michaelwj Posted May 2, 2015 Share #21 Â Posted May 2, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I always thought it was just because it was a hassle, rather than anything inherently bad with the focal length. In that if you need an external viewfinder, so why not just go all the way to 21? It's a very popular focal length on TTL viewing cameras, which obviously don't suffer from the same issues. I would say, if you want a 24, get a 24. Cheers, Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 2, 2015 Posted May 2, 2015 Hi michaelwj, Take a look here What's wrong with 24 mm?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jennifer Posted May 2, 2015 Share #22 Â Posted May 2, 2015 I'm sure there's absolutely nothing wrong with the 24mm, but personally I can't think of a situation where I'd chose 24 over 21 or 28 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 2, 2015 Share #23  Posted May 2, 2015 You said it: Carry a 24, or a 21 and a 28 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennifer Posted May 2, 2015 Share #24  Posted May 2, 2015 You said it: Carry a 24, or a 21 and a 28  LOL true enough, but never let it be said I'm prepared to compromise Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
F.Juul Posted May 2, 2015 Author Share #25  Posted May 2, 2015 You said it: Carry a 24, or a 21 and a 28  That was actually a good point Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted May 2, 2015 Share #26  Posted May 2, 2015 The Elmarit 24 asph has been one of the two only Leica lenses i had and sold...  thus proving the truth of the statement "never sell a Leica lens you like" ... I got it for M8, being the widest VF framing lens, and it was a stellar performer : when switching to M240, found a buyer and thought that on FF it would have been less useful... but I am far from sure that I wouldn't appreciate it a lot on FF too (and, confess that wouldn't the 24 had been phisycally identical to my Elmarit 21 asph, maybe I would have kept it...  ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted May 2, 2015 Share #27  Posted May 2, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) You said it: Carry a 24, or a 21 and a 28 Carry a 24 instead of an 18 and 28 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Branch Posted May 2, 2015 Share #28  Posted May 2, 2015 In my ideal world I would carry, 18mm, 24mm, 35mm & 50mm plus a longer lens such as the 75mm.  Unfortunately in one sense I have a 28mm f/2 Summicron-M ASPH, (legacy of the M8 Launch Saga), which is so good I just can't bare to part with it.  When I had a 24mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH I was always in two minds as to whether to take the 24mm or the 28mm. I could not justify carrying both so reluctantly I sold the 24mm. There was absolutely nothing wrong with it optically. It took quite a long time to find a buyer when sold on commission by Red Dot; so they are not that popular in the market place. In my opinion this is probably because of the lack of a 24mm frame in the M(Typ240) viewfinder plus it was never a "classic" focal length in the Leica RF lens range. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
F.Juul Posted May 2, 2015 Author Share #29 Â Posted May 2, 2015 In my ideal world I would carry, 18mm, 24mm, 35mm &Â 50mm plus a longer lens such as the 75mm... Â Just add a 90mm and we agree...Thanks for sharing your thoughts Peter. Â Anyway, the 50mm is the one sitting on the camera most of the time for me and the 90mm is the second most used. To complement the setup I need a WA other than the 35mm which I have and don't really like that much (it was a part of the deal when I got my M9-P). So I have to pick one out of 21,24,28 ... right now it's either 24 or 28. Â Any other comments would be highly appreciated - thanks for all the constructive input so far. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
semi-ambivalent Posted May 2, 2015 Share #30  Posted May 2, 2015 Just add a 90mm and we agree...Thanks for sharing your thoughts Peter.  Anyway, the 50mm is the one sitting on the camera most of the time for me and the 90mm is the second most used. To complement the setup I need a WA other than the 35mm which I have and don't really like that much (it was a part of the deal when I got my M9-P). So I have to pick one out of 21,24,28 ... right now it's either 24 or 28.  Any other comments would be highly appreciated - thanks for all the constructive input so far. F.,  I have never been able to get my head around the 24. I still own a couple Nikkors but rarely used them in those days. Now, using a (film) RF for a few years a 50 is my most commonly used lens. Using that as my zero point I've settled on 28 and 21 one way and 90 the other. BUT, I also have a 35 and, in spite being either too long to be wide or too wide to have reach some days it just seems to click for everything. I'm not at all afraid of grain but film does not give me 'infinite' croppability so I'm always trying to feel out what the day might require most. 24 might be your 35.  You should just buy everything, s-a Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
F.Juul Posted May 2, 2015 Author Share #31  Posted May 2, 2015   You should just buy everything, s-a  ... She who must be obeyed thought this was a hilarious comment  Thanks for your comment! Actually, my jump off point was the 28, but after starting this thread I'm not so scared off by the 24, and honestly feel a bit attracted to it. Also after reading what Mr. Puts has to say about the 24 F2.8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedaes Posted May 2, 2015 Share #32  Posted May 2, 2015 ... She who must be obeyed thought this was a hilarious comment  Thanks for your comment! Actually, my jump off point was the 28, but after starting this thread I'm not so scared off by the 24, and honestly feel a bit attracted to it. Also after reading what Mr. Puts has to say about the 24 F2.8. He is very positive about the 24 F3.8 also. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Branch Posted May 2, 2015 Share #33  Posted May 2, 2015 .............I'm not so scared off by the 24, and honestly feel a bit attracted to it. Also after reading what Mr. Puts has to say about the 24 F2.8.  They are certainly available S/H for less than the cost of a new 24mm f/3,8.  In my opinion that is one of the so called problems with the 24mm - Leica's current range. There is no new 24mm f/2.8 or 24mm f/2 available.  What were Leica thinking when they started to discontinue f/2 & f/2.8 versions of their lenses? They are the ones customers want and that is why the OMs supply them!  I'm well aware of their arguments for doing so but they don't stand up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
F.Juul Posted May 2, 2015 Author Share #34 Â Posted May 2, 2015 To me 2.8 is just more attractive than 3.8 - also taking size into account ... (of course within certain limits) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 2, 2015 Share #35 Â Posted May 2, 2015 Carry a 24 instead of an 18 and 28Â Actually it is 18 and 24... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrp Posted May 2, 2015 Share #36  Posted May 2, 2015 They are certainly available S/H for less than the cost of a new 24mm f/3,8.  What ere Leica thinking when they started to discontinue f/2 & f/2.8 versions of their lenses?  They chose instead to do an f1.4 stretched version, with all the compromises (and artistic possibilities) that that entails and a version  that is as good as you can make, without aperture constraints.  Is there room for an intermediate (less expensive, but faster) version than the f3.8?  Apparently not, if the number of second hand f2.8s available is anything to go by. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted May 2, 2015 Share #37  Posted May 2, 2015 When acquiring a lens, your subject matter and its environment - along with which lens will be most effective for a given subject matter and environment - should be your main considerations.  Based on what I have been able to determine, the following focal lengths seem to be fairly good fits for the following subjects and scenarios for M cameras - 21mm and 24mm: Small interiors, shooting in very close proximity to your subjects; 28mm and 35mm: Street photography, music festival photography, farmer's market; 50mm: All around, general purpose lens; 75mm and 90mm: Portraits, scenarios where either some distance from the subject is needed or frame filling close range shooting; 135mm: Landscape, travel and wildlife.  Those are my impressions, anyway. Not sure what to do with the WATE as the wider (or longer) the lens, the more specialized its application seems to be. For my purposes, the 21mm is adequately wide and I have no need to go to 18mm or 16mm.  As for the 24mm focal length, it seems to be a popular lens among landsacpe shooters using DSLRs. 21mm and 28mm seem to be more popular with M camera adherents, from what I can tell.  To conclude, in answer to the OP's question -  What's wrong with 24 mm? - in a word, nothing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gpwhite Posted May 2, 2015 Share #38 Â Posted May 2, 2015 He is very positive about the 24 F3.8 also. Â Yes, what is there not to be positive about? The 24 Elmar is the pinnacle of Karbenisch ueber pop and Velvia colors (shoot the same scene with the APO 50 and the 24 Elmar, and you might be amazed how close they are to each other). The 24 Elmarit ASPH offers separation for the subject at closer setting and it draws a more gentle line (better for people IMHO). Â Re the question of what is Leica doing killing off its Elmarit WA in favor of Summiluxes, I wonder if Karbe likes WA? His 50mm lenses are all exceptional... each just wonderful in its way. Yet, the WA SX I have had did not excite me (of course, the 28 is still in the hands of only the chosen few ), and the Elmar family are fantastic performers but with narrow character. Just my opinion..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted May 2, 2015 Share #39  Posted May 2, 2015 Actually it is 18 and 24...  Sorry, I meant to say: Carry a 21 instead of a 18 and 24 didn't check it as I posted Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted May 2, 2015 Share #40  Posted May 2, 2015 I still have an M9, which I should really have sold, as I like wide angle shooting and it is not really feasible without live view beyond 28mm or in my case 35mm, since I wear glasses.  However, I would never use it for wide angle shots now, as the viewfinders are pretty crude and very expensive for their performance.  For wide angle, since you are, at some point, going to end up with an M240 or successor, they are a waste of $€£ and another thing to have to fiddle with if you need to change focal length.  if you already have 35mm, then I suspect that 28mm is too close, although it's a nice focal length, and if you can get a cheap lens with a different rendering characteristic from what you currently have, go for it.  Otherwise, I'd be inclined to separate focal lengths by 1.5 or 2 and / or alternate fast lenses with high performing ones across focal lengths (the current Leica wide angle line up consists of fast, sexy, but stretched luxes, and slow, as good as it gets, rits, including the 21mm that you mention).  Otherwise, otherwise, I'd save for an M240 first and contemplate a wider range of lenses later.  Both wider and short lenses will work better on it.  The M9's comfort zone is 35mm and 50mm, with 28mm and 70mm as viable alternatives, if  you keep the 1.5/2 focal length separation factor.  My ½¢pd¥€$£₽₨₩௹₰₤  what on earth are you taking about ?  I have no interest in LV and the viewfinders are far more preferable. I AM very comfortable with 12, 15, 18 and 21 with my M9-P Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.