jdlaing Posted October 9, 2015 Share #21 Posted October 9, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 Hi jdlaing, Take a look here 24mm lens without an EVF or Finder. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
stephen.w Posted October 9, 2015 Share #22 Posted October 9, 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. 35mm framelines Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted October 9, 2015 Share #23 Posted October 9, 2015 Just curious about this reluctance to use finders. If you are going to use a 24mm, but aren't fully aware of/concerned about what is outside the 28mm viewfinder, why bother using it at all? I get that you can in time learn to visualise the field of view, but surely a shoe mounted optical finder is best? 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen.w Posted October 9, 2015 Share #24 Posted October 9, 2015 (edited) No real reluctance on my part - as I said in an earlier post, I will be getting one. But it is obviously convenient to frame and focus in the same window - this is the point of an M camera. Edited October 9, 2015 by stephen.w 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sml_photo Posted October 9, 2015 Author Share #25 Posted October 9, 2015 Just curious about this reluctance to use finders. If you are going to use a 24mm, but aren't fully aware of/concerned about what is outside the 28mm viewfinder, why bother using it at all? I get that you can in time learn to visualise the field of view, but surely a shoe mounted optical finder is best? I never liked the idea or option of an auxilliary finder. That's why I have always avoided wider lenses than 35 or 28 (including the 30 years with my M4). However, my curiosity was piqued as I've read posts and heard people tell me they don't use a finder with the 24...there's little that's "missed" in the finder and one "gets used to the field of view." That's why I started this thread! I have a 35 and considered a 28, but I feel it's too close to the 35. Besides, 24mm is my second favorite focal lenght with my DSLR, so I'm comfortable with that. Eventually, I suppose I'll get a 24mm and try it out for a couple of weeks. Thanks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosophos Posted October 11, 2015 Share #26 Posted October 11, 2015 I have always used 21mm and 24mm lenses on my M9 without external finders. In a digital context, you can experiment freely and after a while you start to "see" in the focal length you're using. Here are some images (first two with 21mm, the last two with 24mm). —Peter. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sml_photo Posted October 11, 2015 Author Share #27 Posted October 11, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have always used 21mm and 24mm lenses on my M9 without external finders. In a digital context, you can experiment freely and after a while you start to "see" in the focal length you're using. Here are some images (first two with 21mm, the last two with 24mm). —Peter. Thanks, Peter! I appreciate your demonstration and observations. And I like the photos, too! (How much do you think you miss in the viewfinder with the 21 and 24? I'm thinking the 24 may just about fill the frame or be slightly outside with the M(240).) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsolomon Posted October 20, 2015 Share #28 Posted October 20, 2015 ok, Had a 24 /3.8 on the camera this weekend for a test -- VERY workable its really just ever so slight outside the edges of the view finder - very workable. Had a 21 /3.4 on the camera also this weekend for a quick test. clearly outside the viewfinder. result: i didn't purchase either, might go back and test again but leaning towards 24.... since i currently own a 35 & 75 i wonder if my future will hold a new combination: 24 / 50 / 90. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sml_photo Posted October 20, 2015 Author Share #29 Posted October 20, 2015 i wonder if my future will hold a new combination: 24 / 50 / 90. THAT sounds like a great combo! The "problem" I have is that I have and use (mostly!) a 35 along with a 50. The 24 may compete with my 35 for attention even though their fields of view are much different. I'm going to decide in the next week. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spydrxx Posted October 20, 2015 Share #30 Posted October 20, 2015 Had the 24 for about 2 years. I tried it without the aux finder for the first year, but really didn't feel that I was doing a great job of visualizing. Once I got the finder I was pretty amazed at how much better my compositions were. In the end I didn't use this superb lens as frequently as I anticipated, and sold the package to an enthusiast who would. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sml_photo Posted October 20, 2015 Author Share #31 Posted October 20, 2015 Had the 24 for about 2 years. I tried it without the aux finder for the first year, but really didn't feel that I was doing a great job of visualizing. Once I got the finder I was pretty amazed at how much better my compositions were. In the end I didn't use this superb lens as frequently as I anticipated, and sold the package to an enthusiast who would. Oh oh....that's not a good report! haha Wondering...what type of photography were you doing with it? Landscapes, street, etc.? Thanks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeicaFFM Posted October 20, 2015 Share #32 Posted October 20, 2015 I have tested both, the 24/3.8 and the 21/3.4 with my M (240). I ended up buying the 21/3.4 and use it for landscapes mostly. I usually focus through the OVF and then use LV for framing. With landscapes this works very well for me, as they usually don't move. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Albertson Posted October 22, 2015 Share #33 Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) I use a finder with my 24 -- with my eyeglass prescription, I'm lucky to see all of the 35mm frames, let alone the 28 lines. I find I spend most of my time framing through the auxiliary finder, and occasionally touching up the focusing. There's not that much back-and-forth between the two. Just remember to keep the back of the camera vertical, even a slight tilt will have things flying out of the corners. Keep it vertical, and it has remarkably little distortion of that sort, even with subjects near the edge of the frame. Unless you like to *use* that kind of distortion, which is fine. Edited October 22, 2015 by Chuck Albertson 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spydrxx Posted October 22, 2015 Share #34 Posted October 22, 2015 Hi SML - I was using it mostly for landscape/architectural. It is a terrific lens,,,I just wasn't using it as much as I had anticipated. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sml_photo Posted October 22, 2015 Author Share #35 Posted October 22, 2015 Hi SML - I was using it mostly for landscape/architectural. It is a terrific lens,,,I just wasn't using it as much as I had anticipated. I kind of envision using it for landscapes, etc., too. However, I currently use my DSLR wides for street and lifestyle images. Very tempting lens...I'm going to have to decide before the rebate runs out at the end of this month! Thanks for you input. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sml_photo Posted October 23, 2015 Author Share #36 Posted October 23, 2015 I have stated here and elsewhere my lack of interest in using an auxiliary finder. However, now my lens search has taken me to consider the 21mm Super Elmarit rather than the 24mm Elmar. And I don't relish the thought of guestimating the field of view with that lens. So, what I'm wondering is whether the Live View will suffice for framing. Or should I consider the Brightline 21mm Finder or the EVF2? Doesn't the EVF2 (and live view, obviously) use up the battery quickly? Doesn't the 21mm Brightline have M8 lines in the finder? Are they distracting? I cannot believe I'm even thinking about these options! No kidding. But the 21mm does seem like a compelling choice for me. I'm hoping to decide before the current rebate (US) runs out at the end of this month...unless they extend it again! Otherwise, no urgency. Thanks! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted October 23, 2015 Share #37 Posted October 23, 2015 Live view should be fine. Accurate as well. I have used a 24 Elmarit f/2.8 quite a bit on an M-240 and I thought of it, while using the EVF, that it was the same thing as using a dslr viewfinder. The difference being no extra view outside the frame lines if that makes sense. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted October 23, 2015 Share #38 Posted October 23, 2015 I have the Elmarit 24 on my M9 or M9MM without separate finder. I never missed it. Of course the wider the angle the more it becomes critical that you have your camera perfectly horizontal. So sometimes I have to shoot again after checking the screen. But framing? Never had any problems. You get used to it quite quickly 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leica Frog Posted October 23, 2015 Share #39 Posted October 23, 2015 (edited) I had ever used 21/3.4 SEM and found that's too wide for me, I had changed to 24/3.8 Elmar-M and feel like this length more, however I've faced to this topic problem too, I don't like to use external finder because of inconvenient, so I use the outer frame of my M9 OVF instead of the external 24 frame-line finder, it hasn't any serious problem. After my comparision test, 24/3.8 Elmar-M Asph is the great lens, 24/2.8 Elmarit Asph is greater and 24 Summilux Asph is the greatest. Edited October 23, 2015 by Leica Frog 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mornnb Posted October 23, 2015 Share #40 Posted October 23, 2015 (edited) I prefer to use live view and the LCD for wide angles larger than 28mm... Why? No carrying around extra bits, and because shooting with an attachment on the hotshoe always means your noise leaves some grease on the optical viewfinder. But more importantly, the LCD is a higher quality display than the EVF, it has much better contrast and colour rendering. Edited October 23, 2015 by Mornnb 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.