sml_photo Posted October 1, 2015 Share #1 Posted October 1, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I am looking to buy a wide angle lens for my M and the 24mm focal length seems to fit what I have in mind. However, I do not want an EVF or finder attached to the camera. I have read other posts here and know that many people do not rely on a finder with this lens. And, especially with estimating the view and the further option of using live view, I'm thinking it might work out fine. I'm just wondering if some "non finder users" can comment on their experience and their success or failure (or happiness or frustration!) using this "approximating approach." (I'm considering the new Elmar or used Elmarit, by the way. Not the Summilux...too large for my taste.) Thanks much! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 Hi sml_photo, Take a look here 24mm lens without an EVF or Finder. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Exodies Posted October 1, 2015 Share #2 Posted October 1, 2015 I had a similar prejudice about the EVF until I spent a few weeks with it and a SEM 21 glued to my M. Now I am ok with the quirky little thing. Consider the effect of bright sun over your shoulder on the visibility of the LCD, the usefulness of the artificial horizon, and if it's not a focal length you are used to, just how unbelievably much fits in the frame. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sml_photo Posted October 1, 2015 Author Share #3 Posted October 1, 2015 Yes...good point. Actually, it's unlikely I will use the EVF...I rarely use it now at all! If anything, I'd try going without an auxiliary finder. I'm comfortable with the focal length. It's actually my second most used focal length with my DSLR. Thanks, Exodies! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted October 1, 2015 Share #4 Posted October 1, 2015 Depends on you....your ability to judge framing, your desire for accuracy, your shooting preferences (eyeglasses, subject matter and distances, etc).... and that only comes from trying and seeing. Since you already like the FOV, and already have the EVF just in case, why should other opinions matter? http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/192840-using-21mm-or-24mm-without-external-finder/ Jeff 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sml_photo Posted October 2, 2015 Author Share #5 Posted October 2, 2015 Depends on you....your ability to judge framing, your desire for accuracy, your shooting preferences (eyeglasses, subject matter and distances, etc).... and that only comes from trying and seeing. Since you already like the FOV, and already have the EVF just in case, why should other opinions matter? http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/192840-using-21mm-or-24mm-without-external-finder/ Jeff I'm sorry...I wasn't clear. I do not have the EVF and do not intend to get one. I guess my question is simply, what would it be like to use the lens knowing that the whole frame probably isn't really in view. I'm wondering if people find that to be an issue? I wonder how many people have had success that way and how many have given up and either gotten an accessory finder or possibly just stopped using the lens. Thanks, Jeff S. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gotium Posted October 2, 2015 Share #6 Posted October 2, 2015 I have the 24/3.8 and use it with the built-in OVF only. It works reasonably well, but you'll never know if you are going to get things at edges unless you chimp. For me, the convenience beats carrying around an external OVF (which is also highly inaccurate, in my experience) or using the electronic VF (which I hate). The 24/3.8 is a * fantastic * lens. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sml_photo Posted October 2, 2015 Author Share #7 Posted October 2, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) For me, the convenience beats carrying around an external OVF (which is also highly inaccurate, in my experience) or using the electronic VF (which I hate). The 24/3.8 is a * fantastic * lens. THAT's what I'm thinking I'd feel, too. Funny...I never thought about the chimping part! Lookin' at the image after I shot it to see if there are any surprises. Hmm... (I've read that the 24/3.8 is a great lens. I suppose I'd get used to a f3.8 lens.) Thanks much, gotium. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uhoh7 Posted October 2, 2015 Share #8 Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) It's no problem, but if you really care about a particular shot, you chimp. No biggie. I shoot SEM 21 on the M9 without my finder pretty often. Seems to work OK: East Fork Salmon River by unoh7, on Flickr With or without the finder, I always have more throw away shots UWA. Edited October 2, 2015 by uhoh7 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gvaliquette Posted October 2, 2015 Share #9 Posted October 2, 2015 I also use my 24mm f3.8 on my M9 without the external viewfinder (which stays in the bag) and chimp if it is critical. Works out fine for me. It would be different with film, though. BTW, the 24 mm f3.8 is a GREAT lens! Guy Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sml_photo Posted October 3, 2015 Author Share #10 Posted October 3, 2015 It's no problem, but if you really care about a particular shot, you chimp. No biggie. I shoot SEM 21 on the M9 without my finder pretty often. Seems to work OK: East Fork Salmon River by unoh7, on Flickr With or without the finder, I always have more throw away shots UWA. Nice image interesting that you were using the 21mm without a finder on your M9. Hmmmm..... Thanks! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sml_photo Posted October 3, 2015 Author Share #11 Posted October 3, 2015 I also use my 24mm f3.8 on my M9 without the external viewfinder (which stays in the bag) and chimp if it is critical. Works out fine for me. It would be different with film, though. BTW, the 24 mm f3.8 is a GREAT lens! Guy Thanks for the response with your experience using the lens. And I like your "endorsement" for the lens! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsolomon Posted October 4, 2015 Share #12 Posted October 4, 2015 Following this thread closely as I'm also looking at the 24 and wondering about the 3.8, price performance is outstanding from all I read. Also I won't us a evf nor the bright line. My wide angle is one 35mm. I enjoy that lens but having an itch for wider. I do mostly urban and not landscape so still a bit on the sidelines with this lens. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sml_photo Posted October 4, 2015 Author Share #13 Posted October 4, 2015 Following this thread closely as I'm also looking at the 24 and wondering about the 3.8, price performance is outstanding from all I read. Also I won't us a evf nor the bright line. My wide angle is one 35mm. I enjoy that lens but having an itch for wider. I do mostly urban and not landscape so still a bit on the sidelines with this lens. We are on the same page with regard to the whole idea! The responses here so far make it sound like a no-brainer! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
efreed2754 Posted October 4, 2015 Share #14 Posted October 4, 2015 Have 24 2.8 for over dozen years. Have a finder then got M. Usually don't use finder or EVF . For some photos, like small group shots, little of interest at edges so just use regular finder and 28 good enough to comfortably use a 24. For images with critical information at edge need to use something as 28 in camera finder not precise enough. Usually use live view to frame; alternative to chimp. Haven't bothered with finder or EVF? Love 24 as it has no wide angle affectation. Need some basis to view some of the time. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted October 4, 2015 Share #15 Posted October 4, 2015 Following this thread closely as I'm also looking at the 24 and wondering about the 3.8, price performance is outstanding from all I read. Also I won't us a evf nor the bright line. My wide angle is one 35mm. I enjoy that lens but having an itch for wider. I do mostly urban and not landscape so still a bit on the sidelines with this lens. Personally, I'd go from 35 to 21 rather than 24. I have 21mm and 24mm finders which I use more often than not with these lenses . They are a joy to look through, especially for fast street work if you've prefocused. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sml_photo Posted October 4, 2015 Author Share #16 Posted October 4, 2015 Personally, I'd go from 35 to 21 rather than 24. I have 21mm and 24mm finders which I use more often than not with these lenses . They are a joy to look through, especially for fast street work if you've prefocused. Do you ever use the 21mm without a finder? I imagine a 24 is as wide as one can possibly go without an auxilliary finder. (If I get a 24 or 21, I will not be using an auxilliary finder.) Thanks, Mark P. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsolomon Posted October 5, 2015 Share #17 Posted October 5, 2015 Personally, I'd go from 35 to 21 rather than 24. I have 21mm and 24mm finders which I use more often than not with these lenses . They are a joy to look through, especially for fast street work if you've prefocused. Wow a 21 .....l. Now I'm thinking and excited ! thanks for the insight 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted October 5, 2015 Share #18 Posted October 5, 2015 Do you ever use the 21mm without a finder? I imagine a 24 is as wide as one can possibly go without an auxilliary finder. (If I get a 24 or 21, I will not be using an auxilliary finder.) Thanks, Mark P. 21 is obviously harder to use without an external OVF. Need to learn to pre-visualise the angle of view of 21mm. If you want more precise framing then you will need an external OVF or EVF. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen.w Posted October 7, 2015 Share #19 Posted October 7, 2015 These are personal decisions and 21mm is just too wide for my uses. I've had a 24mm lens for the past few months and I find that at closer distances its easier to estimate what will end up in my frame. Also, with my 0.58x film body I can frame with the entire viewfinder window and get reasonably accurate results. That said, I will be getting an external optical finder - it's just a question of whether I get the Leica 24mm, or one of the CV or Zeiss 25mm finders. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sml_photo Posted October 8, 2015 Author Share #20 Posted October 8, 2015 Not a big deal, but I just thought of this: What lines show in the finder with the 24mm lens attached? Does it show the widest possible (28mm)? (Of course, it really doesn't matter because the viewfinder is close to the view...right?) Thanks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.