fire2368 Posted August 28, 2017 Share #1 Posted August 28, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi forum, I've been looking everywhere for this answer, but it's difficult to get. I'm looking for a fast wide angle to complement my SL. I've already got the 24-90 for the SL. Between the 21, 24 and 28, which of the three would yield the best results? I really like the 3D effect that the 50 APO can do, do anyone of these have that similar effect? the 24/28 would be the better focal length, but if the 21 produces the better image, I can stand closer. Thanks in advance! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 28, 2017 Posted August 28, 2017 Hi fire2368, Take a look here Wide Angle Summiluxes. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
NB23 Posted August 28, 2017 Share #2 Posted August 28, 2017 An images Threedeeness is more a function of my iphone's (or computer) screen brightness than a function of the lens used to take the said shot. Go with your favored focal length, forget the threedeeness Bullsheet. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted August 28, 2017 Share #3 Posted August 28, 2017 (edited) I can only agree with paulmac, although I have been 'corrected' earlier in this opinion in this forum with some close-up photo. Are you into close-up with wide-angle? Not particularly? In that case ask yourself how much selective focus you can really get with wider angles than 35 at 1.4. Not enough to give you that strikingly different look in your images compared with compacter and lighter wide-angles. The ISO power of the SL seems good enough to handle even 4.0 lenses Edited August 28, 2017 by otto.f 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fire2368 Posted August 28, 2017 Author Share #4 Posted August 28, 2017 I do take a lot of images closer up to my subjects, especially in street. So I do believe a faster lens is beneficial in being able to highlight my subject. I'm more often at MFD than I would think. I'm swaying more and more to the 28mm just because the 28mm is a much easier lens to handle. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trickness Posted August 28, 2017 Share #5 Posted August 28, 2017 The 21 SEM is so incredible and manageable and reasonably priced that it absolutely killed my interest in the 21 Summilux. You should try to shoot one before you spend all that cash and carry around all that weight. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
anickpick Posted August 28, 2017 Share #6 Posted August 28, 2017 The 28 Lux is a fantastic lens with great micro contrast wide open and very nice oof rendering. My highest recommendation. At 2.8, it is sharper across the frame than the 28 Elmarit. The wider Luxes are a bit on the heavy side and much more difficult to handle wide open with a rangefinder camera. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rramesh Posted August 29, 2017 Share #7 Posted August 29, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Give the Voigtlander 21 f/1.8 Ultron a shot. It's a great fast wide angle lens. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
onasj Posted August 30, 2017 Share #8 Posted August 30, 2017 I have been shooting both the 28 lux and the 21 SEM on an M10. Both are fantastic lenses and can give outstanding landscapes or context-filled street photography. Of course the 28 is less prone to wide-angle distortion of biological subjects, while the SEM is amazing for corner to corner sharpness and correction and "modern" rendering, ideal for wide landscapes and architectural shots. Of course in very low light there is no comparison, but the 28 lux is also much larger, much more expensive, and weighs more... almost noctilux-like in how it perturbs the balance of the M10. If you are hoping to get very strong subject isolation with the 28, that's less prone to happen that one might think for a lux, simply because of the wide focal length (and thus large DOF in absolute distance terms). That said, if I am shooting a person I'd rather have the 28; if shooting a building or a landscape the 21 SEM. In the end I would say they are very complementary, rather than overlapping, lenses... which is why I resolved the issue by getting both, but I appreciate that solution also comes with some downsides (like substantial cost). 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gpwhite Posted September 2, 2017 Share #9 Posted September 2, 2017 As I understand your question, you are looking for the wide-angle Summilux that will deliver the most pleasing images on your SL typ 601. The perspectives and relative IQ's of the three lenses you mention are vastly different from each other... but you may know that already. Assuming you are looking for rendering and not maximum reach, the 28mm Summilux is a masterpiece in all respects other than the corners where it is inferior to the 28mm Summicron. More relevant for your query, I suspect, is that a few review specialists have rated the center micro-contrast rendered on the SL to be even higher than on the M. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted September 3, 2017 Share #10 Posted September 3, 2017 I suspect, is that a few review specialists have rated the center micro-contrast rendered on the SL to be even higher than on the M. Yeah but what about Omni-contrast? Nano-contrast is higher on the new 28 lux that's for sure. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fire2368 Posted September 3, 2017 Author Share #11 Posted September 3, 2017 As I understand your question, you are looking for the wide-angle Summilux that will deliver the most pleasing images on your SL typ 601. The perspectives and relative IQ's of the three lenses you mention are vastly different from each other... but you may know that already. Assuming you are looking for rendering and not maximum reach, the 28mm Summilux is a masterpiece in all respects other than the corners where it is inferior to the 28mm Summicron. More relevant for your query, I suspect, is that a few review specialists have rated the center micro-contrast rendered on the SL to be even higher than on the M. This was the answer i was looking for. Thanks! I will be going for the 28 lux once i move a few things around. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gpwhite Posted September 4, 2017 Share #12 Posted September 4, 2017 This was the answer i was looking for. Thanks! I will be going for the 28 lux once i move a few things around. Sean Reid offers a valuable stream of information, at least for the $$ I pay in his annual fee. As a subscriber, you could look into his comparisons of the 28mm M lenses and the associated IQ from the M and the SL sensors. BTW, I have absolutely no idea at all what Omni-contrast or Nano-contrast are. . I just look for the rendering and crispiness each lens delivers. Enjoy it! 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.