sparkie Posted October 2, 2007 Share #1 Posted October 2, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi I have dug back as many threads as I can on this topic. It seems the 24/2.8 ASPH is fractionally to marginally better optically. Is this the case? I am still hesistating over the WATE as I'm used to fast lenses and I considere f2.8 border line as the slowest I would normally go for. Hence considering either the 21 or 24 As I see it, the major Pro going for the 24 is that there is a frameline already in the M8. Whereas the 21 you'll have to use the entire window or an external finder. The one question I have is which lens blocks the viewfinder more? As the speed is the same, the most important factor is image quality. How do these rate, especially vignetting, colour and image rendition of shadow details. From the pics I have seen the 24/2.8 ASPH renders very elegantly, with very subtle gradations captured. Not harsh or overly contrasty at all. Also has anybody compared the difference between the ASPH and non-ASPH versions of these lenses. How much better or different are they, and it is worth plugging for an ASPH lens or just get a pre and get it coded. Sorry if this has been covered already in a thread I have not found Also, what is the chance Leica will bring out a 24/2.0 or even a 21/2.0 ?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 2, 2007 Posted October 2, 2007 Hi sparkie, Take a look here 21/2.8 vs 24/2.8 or?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
marknorton Posted October 2, 2007 Share #2 Posted October 2, 2007 Both the 21 and the 24 use the same lens hood and that dominates. The two lenses themselves are, +/1 mm, exactly the same size. I like both lenses but admit to not using my 21 very often now that I have the WATE. I wonder how many 21s they are making. When the WATE came out, it was initially the same price as the 21 but the recent price increase has put some blue sky between the two. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Olof Posted October 2, 2007 Share #3 Posted October 2, 2007 The 24mm is one of the best lenses http://www.imx.nl/photo/lenstest/elmarit-m_12824mm_asph.html No chance for a 2.0 21 or 24mm, the front lenses would be too big. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharookh Posted October 2, 2007 Share #4 Posted October 2, 2007 I just went through this exercise. The deciding factor is that the M8 viewfinder accomdates the 24mm framelines without the need for an additional finder. For the 21mm you would require the accessory finder, which IMHO, makes the entire camera set-up cumbersome - but that's my opinion. Additionally, I believe you need to frame with one and focus with the camera viewfinder (I may be wrong, but that's what I was told). But then again, I am sure there are other 21mm users who would happily sing praises of this lens, for it's super performance. But for me it is the 24mm. You may - if you wish, wait for the Summarit as and when that is launched. Best Sharookh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted October 2, 2007 Share #5 Posted October 2, 2007 I realised a little while ago - being a bit slow - that the reason the Zeiss 15mm f2.8 is not rangefinder coupled is not that Zeiss are cheap but the fact that the lens is so big that it blocks the view out of the rangefinder window so that even if it was coupled, you couldn't see the rangefinder patch to focus anyway. I suppose there would be the same concern about a 21/2, 24/2 or 28/1.4, much as some of us would like a faster wide-angle. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted October 2, 2007 Share #6 Posted October 2, 2007 Sparkie - If you are not a subscriber to Sean Reid's subscription site I recommend that you subscribe; his 24 mm and 21 mm reviews may well be essential reading for you. With regard to viewfinder blocking, I find that the lens hood on the '24' blocks a substantial amount, so much so that I leave it off if I am hand holding the camera, and tend to mount it when using the camera a tripod. The '24' framelines can be difficult to line up, and it's twin [the '35'] framelines are a constant distraction to me when I'm trying to work out my image - I would love to be able to switch it out. I have not used a 21 mm lens, some people here manage to work with one without using an external finder, with my experience of the 24 mm, I think I would prefer to use an external finder though I think all the options available have poor design issues. .................. Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertwright Posted October 2, 2007 Share #7 Posted October 2, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) on my m6 the 28mm was my most used lens, so naturally I ran out and bought a 21mm when I got my M8, plus the excellent zeiss finder (25/28). Later I got the zeiss 25mm and I have found that the 21mm sits in the bag mostly. The inconvenience of the accessory finder is the key part-also I find the 21 does not "replicate" the look of the 28mm exactly, it feels very different. But the 25mm is taking over that duty. For me the kit is now 15, 25, 35, 50 and I find it is between 25 and 35 for most of my work. I am considering selling the 21 and 28 elmarits and getting the 28 cron for when I need the speed. also, I find the 21elmarit pre-asph to be a pretty good performer, and probably a bargain compared to the asph. other factor is that the zeiss 25 blocks less of the finder than the leica 24, and the framelines are more accurate in practice. I don't use a hood on these lenses generally. difficult decision. good luck. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparkie Posted October 2, 2007 Author Share #8 Posted October 2, 2007 Robert, how are you dealing with the coding issue on the Zeiss 25? I checked out the pirce and its LESS THAN HALF the price of a Leica 24 ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 2, 2007 Share #9 Posted October 2, 2007 I have replaced my 24 mm hood with a round metal one , you can see more and less of a monster out front. I also did the same with a 21mm when I had one and my 28 cron also sports a metal hood. The 35mm cron i left alone with it's hood though since it is small. Worth trying there on e-bay and sellers name is heavystar. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertwright Posted October 2, 2007 Share #10 Posted October 2, 2007 Robert, how are you dealing with the coding issue on the Zeiss 25? I checked out the pirce and its LESS THAN HALF the price of a Leica 24 ! I ordered the 35mm mount from zeiss and swapped them, I did not have a problem with any of the screws as others have reported, they all came out with a minimum of pressure. I still have to send the mount to john milich here in brooklyn but I have not had the time. In practice I rarely see the cyan corners but they are there, depends on subject matter, also I shoot a lot in bw so it is not an issue. one thing I don't like about the zeiss lenses is the focus tab is very small. otoh the barrel is large enough on the 25 and knurled so you can get a grip on it, but it is not as smooth and fast as the leica lenses. I find my copy a little stiff. but otherwise it is a sweet lens, very good performance. I have not found it wanting at all. better than my 21 elmarit in the corners at 2.8 by a wide margin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack_Flesher Posted October 2, 2007 Share #11 Posted October 2, 2007 The 24 Asph is one of those "nearly perfect" lenses --- it is simply excellent from wide open up and has no optical weirdness. But it also doesn't have any special character either, it's just a great lens. By contrast, the 21 lags a bit resolution-wise, especially wide open, but does have a bit of the old-school Leica look at f2.8 and 4. It is about as good at f4.5 as the 24 is at f2.8. By f5.6 they are both excellent and you'll have a hard time telling them apart optically or resolution wise. The 24 intrudes less into its frame in the finder. Re hoods, I have gone back and forth on different options, from metal to a few empty filter rings stacked and finally back to the factory hood. Once you get used to it, the little cutout works pretty well, and better IMO than the other alternatives. Lastly, composing through the VF itself. While I use both, there is no question in my mind that the 24 is easier to use. The 21 is very close to the entire frame, depending on how fat your eye-socket/head-build is and how close you can get your eye to the finder. However, even though I can see all of it, the framing with the 21 is more of a Zen thing than it is with the 24. (When I need accurate framing with the 21, I slap on a CV metal 28mm finder --- an excellent finder for the money and suggested accessory if you opt for the 21.) The other issue with the 21 is you cannot see OUTSIDE the frame at all, which IMO is one of the main benefits of using the M to begin with --- I definitely prefer being able to see what is going outside the frame I might otherwise be missing. If I could only have one and wanted the best optic, I would get the 24. Cheers,. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wparsonsgisnet Posted October 2, 2007 Share #12 Posted October 2, 2007 The 24 Asph is one of those "nearly perfect" lenses --- it is simply excellent from wide open up and has no optical weirdness. But it also doesn't have any special character either, it's just a great lens...If I could only have one and wanted the best optic, I would get the 24. Cheers,. I agree with Jack that it's a superb lens. I would not say that it lacks character, but rather that it does not impose the character of the lens on the image. In audiophile terms, it disappears from the image. It is the most used lens I have and has produced images that I find remarkable. I use it for portraits, merely cropping away most of the file. It's that good. I would say that it has the gentleness of earlier Leica lens designs (that is, it is not harsh) as well as the acuity of the asph family. It's the new hybrid! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 2, 2007 Share #13 Posted October 2, 2007 I did . LOL Actuallyi had the 24mm and sold it to Jamie but i missed it a lot because i remember when i first bought the M8 i took it to Flagstaff and shot some old buildings with yes Brick and the 24mm was amazingly sharp . I honestly thought it was looking like 4x5 film, it was that good. I just replaced it and look forward to getting outthere again with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparkie Posted October 2, 2007 Author Share #14 Posted October 2, 2007 Thanks for the responses guys My dilema is now WATE or 24/2.8. The wate is more versatile but big and bulky with finder. the 24/2.8 is faster but only marinally wider than my 28. leaving a gap till my CV15 UGH, this is becoming a bain in the *ss I''m still stuck on the traditional leica concept of fast compact lenses, work quick and fast, handheld. but the WATE is almost the complete opposite of this. It turns your M8 into a medium format digital camera.. Bulky VF, only f4.0, a big lens, complicated workflow with menu switching to match FL selected. I need a glass of alcohol to help me decide er, its still too early in the day Anyone suggest what I should do? The zeiss lenses are tempting price wise too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted October 2, 2007 Share #15 Posted October 2, 2007 Buy the 24, sell the 28, buy a 35. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 2, 2007 Share #16 Posted October 2, 2007 ...No chance for a 2.0 21 or 24mm, the front lenses would be too big. Why? The Zuiko 21/2 was not that big if i remember well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 2, 2007 Share #17 Posted October 2, 2007 Thanks for the responses guys My dilema is now WATE or 24/2.8. The wate is more versatile but big and bulky with finder. the 24/2.8 is faster but only marinally wider than my 28. leaving a gap till my CV15 UGH, this is becoming a bain in the *ss I''m still stuck on the traditional leica concept of fast compact lenses, work quick and fast, handheld. but the WATE is almost the complete opposite of this. It turns your M8 into a medium format digital camera.. Bulky VF, only f4.0, a big lens, complicated workflow with menu switching to match FL selected. I need a glass of alcohol to help me decide er, its still too early in the day Anyone suggest what I should do? The zeiss lenses are tempting price wise too Sparkie the worst guy to ask but i have the WATE, 24, 28 and 35 . you don't have to use the finder for one , I use a Zeiss 25/28 which covers the 18, 21mm settings and 16mm is more a P&S somketimes plus you have the 18mm viewing. Also the WATE is not as big as everyone says either . It's a bit longer than a 50mm lux and not very wide . the adapter from John really adds almost nothing to the length. Now i have the 24 for speed and is my widest fast lens. 2 different lenses that will do completely different tasks but like i said i am dangerous so my opinion is all of them at least close to all of them. You may want to think Zeiss 18mm the new one coming it is F4 though and with a 24mm a perfect spread. i actually thought about doing this . 12CV, 18 mm zeiss, 24, 28 instead of 12CV, WATE , 24, 28. i could pocket that WATE money but i will never get that lens back again either at a price. So I am sitting but this maybe a good option. Now none of use know how the 18mm Zeiss is but i am sure it is good One thing nice about the Zeiss 18mm if you code it for the WATE the M8 default is 18mm so you don't have to play in the menu option just shoot. The one issue i see though is a 58mm thread and since this is a extreme wide like the WATE i would suspect your gonna need the leica filter here and than you will need a step up ring to 60mm than you would have to make a lens hood since it is bigger so maybe 2 or 3 empty 60mm filter mounts may do the trick, screwed together to make a hood. Make shift but workable, you can tell i have been thinking about this Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wparsonsgisnet Posted October 2, 2007 Share #18 Posted October 2, 2007 Thanks for the responses guys My dilema is now WATE or 24/2.8. The wate is more versatile but big and bulky with finder. the 24/2.8 is faster but only marinally wider than my 28. leaving a gap till my CV15 UGH, this is becoming a bain in the *ss ... I''m still stuck on the traditional leica concept of fast compact lenses, work quick and fast, handheld. but the WATE is almost the complete opposite of this... Exactly! There's a guy with a name exactly like mine who's been asking Leica where the Fast Wide Prime is! My checkbook is ready. 15mm f1.4 asph, please! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack_Flesher Posted October 2, 2007 Share #19 Posted October 2, 2007 Anyone suggest what I should do? If you buy the 24, assuming you can even find one since they are unobtanium right now, you can try it and sell it probably in a nano-second if you don't like it. And it's very unlikely you won't like it However, since you already have the 28, the 21 is a better focal spacing... Tough call. And BTW, whatever you do, DON'T SELL THE 28! I'd pass on the 24 and go to the 21 before I sold my 28... If you want to be restricted to f4, then you nailed it --- buy a Mamiya M7 and a few lenses or even a Bronica 645 and all the lenses, both of which will cost you less than what you sell the WATE for Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 2, 2007 Share #20 Posted October 2, 2007 I agree i would sell my gold teeth before i sold the 28 cron. Just to nice a lens Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.