Elmar-M 3.8/24mm on SL

[Ivar B]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I had the 24-90mm delivered a couple of days ago. It appears to be a fantastic lens, but it is not compact to put it mildly. 

 

I now understand fully I think why some SL users told me to keep the M lenses. One of these lenses is the 3.8/24mm. Has anyone tested it on the SL? One day I will compare myself, but I am tempted to keep the 24mm just for the sake of its compactness. 

[meerec]

I own this lens. I've had it for a while on non-Leica mirrorless bodies and now I shoot it on the SL. Absolutely love this lens. And love it on the SL. For me, it's a stellar performer. I have Leica M lenses across all focal lengths from 15 (ok it's a CV) through 24, 28, 35, 50, 90. I would not replace them with the 24-90 zoom because of size. I have just bought the 90-280 SL zoom, this lens makes perfect sense to me. 

 

Here are a few links to images I've taken with the Elmar-M 3.8/24 recently on my SL. 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/253192-leica-sl-image-thread-post-your-examples-here/?p=3040997

https://instagram.com/p/BFJCmzhNC4T/

https://instagram.com/p/BAmnEFPtCzd/

[steppenw0lf]

^{In your place I would keep all the M lenses, after a while you will miss them - in case you have enough of them right now.}

^{I still have all of them and from time to time I reawake them, it depends on the mood.}

^{I do no tests, I leave this to the less lazy people.  But I think that all M-lenses give satisfactory or even brilliant results on the SL, because I have seen the tests that Sean Reid has done with many different (and so called difficult) lens combinations. Especially the 1.4 / 28 showed its brilliancy on the SL.}

^{Maybe have a look at Reid Reviews.}

^Stephan

[ramarren]

Leica has provided very good lens profiles for most of their lens line; the Elmar-M 24mm performs very well as a result. In use, I tended to prefer the Elmarit-R 24mm due to its ergonomics and imaging qualities (it is just as sharp as the Elmar-M 24 in most inspections but slightly less contrasty). 

 

The SL gives you options and most M lenses work very well on it, so it's a good idea to keep your M lenses at least until you have tried them out on the SL body and see whether they work well for you. They provide at least a more compact option for using the SL. I do use the SL24-90 as well and it performs, overall, as well as most Leica M or R primes. But since I generally prefer manual focus and the smaller, lighter ergonomics of the M and R lenses, I tend to use the SL24-90 lens only when the convenience of having the whole focal length range available at once (never mind AF and IS) outweighs the inconvenience of carrying its bulk. 

[Ivar B]

I did some quick shots with the 3.8/24mm and I am very pleased. It is razor sharp and the only thing I noticed is some vignetting wide open but this disappeared when stopping down.

 

It was a good feeling shooting with the 24mm (and I also brought a 35mm along). Leaving the 24-90 at home reassured me that the weight of the body and one or two M lenses is quite acceptable.

[Guest]

Ivar, I agree completely having just acquired a 3.8 21mm and a 1.4 50mm.

 

I have included an image taken here with the 21mm. Not a lens I would normally use in the studio so just a test image.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[jrp]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The thing about totally manual lenses is that they will still work in decades to come. Lenses with electronic diaphragms will work only so long as the manufacturer continues to support the mount and lens type. Sony E lenses or Nikon E or Leica SL will be useless without specific body support. 

[ramarren]

The thing about totally manual lenses is that they will still work in decades to come. Lenses with electronic diaphragms will work only so long as the manufacturer continues to support the mount and lens type. Sony E lenses or Nikon E or Leica SL will be useless without specific body support. 

 

 

This is a continuous tension in the photographic/camera enthusiast community: those that are looking for "forever" equipment, and those who want only the latest. 

 

I've been at this long enough that I find it really doesn't matter to me at all on a philosophical basis. I want equipment that works, that does what I want, and that gets out of my way as much as possible. Whether it's new, old, as short-lived as a mayfly, or more akin to the granite of the Rock of Gibraltar is of very little importance as long as it does what I want for as long as I want to use it. 

 

Which generally is never "forever", never could be or ever will be. My interests move faster than that, as do my skills and what I'm willing to put up with. I like working with older gear and newer gear, taking each objectively for what it can do, and what I can make it do. I have just as much fun fitting a 1939 Tessar 28mm f/3.5 in Robot mount via a stack of adapters to my SL as I do using the SL24-90 state-of-the-art whiz-bang. And whatever the lens (or body) I use, I strive to make photographs with them that please me and take advantage of however they happen to "see" the world to do it. 

 

Of course, if I'm getting paid to do a specific thing with a camera, I will buy whatever is best to do that thing and ignore everything else. But that's not where I am anymore ... I have the latitude to do what I want and work with whatever I want to now. And when I hear someone saying that such and such equipment will be still working in decades, well, that's nice but I doubt I will be working in too many more decades anyway. I haven't put fifty-plus years of my life into photographic stuff without it exacting fifty-plus years as toll... 

[jrp]

Can't argue with pragmatism.