Jump to content

24mm Summilux ASPH or Summicron ASPH


SMAL

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

:p

SMAL,

Summilux-M are lenses to have when one is not enough (I do have/own/had some :o over time )

 

I think that if you buy 24mm now you would want/need one day 28mm :D.

And one day you would have them all 21/24/28/35/50/75 (sorry last is Noctilux :p  )

 

As side note...

in my case for sure : one day bored with those heavy/big lenses to carry/use around

those lighter Summarit-M or Elmarit-M (Elmar-M) appeared very tempting: end of cycle (for me)

Edited by a.noctilux
Link to post
Share on other sites

You must have lizard eyes to cover 24mm with the OVF folks. :D Just kidding. ;)

 

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!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

:p

SMAL,

Summilux-M are lenses to have when one is not enough (I do have/own/had some :o over time )

 

I think that if you buy 24mm now you would want/need one day 28mm :D.

And one day you would have them all 21/24/28/35/50/75 (sorry last is Noctilux :p )

 

As side note...

in my case for sure : one day bored with those heavy/big lenses to carry/use around

those lighter Summarit-M or Elmarit-M (Elmar-M) appeared very tempting: end of cycle (for me)

Honestly I am doing photography now for 10 years and all lenses I owned outside of the 24-50 range never got any use. I simply don’t enjoy these. When shooting with a 24 I can easily crop to 28.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You’ve got a 28 on your Q. And you are familiar and connected with a 24. So what’s the issue actually. I presume the price of the lux24. Go for the Elmarit 24 or the SE 24, both great lenses. I’m quite reserved btw about the value of Summiluxes wider than 28, the Summilux 24 really hasn’t that bite that I like to see for such a price.

Edited by otto.f
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well...

 

M10 kit(s).

 

For two lenses kit I'd pack 24mm Summilux-M and Noctilux-M 50mm ;).

 

Later on when I'm bored of the hefty, I'd pack the small but nice Elmarit-M 28mm asph. and Summarit-M 50mm : that's me :p.

 

I'm lucky I have choices, but neither of the kit "can-do-it-all-all-time".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You’ve got a 28 on your Q. And you are familiar and connected with a 24. So what’s the issue actually. I presume the price of the lux24. Go for the Elmarit 24 or the SE 24, both great lenses. I’m quite reserved btw about the value of Summiluxes wider than 28, the Summilux 24 really hasn’t that bite that I like to see for such a price.

. Price is not an issue at all.

 

What‘s your issue with wide lenses? Can you elaborate?

Link to post
Share on other sites

For two lenses kit I'd pack 24mm Summilux-M and Noctilux-M 50mm ;).

It’s funny how you all talk about weight. I am coming from a DSLR and in the last 1,5 years from a mirrorless background and I’ve always only used heavy glass. So compare to that the M10 with the Lux lenses is a feather weight.

 

I think doubling the focal length for a two lens kit probably works awesome. And for lazy days I stick in the middle with the 35 lux.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SMAL,

 

When we were younger, before the digital age, my wife and I travelled around (the world) with Leica systems M and R

because one system didn't replace the other.

 

As we needed also carry some films (about hundred rolls), we took care of overweight, but needed also luminous lenses, so why we prefer Summilux-M (the tiny 35mm only available then, not 21/24/28).

While Leica R lenses are on the heavy and long side (very short 15/21mm also heavy) of the equation as Apo-Telyt-R 180 or Apo-Macro-Elmarit-R 100, even 280/350/400/560 sometime.

When on location, we took what we needed for the day, not more nor less and the winners by then were two Ms with two Summilux-M (mainly 35 + 75) or if only one was Noctilux 1.0 ...

 

So now with M10, that thing behaves like "more fun with less weight" but as long time M/R user I can't stand the finder blockage of those giant front lenses (even if LV or Visoflex can cure that).

 

Giant lenses on DSLR don't have this "finder blockage".

 

All that said, I'm happy that gear weight don't bother you  ( as we were when we took those old gears ).

Link to post
Share on other sites

. Price is not an issue at all.

What‘s your issue with wide lenses? Can you elaborate?

I love wide lenses, only the idea to must have a Summilux version of them is not clear to me. Especially on an M. You have to get very close, and with M’s that will not be closer than 0.7m, to get the real shallow depth of field out and shining. The wider the lens gets, the drop-off of focus gets less and less steep, so the effect is quite relative.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Especially on an M. You have to get very close, and with M’s that will not be closer than 0.7m, to get the real shallow depth of field out and shining. .

Using the 21 and 24 Summiluxes close up really highlighted parallax issues; it was extremely difficult to accurately frame up at those close distances. The Frankenfinder helped on film, but the problem only truly solved with the LCD and EVF.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Using the 21 and 24 Summiluxes close up really highlighted parallax issues; it was extremely difficult to accurately frame up at those close distances. The Frankenfinder helped on film, but the problem only truly solved with the LCD and EVF.

Or mirrorless camera, like SL601.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love wide lenses, only the idea to must have a Summilux version of them is not clear to me. Especially on an M. You have to get very close, and with M’s that will not be closer than 0.7m, to get the real shallow depth of field out and shining. The wider the lens gets, the drop-off of focus gets less and less steep, so the effect is quite relative.

 

Didn´t you perfectly highlight right now why f1.4 makes more sense? Exactly because you can´t get super close (which I don´t with wide angle lenses) you only can get shallower depth of field with a wider aperture (f1.4) or more compression (28mm). If I want to get close I use a longer lens. Wide angle lenses are for environmental portraits for me.

 

Using the 21 and 24 Summiluxes close up really highlighted parallax issues; it was extremely difficult to accurately frame up at those close distances. The Frankenfinder helped on film, but the problem only truly solved with the LCD and EVF.

I never shot a wide angle on a M so far, since M10 is my first rangefinder. So I can´t tell how tough framing will be for me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn´t you perfectly highlight right now why f1.4 makes more sense? Exactly because you can´t get super close (which I don´t with wide angle lenses) you only can get shallower depth of field with a wider aperture (f1.4) or more compression (28mm). If I want to get close I use a longer lens. Wide angle lenses are for environmental portraits fo

 

I think we don’t understand eachother

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never shot a wide angle on a M so far, since M10 is my first rangefinder. So I can´t tell how tough framing will be for me.

 

The OVF frame lines will move for parallax correction with 28mm wereas using the outer view for 24mm is difficult to see and fixed.

 

A first rangefinder experience is a learning curve, so trying in store or leasing to validate your perceptions and internet advice would be worthwhile.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn´t you perfectly highlight right now why f1.4 makes more sense? Exactly because you can´t get super close (which I don´t with wide angle lenses) you only can get shallower depth of field with a wider aperture (f1.4) or more compression (28mm). If I want to get close I use a longer lens. Wide angle lenses are for environmental portraits for me.

 

 

I never shot a wide angle on a M so far, since M10 is my first rangefinder. So I can´t tell how tough framing will be for me.

 

With experience you will get so familiar with the angle of view that it will become a non-issue. The trick is to see the photograph in the 24 perspective and frame before you put the camera to your eye. After that you only need the viewfinder to focus and aim.
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a 20 mm lens for my 35-mm-format SLR camera but hardly used it after I acquired a 24 mm lens. I also had a 28 mm I got for little money but never used it. The 24 mm was my workhorse lens in the wide-angle range.

 

When I got my first Leica M, a 24 mm lens was one of the first M lenses I got. But alas, turns out I don't like it! I cannot explain why but on the Leica M, I love the 21 mm focal length and cannot come to terms with 24 mm—just the opposite of how SLR lenses are working for me. So when you love the 24 mm focal length on an SLR camera, it doesn't necessarily mean you will like it on a rangefinder camera also. Maybe you will ... or maybe not.

 

Today I use 28 mm and 21 mm on my Leica M a lot, and the 24 mm is sitting idle in the closet.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...