which needs to go? 28 or 24 Lux

[dkmoore]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi folks,

I'm thinking about selling one of the Summilux lenses because it doesn't make sense to me to keep two lenses that are so close in FL.

Which would you keep? 

If you'd keep both, why?

[jaeger]

It depends on what other lenses do you have.  I have 24 Lux and I love it, it goes well with my 35ux and 50lux.  If you don't have a 35mm then 28mm and 50mm is a pretty good combo.

If choosing between 24lux and 28lux alone, most people will tell you 24lux sucks and you will ended selling the 24 lux if you listen to them.

 

P.S. if you are not short in cash, don't sell neither.

Edited November 3, 2020 by jaeger

[dkmoore]

10 minutes ago, jaeger said:

It depends on what other lenses do you have.  I have 24 Lux and I love it, it goes well with my 35ux and 50lux.  If you don't have a 35mm then 28mm and 50mm is a pretty good combo.

If choosing between 24lux and 28lux alone, most people will tell you 24lux sucks and you will ended selling the 24 lux if you listen to them.

 

P.S. if you are not short in cash, don't sell neither.

I have 24 Lux, 28 Lux, 35 Lux, 50 APO, 90 Cron. 
 

not short on cash but I’d only use one or the other because I’m forcing myself to as they are super close (to me) in focal length. I don’t see much of a difference. IQ isn’t that different either. 
 

I’m leaning toward Keeping the 28 Lux because it’s better to the corners wide open and slightly smaller. 
 

But, I really like the rendering of the 24. I think it’s slightly more cinematic then the 28. 

[jaapv]

The 24 Summilux is my favourite wideangle of all times and a never-sell lens. I have used it with enthusiasm since the day it was introduced. The rendering is unique and the focal length an ideal compromise between "real" wideangle and usability. The alleged "weaker" corners do not show up in normal photography at all, those are more of a deterrent to MTF-geeks and brick wall shooters.In real life it renders superior all across the frame.

it is also the shortest focal length that will give a real shallow-DOF feel @ 1.4.The 21 is generally too wide to be effective in this respect, I find. Many photographers will use 21 mm and shorter only occasionally as a specialty lens. 

[dkmoore]

23 minutes ago, jaapv said:

The 24 Summilux is my favourite wideangle of all times and a never-sell lens. I have used it with enthusiasm since the day it was introduced. The rendering is unique and the focal length an ideal compromise between "real" wideangle and usability. The alleged "weaker" corners do not show up in normal photography at all, those are more of a deterrent to MTF-geeks and brick wall shooters.In real life it renders superior all across the frame.

it is also the shortest focal length that will give a real shallow-DOF feel @ 1.4.The 21 is generally too wide to be effective in this respect, I find. Many photographers will use 21 mm and shorter only occasionally as a specialty lens. 

Do you keep a 28mm or do you skip that FL?

[OR120]

Sell/trade Leica cameras. Keep Leica lenses. Keep both lenses - sooner or later you’ll wish you had - 

Shoot with the 24 for a while. Put it away and shoot with just the 28. They are both useful. 

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I skip it - TBH, 28 has never agreed with me, I've bought and sold it  too often. My series is 18 - 24 - 35 - 75, with the 50 Summilux asph as a regularly-used extra.

[jaeger]

3 hours ago, dkmoore said:

I have 24 Lux, 28 Lux, 35 Lux, 50 APO, 90 Cron.

The 28 is very close to 24 and 35

3 hours ago, dkmoore said:

I’m leaning toward Keeping the 28 Lux

oh boy...

3 hours ago, dkmoore said:

But, I really like the rendering of the 24

Right at the money.

 

 

[wda]

As you have no need to sell, don't  sell. Keep one out of use for a while; then rediscover it. Buying and selling the same focal length repeatedly makes no sense at all.

[Fedro]

I had the same conundrum and kept the 28, as it is a more modern lens, including use with filters

I also have the 21 Lux, which I love and kept so that was part of the decision.

If I had to keep only one it would have been the 24, which is a wonderful lens, but decided to sell some lenses and it was one of those

[dkmoore]

3 hours ago, wda said:

As you have no need to sell, don't  sell. Keep one out of use for a while; then rediscover it. Buying and selling the same focal length repeatedly makes no sense at all.

Unfortunately I have done this a few times with many different lenses.

[dkmoore]

4 hours ago, Fedro said:

I had the same conundrum and kept the 28, as it is a more modern lens, including use with filters

I also have the 21 Lux, which I love and kept so that was part of the decision.

If I had to keep only one it would have been the 24, which is a wonderful lens, but decided to sell some lenses and it was one of those

I don't currently have a 21 because when I did I never ended up using it. I think I needed to use it more to get better acquainted.

So I'd essentially have 28, 35, 50, and 90 only for now.  Or, 24, 35, 50, and 90.

 

[Jeff S]

I use my M bodies, RF only, with 28, 35 and 50. The SL2 now covers the rest, including zooms.  Suits my subject matter and workflow.

Jeff

[lct]

17 hours ago, dkmoore said:

I have 24 Lux, 28 Lux, 35 Lux, 50 APO, 90 Cron. 
not short on cash but I’d only use one or the other because I’m forcing myself to as they are super close (to me) in focal length. I don’t see much of a difference. IQ isn’t that different either.

I would skip the 24 and get a 21 then, unless you intend to use your 24 as equiv. 35 on APS bodies. Matter of taste anyway.

[dkmoore]

1 hour ago, lct said:

I would skip the 24 and get a 21 then, unless you intend to use your 24 as equiv. 35 on APS bodies. Matter of taste anyway.

I was thinking about seeing if I could trade someone for the 21 Lux to diversify my lens kit. However, I tried 18 and 21 before and rarely had a subject that would have worked for those FL.

Even for landscape I often find myself more on the long side, 28mm-90mm. I think I just haven't gone to the right places for ultra wide or i simply don't know how to use them...  :  (

I may just be destined, at least for now, to narrow the kit down to 28, 35, 50, 90.

24 & 28 are just too darn close to justify keeping. I think I am leaning toward keeping the 28 Lux for the following:

1. RF is clearer (although for my type of photography - the non accurate type - I don't have issues using the RF with 24)
2. 28 is way easier for filters and I use color filters a lot with M10M.
3. 28 is a little smaller
4. 28 is more modern and still has a little of that cinematic look that I love of the 24 Lux.

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, dkmoore said:

Even for landscape I often find myself more on the long side, 28mm-90mm. I think I just haven't gone to the right places for ultra wide or i simply don't know how to use them...  :  (

 

It’s why I bought the SL24-90 and not the SL16-35, even though the latter is more compact with internal focusing and a must have wide end range for many. I would hardly ever use wider than 24, and not much there either. I find very few wide angle landscape photos that that stick with me and don’t become just pretty ‘postcards’/cliches. There are exceptions of course. But, for my own use, I far prefer more intimate landscapes, fragments or abstractions. The 90-280 provides more such opportunities for my style. 

Some naturally use wide angles to great effect and create work that moves me (e.g., Koudelka’s Gypsies project), but even he moved on to 35/50 after that. It’s probably good practice to change things up and get out of one’s comfort zones. For M use, though, I stick with 28/35/50 both because the range suits my style, and because it optimizes RF use. I’ve owned 75 and 90mm M lenses, but never bonded with the 75 frame lines (big reason for my SL75 acquisition), and 90mm ideally requires a .85 VF, as I dislike VF magnifiers.  

It’s good to know one’s abilities and tastes....can save a lot of time and money on the wrong tools and better focus (so to speak) one’s efforts.

Jeff

[spydrxx]

IMHO if you don't need to sell, don't. If you need to, though, sell the one you use least.

[dkmoore]

40 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

It’s why I bought the SL24-90 and not the SL16-35, even though the latter is more compact with internal focusing and a must have wide end range for many. I would hardly ever use wider than 24, and not much there either. I find very few wide angle landscape photos that that stick with me and don’t become just pretty ‘postcards’/cliches. There are exceptions of course. But, for my own use, I far prefer more intimate landscapes, fragments or abstractions. The 90-280 provides more such opportunities for my style. 

Some naturally use wide angles to great effect and create work that moves me (e.g., Koudelka’s Gypsies project), but even he moved on to 35/50 after that. It’s probably good practice to change things up and get out of one’s comfort zones. For M use, though, I stick with 28/35/50 both because the range suits my style, and because it optimizes RF use. I’ve owned 75 and 90mm M lenses, but never bonded with the 75 frame lines (big reason for my SL75 acquisition), and 90mm ideally requires a .85 VF, as I dislike VF magnifiers.  

It’s good to know one’s abilities and tastes....can save a lot of time and money on the wrong tools and better focus (so to speak) one’s efforts.

Jeff

I agree with many of your points. I’m glad I’ve tried 21 a few times and maybe someday My taste will change and I’ll go wider but for now I’ll stick to 28-90. 

[dkmoore]

20 minutes ago, spydrxx said:

IMHO if you don't need to sell, don't. If you need to, though, sell the one you use least.

I don’t need to sell but the lenses are almost exactly the same. If anything I’d get rid of one and buy a slower version of one or the other focal length to vary my kit. For instance, a 28 summaron or the 24 3.8. 
 

to explain a little more, I have always had 28 lenses but I’ve been thinking about the 24 Lux for at least 4-5 years now so I recently bought it. The hype was real because the rendering, even just taking snaps around the house during COVID is to my liking. But, it was very apparent how close 24 & 28 is both in focal length  both physically being larger Summilux lenses (to me anyway). 

Edited November 3, 2020 by dkmoore

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[BradS]

I'd get rid of the 35mm and the 28mm. That leaves you with a very nice 24mm, 50mm, 90mm set...leaving a factor of approximately two between each successive focal length. That said, I do have both a 24mm and 28mm but only ever carry one or the other. I do not own even a single 35mm focal length lens at all for any of my many small format camera systems (Leica, Nikon, Pentax, etc...). Its just not a focal length that works for me .