Which 24mm?

[Olaf_ZG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Another thread about which lens to buy…

For my seascapes (long exposure up to 16min) I used to use my gfx plus 32-64, either on the short end or long end.

Now with the SL I am in need for a 24mm (the t/s is for cityscape) with great performance on f8 or f11. As I do LE, I need to attach filters: I have them for 58mm and 62mm, meaning that for the sigma 3.5 I would need a stepup ring.

I am not sure which Sigma to choose: the 2.0 or the 3.5. No need for a 1.4 and if one suggests a zoom, max filtersize should be 77mm. Would love an SL24 but I would like to have it before summer.

Appreciate your input.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jaapv]

Or adapt any M mount 24(25) or SLR lens.  AF is the least of your requirements at this focal length. 

[Olaf_ZG]

16 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Or adapt any M mount 24(25) or SLR lens.  AF is the least of your requirements at this focal length. 

With 16 to 19 stops of ND filters, manual focus is almost a must.

I was of the opinion that for wider lenses, the l-mount would perform better than a m-mount, thought I read it somewhere here on the forum.

If not, the cz25 could be a great option as well (budget is limited to cca 1.000€).

[STurner]

I have the sigma f2 and it performs very well for the price.  I would recommend it

[BernardC]

2 hours ago, Olaf_ZG said:

I am not sure which Sigma to choose: the 2.0 or the 3.5.

I would go for the lighter one. It will be easier to keep it steady for long exposures.

[Olaf_ZG]

11 minutes ago, BernardC said:

I would go for the lighter one. It will be easier to keep it steady for long exposures.

Would that matter on a tripod with fe 8 minutes? Sincerely asking…

[BernardC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 minutes ago, Olaf_ZG said:

Would that matter on a tripod with fe 8 minutes? Sincerely asking…

It would matter, but how much depends on the resonant frequency of your tripod. Generally speaking, a lighter camera/lens should be steadier, but I'm not sure that a 150g difference would be material with your specific tripod/head combination.

[Olaf_ZG]

20 minutes ago, BernardC said:

It would matter, but how much depends on the resonant frequency of your tripod. Generally speaking, a lighter camera/lens should be steadier, but I'm not sure that a 150g difference would be material with your specific tripod/head combination.

My Gitzo is about 3kg I guess (without head). 
 

I noticed that I was disappointed with my gfx and 110mm on a 055 manfrotto as images where not sharp (with strong winds to be fair). That’s why I bought the gitzo. However, with 24mm I would not expect such problem…

[Einst_Stein]

Do have the kit lens? 24-90mm or 24-70mm?

[jaapv]

A tripod has problems dampening shutter slap (like IBIS or OIS). Use an electronic shutter. 

[Olaf_ZG]

44 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

Do have the kit lens? 24-90mm or 24-70mm?

No, and honestly, I prefer primes for smaller FL’s.

[Einst_Stein]

6 minutes ago, Olaf_ZG said:

No, and honestly, I prefer primes for smaller FL’s.

If you haven’t used 24-90mm,  give it a try if you get a chance. You might find it very different from GFX 32-64.

Edited March 12, 2023 by Einst_Stein

[Stuart Richardson]

I would say get the 24mm f3.5. It is super light, very inexpensive, and it has quite good performance. If an SL summicron version does eventually come out, you will have lost very little in getting it. I would recommend it over the zooms because it is truly so tiny and light that it is trivial to just throw it in a bag or pocket if you are primarily doing something else. Unless you are doing astro or night photography, 3.5 is fine for 24mm, which is not really a focal length where you would rely on wide apertures to isolate details.

[Olaf_ZG]

39 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

If you haven’t used 24-90mm,  give it a try if you get a chance. You might find it very different from GFX 32-64.

I do believe it is different and it might be even much better. But I don’t see me walking around with such lens: too big, too heavy. As I have a sl35 already, this would be my main carry around lens for the SL, however, sometimes, especially with seascapes I would like to go wider, hence the search for a 24mm.

Above 35 I have covered with m-mount (50/75mm), so to invest in a zoom which I wouldn’t really use is not the best option for me.

[Malabito]

I have the Panasonic 24mm f1.8 and i am really happy with it, (I use it with the sl2s). Some say its not the sharpest, but for what  I shoot its been great. It does feel plastic, but that helps to keep the weight down. If you dont need the fast aperture perhaps take a look at the sigma f3.5, its small, really small, and sharp.

Here are some samples with the pana 24mm and the sl2s, (i dont shoot landscapes, but hopefully this gives you an idea of the lens):

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!

 

Edited March 12, 2023 by Malabito

[Einst_Stein]

7 hours ago, Olaf_ZG said:

I do believe it is different and it might be even much better. But I don’t see me walking around with such lens: too big, too heavy. As I have a sl35 already, this would be my main carry around lens for the SL, however, sometimes, especially with seascapes I would like to go wider, hence the search for a 24mm.

Above 35 I have covered with m-mount (50/75mm), so to invest in a zoom which I wouldn’t really use is not the best option for me.

I know what you mean. I too was struggling with the size and weight of 24-90mm, not to mention 90-280mm. 
Now I bend. If I cannot make up my mind on a particular FL for a session, it is 24-90mm. But I retry to stick with 35mm or 50mm through  a session in most situations. 

[davidmknoble]

I don’t know the weight difference between the sigma 2 and 3.5, but if you want flexibility the 2 gives you some other choices for walk around, but the prime f/stops are typically 2-3 stops from max, so if you like higher f/stops for max depth of field, the 3.5 as Stuart suggested, will give you the prime f/stop (typically) that is higher before diffraction sets in…

[Olaf_ZG]

Thanks all, I just ordered a used 24/2. Price was too good not to take it and it will serve me until Leica a decides to finally make a SL21/24.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Simone_DF]

Another advantage of the 3.5 lens is that the magnification is 0.50x, and you can focus really really close. 

[Chris Nebard]

5 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

Another advantage of the 3.5 lens is that the magnification is 0.50x, and you can focus really really close. 

Yes, close focus to 4.3”. Phenomenal. The 24mm f3.5 is such a versatile and creative lens - and the image quality you get is very good. The f2, of course, gives you the extra stops of light and so you pays your money and takes your choice……

It’s all good!