Compare 21 and 24 (Oh not again)

[Mauribix]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As I think sean reid found, the 18mm zeiss is a fair bit sharper as well and the 25mm zeiss is also most definitely sharper. My WATE was also most definitely sharper at 21mm than the elmarit. I think I am right in saying that Sean Reid's in-depth reviews also found this to be the case... ...couldn't care a less what is sharper, I am just telling you how it is.

 

I'm sorry to see you so angry, if your WATE at 21 is sharper than your Elmarit ASPH, you must absolutely have a bad copy of it! I'm sorry once again!

 

For what that concerns Sean's comparison between WATE at 21 and Elmarit 21, maybe you did not read it well, no way for the WATE to be sharper than the elmarit ASPH.

 

After that, i'm not so much interested in comparing different focal lenght and i can't see no point in doing it (IMHO).

 

Last, but not least, I'm happy to see that you know "how it is", but maybe personal opinions shouldn't be considered as universal statement, it's just a bit ambitious, don't you think?

[wparsonsgisnet]

...Anyway ... Sharpness is not everything anyway, is it?

 

Course not. Look at me.

[Advertisement]

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

[jackal]

...how it is in your opinion, with your camera, and your lenses. Other variables might come into play - besides your test being flawed by relative camera position, your particular copy(es) might not be in the best shape, etc. Sean rated the Leica 21 as the best 21 money can buy, by the way, seeing you quote his review.

 

Anyway, whatever works for you works for you - whatever works for others, works for others: no absolute truths here. Sharpness is not everything anyway, is it?

 

 

so sean said that its the best 21 you can buy

so what ? i never said that it wasn't necessarily the best 21 you can buy

 

i just said that its not as sharp as the 24 and not especially sharp compared to some of the other M lenses

 

forget about the test, i'm sure you'd find a hundred and one ways to trash it. Do your own tests if you like. The 24 is sharper than the 21.

[Woofer]

Thank you to all who responded to my original post.

 

From the spirited replies I think I have my answer. I will try both , then go through that awful period of indecision while I make the final choice.

 

Thank you to all

[Mauribix]

Should be cryin' the next step?

 

C'mon man, be quiet! I can't see no point in gettin' angry for this!

 

@Bill...

maybe i could look at you as you say... but i really don't believe so! I still dream of your picture of that girl with the violin! A masterpiece of sharpness and a stunning picture!

[jackal]

I'm sorry to see you so angry, if your WATE at 21 is sharper than your Elmarit ASPH, you must absolutely have a bad copy of it! I'm sorry once again!

 

For what that concerns Sean's comparison between WATE at 21 and Elmarit 21, maybe you did not read it well, no way for the WATE to be sharper than the elmarit ASPH.

 

After that, i'm not so much interested in comparing different focal lenght and i can't see no point in doing it (IMHO).

 

Last, but not least, I'm happy to see that you know "how it is", but maybe personal opinions shouldn't be considered as universal statement, it's just a bit ambitious, don't you think?

 

 

me, no i'm not angry at all... just fielding your defensive responses

 

yes, the WATE I had was higher resolution and sharper than the 21mm at F4 and stopped down further. Sean Reid found the same findings. You also get more diffraction with the 21 elmarit so it goes a bit muddy at smaller apertures.

 

So because you don't like what you hear you can just hang it under the large umbrella of "someone's personal opinions". Well, its not that simple I am afraid. Lots of people have tested these 2 lenses, more thoroughly than I have of course as well. The result is always the same, the 24 is sharper than the 21.

[Mauribix]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

the 24 is sharper than the 21

 

 

Ok, you won! I'm gonna write it on the walls: The 24 is sharper than the 21!

But please don't get me as a politically apathetic person since i don't have "the truth" by my side.

I still believe that you're angry, and maybe you're not realizing that you're putting somebody out.

 

Peace?

 

I don't like these clashes

[Vieri]

me, no i'm not angry at all... just fielding your defensive responses

 

The result is always the same, the 24 is sharper than the 21.

 

Very cool man, indeed - you can have it, if it makes you happier. No defensiveness here, is not a war, just different opinions; and again, whichever lens is sharper in the real world, your test is flawed - that was my point, not that one lens was or is sharper than the other (about which I couldn't care less, actually): you offered your results, me and others (Mauribix comes to mind) offered a very rational possible explanation of the why you would get such results, you charged full steam... good for you, the 21 is less sharp than the 24 even according to better tests than your flawed one, then happy?

 

Out. Last message on this topic, go ahead and get the last word if it makes you even happier.

[Hacker]

My 21mm is not mushy at all as far as sharpness is concerned, and it is very sharp in the center. It is not as sharp as say the 50 ASPH, but still very sharp. In contrast to the 21mm, I find the 24mm sharper.

 

I hope I don't get shot for voicing my opinion/experience.

[jackal]

Very cool man, indeed - you can have it, if it makes you happier. No defensiveness here, is not a war, just different opinions; and again, whichever lens is sharper in the real world, your test is flawed - that was my point, not that one lens was or is sharper than the other (about which I couldn't care less, actually): you offered your results, me and others (Mauribix comes to mind) offered a very rational possible explanation of the why you would get such results, you charged full steam... good for you, the 21 is less sharp than the 24 even according to better tests than your flawed one, then happy?

 

Out. Last message on this topic, go ahead and get the last word if it makes you even happier.

 

 

 

I think your intentions, no matter how they were packaged, were pretty clear

 

anyway back to the test ...... if the tree was the size of a postage stamp or the size of a football it would still look soft next to the 24mm

 

you're reasoning sounds cute and cuddly but its incorrect

 

do you want me to do the test again tomorrow, move the tripod forward to compensate for the ever so tiny size discrepancy, post the new result back up on here and prove you wrong ?

[jackal]

 

Peace?

 

I don't like these clashes

 

 

yep of course peace

 

we're only having a discussion

no big deal

[KJB]

oh and notice all the detail on the 21mm (or lack of) is bathed in soft white non-image forming light. Reminds me a lot of the nikon 24 1.4 wide open.

 

 

(obviously same default processing, no sharpening, same exposure, same white balance, same lighting exactly, same camera position, timed shutter, tripod used, focus bracketed and the most in focus exposure selected for each lens blah blah...)

 

 

 

I think your 21 is backfocusing. Look at the stain on the window to the upper right of the tree. It is in better focus than the 24. Same with the trunk and vines though not as clear there. By the looks of the window the 24 classifies as mush by your standards. More often than not these claims to being a singular Leica authority involves some level of operator error.

[jackal]

I think your 21 is backfocusing. Look at the stain on the window to the upper right of the tree. It is in better focus than the 24. Same with the trunk and vines though not as clear there. By the looks of the window the 24 classifies as mush by your standards. More often than not these claims to being a singular Leica authority involves some level of operator error.

 

if it is backfocusing then it doesn't matter because i took 9 pictures with the 21, some focusing way way in front of the tree, some focusing way behind it.

 

to be honest, at 21mm and that distance the difference between the images was very slight, its a wide lens and only 2.8

 

having said that ..the image i used was the very best you are going to get with that lens.. period

 

do you want me to do the test again taking 20 pictures all focusing across a 20 inch range fore and aft of the tree and then post them up here again, all 20 crops just so you can trust me that that is the very best it gets with the 21mm I have ?

[peterv]

please do! I'm curious. I'm 21 owner.

 

My friend has a very sharp 24.

 

I think KJB has a point. The wall behind the plant (?) certainly seems to more more in focus...

[jaapv]

In a way it is a rather pointless discussion; sharpness in optical theory is rather a non-parameter, what are we talking about? Resolution in lp/mm? Macro contrast? Micro contrast gradients? MTF (very limited) OTF?

All of these are more or less related too, to give an overall impression which we interpret subjectively. Food for contrary opinions indeed.

 

The theoreticians are right, it is utterly impossible to compare two focal lengths in this respect. And then there are the pracctical photographers, like Jackal, who simply compare results and come to a photographers concusion. And they are right too, and in the practical world maybe even more right, if such a thing exists.

Having said that, the 21 is a superb lens, probably the best 21 on the market, with all the faults one can expect in a 21 present, like softness towards the corners, geometrical distortion towards the corners, etc. I sold mine; why? I liked the rendering of "lesser" lens, the Zeiss Biogon, better..

The 24, well, Erwin Puts says, and he is right, once in a while there is a design where everything falls into place. The 24 is such a lens, one of the very best Leica ever designed, and as such sharper, if you will, than most other lenses in the world exhibiting the same WA faults to a much lesser extent (helped by the longer focal length undoubtedly) More important, though, is the way it renders fine three-dimensional structures. Incomparable. I sold mine too. Why? I have no affinity with the focal length.

[Mauribix]

In a way it is a rather pointless discussion; sharpness in optical theory is rather a non-parameter, what are we talking about? Resolution in lp/mm? Macro contrast? Micro contrast gradients? MTF (very limited) OTF?

The theoreticians are right, it is utterly impossible to compare two focal lengths in this respect...

 

This is what i tried to focus the discussion on at first:

We're wasting a lot of time if we try to compare different focal lenghts.

I previously read (i can't find it still) a question regarding the sharpness of both made by Jackal:"is sharper the 24 or the 21"?

The answer, IMHO, is that they are equally sharp, even if we know that in the 21 world the elmarit ASPH is somehow the sharpest in the center (compared only to 21s).

As we know too, the Biogon is superior in the corners then the leica(it tends to maintain the same sharpness all across the fram better than Leica's), but the leica is still slightly sharper in the center.

 

For what that concerns the 24, it's the sharpest in the bunch of 24-25 all across its angle of view, it is , as Jaap says, one of the best designs in the Leica world and not only, but I still consider it a somehow "odd" focal lenght, both with Film and M8, that's why i can't compare it to nothing but itself and that's why the "scientific" test may only be pointless.

 

Said so, i still believe that Jackal's 21 may be a bad copy (it may happen often), especially if I think of his conclusions when compared to the WATE (being it backfocussing or not).

 

I recommend a trip to Solms to verify it (especially if it is still covered by warranty), when the lens is perfectly calibrated (and I have mine so), it's really an excellent performer!

[jackal]

I have to say the never ending irony and self denial here is hugely amusing.. please keep it coming

[Mauribix]

I don't know where the irony is?

 

What are you referring to?

[jaapv]

I have to say the never ending irony and self denial here is hugely amusing.. please keep it coming

 

??? I said the 21 is very good and the 24 is incredibly good. I think you agree. And I also said it is impossible to compare them scientifically. I think Maurizio agrees. And we all choose the lens we like best. I think we all agree.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Mauribix]

O.T.

 

Dunno what's happening, it's not the first time that i reply to a post, and after that I can see the post that I'm replyin' to to be changed

 

I saw this for first

 

 

by jackal:

oh the irony

 

and then

 

I have to say the never ending irony and self denial here is hugely amusing.. please keep it coming

 

what's going on?