Jump to content

24 or 28mm on the M8


skimmel

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

OK, so now that I have truly fallen in love with the 35mm angle of view on the film M, I am wondering what is the best option for the M8. As background: 35mm is the widest I use and I'm happy with that on the film M.

 

The 28mm is a 37mm equivalent and the 24mm is a 32mm equivalent. At these focal lengths, those are reasonably big (although not huge) differences compared with the 35mm equivalent. I tried playing around with my DSLR with a 1.3-crop and 16-35 zoom set at 24 and 28mm, but can't really tell which I'd be happier with on the M8 from a few test shots in my living room. The 37mm (24mm) is obviously closer to 35mm but noticeabley tighter; the 32mm (28mm) is obviously wider but not like shooting with a 28mm on film.

 

I realize that no one has extensive experience yet with the M8, but I'm looking for suggestions from people with experience using the "wider" FOV (i.e, the 28-35mm zone).

 

If you wanted to replicate the Leica 35mm focal length experience on the M8, what would you pick and why?

Link to post
Share on other sites

f/2.8 is rather slow for a 35mm equivalent - takes one back to a 1958 Summaron.

 

Plus f/2 allows one to get back SOME limited DoF - even if it is not as much (or rather, as little) as a real 35mm f/2 would provide.

 

For the $300 difference, I would jump for the 28 f/2.0 - unless I already had the 24.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, lens aperature is a factor here. I really like to shoot in available light and also like the shallower DOF so that's definitely a plus for the 28 2.0.

 

A 24 2.0 would probably be ideal (and, as Sean says, large).

 

Of course, if I can shoot at ISO 1250 with minimal noise that could help a lot (since I almost never use anything faster than 400 film).

 

Sean, I have 2 follow-up questions:

 

1) how does the 24mm work on the Epson (36 mm equivalent)?

 

2) When you shot film did you prefer 35mm or 28mm?

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggested a 24/2.0 in a meeting with Leica earlier this year, as well as a 28/1.4. Neither one is an easy design (unless the lens is to be huge, which would not be a good idea).

 

Quite. The 28/F2 is a large enough lens as it is (especially with the hood in place). I rarely use the 28mm focal length nowadays but have kept my 28 'cron in anticipation of the M8. However, I must admit that were I to be actually buying a 28mm now I'd be tempted by the much smaller new F2.8 offering.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, the new Elmarit seems good value and it's an object lesson that going faster adds cost more quickly than going wider with the extra stop of the Summicron effectively doubling the cost of the lens. I think a 28mm Summilux, if it existed, would be very expensive, as well as large.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggested a 24/2.0 in a meeting with Leica earlier this year, as well as a 28/1.4. Neither one is an easy design (unless the lens is to be huge, which would not be a good idea).

 

Huge, I would presume meaning larger than Noct sizes. Of course if there were a Leica M lenses that took 77mm filters, then it would have to be a rather impressively fast lens. The 35mm/f1.2 is not a bad size for the VL lens.

 

I would suspect that a 28mm f1.4 lens wouldn't be that much bigger but I suspect heavier. After all, it becomes tougher to design a lens which has a huge front lens element while correcting for distortion (particularly in the W/A field) and chromatic aberration. A good example is the huge Contax 21mm f2.8 Distagon for SLRs. It has a 86mm filter size. I doubt that too many Leica M owners would want to be dragging that although for SLR owners, they wouldn't mind?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggested a 24/2.0 in a meeting with Leica earlier this year, as well as a 28/1.4. Neither one is an easy design (unless the lens is to be huge, which would not be a good idea).

 

I would suggest a new 50/2 ASPH (smaller, with even better performance) and a new 50/1 ASPH (but I am not sure of the economic viability).

 

Superfast wide lenses are very difficult to design and manufacture at high quality standards. Leica is working on a 25/1,4 D lens for Panasonic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but that 25/1.4 if for 4/3 which has half the image circle diameter of 35mm which is presumably what a 28mm f1.4 or 24mm f2 M lens would still need to support. That makes the lens easier to design. After all, the lens on the Digilux 2 is a 7mm f2 lens which is "easy" if you only have to support the tiny sensor size of the D2.

 

They looked at a 50mm f2 ASPH but decided the image quality was not sufficiently improved to justify the expense. As for the Noctilux, it occupies a unique position but I can't see how it can be updated, especially since it is less useful on an M8 than a film camera.

 

Albert, Nikon used to make a 28mm f1.4 lens until recently and it really is huge. Different from M lenses of course but fast lenses are tough to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Stephen,

 

I have a review of the Leica 24 and Zeiss 25 (both on the R-D1) on the site. When I worked with film, I preferred 35 mm to 28 mm.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Thanks Sean. Will make sure to read that review (it's one of the few I haven't gotten to yet).

 

In terms of preferring the 35 mm: do you see the 24mm on the M8 more similar in "feel" "view" (or whatever one may call it) to working with 35 mm with film than the 28 mm on the M8?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Sean. Will make sure to read that review (it's one of the few I haven't gotten to yet).

 

In terms of preferring the 35 mm: do you see the 24mm on the M8 more similar in "feel" "view" (or whatever one may call it) to working with 35 mm with film than the 28 mm on the M8?

 

That's a tough call but yes, the 24 does feel to me more like a 35 on film. But I also may influenced by the fact that I've come to really like the 32 EFOV (which I get on the R-D1 with a 21).

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also keep in mind when considering a wide-angled lens that a wide angle often means there are objects of varying distances,

and that a slighter smaller aperture is not such a bad thing.

 

On the other side, low light photography is of course the requirement for large apertures.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IN RE 24 vs. 28 - you might want to compare the actual viewfinders for these lenses over on page 4 of the dpreview.com preview of the M8.

 

Leica M8 Hands-on Preview: 4. Body & Design: Digital Photography Review

 

The 28 view is paired with a tiny, distant 90mm viewfinder. The 24 view is paired with very similar-sized 35mm framelines.

 

Everyone can make their own call - but I doubt I will ever use either a 24 or a 35 on the M8 with those confusing lines. 21 f/2.8, 28 f/2, 50 f/2 for me (plus a little something extra at each end).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Framelines and .68 viewfinder are going to be issues for me. 90mm looks to be useless, but even 50 and 35 look on the small side.

 

I hope I can use the 1.25 magnifier, and a diopter at the same time. Does anyone know if this is possible?

 

If there is enough demand for M8's I would guess Leica will come out with different viewfinder magnifications. I would like a higher mag. Seems stupid to buy a .68 if others will soon follow.

 

Best,

 

Mitchell

Link to post
Share on other sites

Framelines and .68 viewfinder are going to be issues for me. 90mm looks to be useless, but even 50 and 35 look on the small side.

 

I hope I can use the 1.25 magnifier, and a diopter at the same time. Does anyone know if this is possible?

 

If there is enough demand for M8's I would guess Leica will come out with different viewfinder magnifications. I would like a higher mag. Seems stupid to buy a .68 if others will soon follow.

 

Best,

 

Mitchell

I use the "original" 1.25 magnifier and diopters, no problems. However I'm not 100% certain about the correction lenses listed for the M8. As discussed in another thread they have a different catalog number and price from previous lists but are described as also being suitable for earlier M series. It's been suggested the packaging/presentation of the originals may have changed resulting in new numbers.

 

Bob.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...