's seen this thread yet? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.