hirohhhh Posted January 17, 2020 Share #1 Posted January 17, 2020 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm considering to buy Summicron 35mm, although I already have Elmarit 24-90 and I'm still not sure if it's worth the investment. I know all the technical differences, but it's still $5000 and I have to think twice or three times before I buy. Is there anyone who owns both and can post the sample images of the same subject with the same settings, Vario set to 35mm, f/2.8. It would be really helpful to see the difference. Thank you. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 17, 2020 Posted January 17, 2020 Hi hirohhhh, Take a look here Summicron 35 vs 24-90. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
caissa Posted January 17, 2020 Share #2 Posted January 17, 2020 (edited) You cannot decide for such an expensive lens only from pics from the web. (You have probably already started with the pics on the Leica site.) If you are unsure, you could go and try it out (e.g. rent it). But usually this is not needed. It is the sharpest SL lens, and the lens size is equal for all primes, so is the AF. So if you want it, the choice is easy. If it is too expensive, then it's also easy ... The zooms are also excellent, so the difference in the images cannot be very big. It’s more about the size/weight, the wider aperture and the handling. Edited January 17, 2020 by caissa Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted January 17, 2020 Share #3 Posted January 17, 2020 Or to put it another way, what difference are you hoping to see? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
m9photo Posted January 17, 2020 Share #4 Posted January 17, 2020 I personally not zoom type of person, but this would be different form each individual so if i elect to buy, I'd buy prime 1st as it's more suited to my style. The question of zoom vs prime has already been beaten, quality of zoom now has reached the same level of prime at certain lens opening. Zoom has longer and wider reach 24-90, the prime has 2.0 opening. So what are you trying to achieve if you only try to compare at 2.8? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 18, 2020 Share #5 Posted January 18, 2020 I have both and bought the 35mm for the size/weight difference and the shallower depth of field (the VE is f3.1 at 35mm). Image Quality would IMHO not be sufficient enough of a reason to justify the 35mm. If you don't mind the size/weight of the VE 24-90mm and are OK with it not being the fastest lens on the planet I personally wouldn't bother. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alf62 Posted January 18, 2020 Share #6 Posted January 18, 2020 I also own both. Actually, the 35mm SL is one of the sharpest lenses with a very good color rendering. But the 24-90 is an absolute good lens, also on 35mm. It is about the weight (if that troubles you) and the DOF on 2.0 with the 35mm that make the difference. Otherwise sticking with the 24-90 is than an option. Honestly, I am still wondering if a APO M 50 or Noctilux M 50 1.0 would not have been a better choice of a second lens.... I seem to be never able to decide on this 😂 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.