AtelierM Posted May 4, 2009 Share #21 Posted May 4, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Ruben--hopefully these photos will show more of the 24's characteristics--moderate backlighting in GCT and outer area detail. All taken at 1.4 with no adjustments except size for posting. The sun was stronger behind the flag, shooting generally to the east after 9 am vs the other photo was after 11pm. I studied the MTF graphs too, and although I felt the 21 did better in the center, I thought that the 24 was more consistent in the outer areas, which is what I tend to use and feel important. Puts also mentioned veiled glare, which seemed better with the 24--unfortunately, the comparative photos he included were not the same so it was difficult to understand his analysis. Mikeual 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! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/83835-summilux-21-or-24/?do=findComment&comment=889577'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 4, 2009 Posted May 4, 2009 Hi AtelierM, Take a look here Summilux 21 or 24?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sean_reid Posted May 4, 2009 Share #22 Posted May 4, 2009 (edited) Yes, I am here... reading... I am interested... "The optical performance of the two lenses seems to be... different. And I would like to know how much, and the exact quality of the differences." I think that when you do see those difference, you'll find they're not enormous. How you see, frame and focus when you are working will probably affect the pictures much more. "The handling is also a key factor for me. A large and front-weighted lens (just like the Summilux 75mm) isn't confortable to use. In addition, that large front element makes the lens more fragile... more exposed..." The handling of the two is quite similar. They are large lenses with some heft and lots of front element/filter area facing the world. Neither has a focus knob and both have slightly heavy focusing action. "The third factor is related to discretion. The front lens element is quite large, and it makes the thing more evident for the people to which I point the camera + lens combo..." Having used both for some time now, I see no practical difference in how discrete each is. Again, they are both big, serious looking lenses (as RF lenses go)." "The fourth factor to consider is viewfinders. The 21mm needs an external viewfinder for precise framing, but on the other hand you don't need to be very precise in focussing..." Why not? --------------------------- They are both great lenses. They're both wide and fast. If what one cares about most is the pictures he or she will make with them (as opposed to history, collecting, etc. - valid priorities but different) then I think the choice really comes down to how one wants the relationship of subject - seeing - picture to be. How wide, what kind of finder, how strong the need for working wide open often (hence the need to keep a close eye on focus changes)?... that kind of stuff. The technical differences between these two lenses (aside from FOV) may end up having the least impact on the success of the pictures. Cheers, Sean Edited May 4, 2009 by sean_reid Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted May 4, 2009 Share #23 Posted May 4, 2009 Ruben--hopefully these photos will show more of the 24's characteristics--moderate backlighting in GCT and outer area detail. All taken at 1.4 with no adjustments except size for posting. The sun was stronger behind the flag, shooting generally to the east after 9 am vs the other photo was after 11pm. I studied the MTF graphs too, and although I felt the 21 did better in the center, I thought that the 24 was more consistent in the outer areas, which is what I tend to use and feel important. Puts also mentioned veiled glare, which seemed better with the 24--unfortunately, the comparative photos he included were not the same so it was difficult to understand his analysis.Mikeual Than you very much for your interesting comments! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted May 4, 2009 Share #24 Posted May 4, 2009 "The optical performance of the two lenses seems to be... different. And I would like to know how much, and the exact quality of the differences." I think that when you do see those difference, you'll find they're not enormous. How you see, frame and focus when you are working will probably affect the pictures much more. "The handling is also a key factor for me. A large and front-weighted lens (just like the Summilux 75mm) isn't confortable to use. In addition, that large front element makes the lens more fragile... more exposed..." The handling of the two is quite similar. They are large lenses with some heft and lots of front element/filter area facing the world. Neither has a focus knob and both have slightly heavy focusing action. "The third factor is related to discretion. The front lens element is quite large, and it makes the thing more evident for the people to which I point the camera + lens combo..." Having used both for some time now, I see no practical difference in how discrete each is. Again, they are both big, serious looking lenses (as RF lenses go)." "The fourth factor to consider is viewfinders. The 21mm needs an external viewfinder for precise framing, but on the other hand you don't need to be very precise in focussing..." Why not? Cheers, Sean Thank you very much Sean! Your answers have clarified my doubts. "The 21mm needs an external viewfinder for precise framing, but on the other hand you don't need to be very precise in focussing...". Well, mostly due to larger DoF. I think you can guess focus by looking at the DoF markings and the error will be masked by the huge DoF... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 4, 2009 Share #25 Posted May 4, 2009 I have some thoughts on the above if you're interested but before I write them all down I'll ask if you are. This lens is very much on my mind because I'm writing about it now in another window. Cheers, Sean I am also very interested as I have one on order. BrianP Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted May 4, 2009 Share #26 Posted May 4, 2009 Thank you very much Sean! Your answers have clarified my doubts. "The 21mm needs an external viewfinder for precise framing, but on the other hand you don't need to be very precise in focussing...". Well, mostly due to larger DoF. I think you can guess focus by looking at the DoF markings and the error will be masked by the huge DoF... Hi Ruben, Well, if you're going to work at F/1.4 you may not be zone focusing. And if you're going to be stopped down and zone focused then both of these lenses can do that. They both need the RF for precise focus and they can both be zone focused if needed. My approach, Ruben, for what its worth, is that I tend to use the small, slower lenses out in daylight and the faster lenses when I need all that aperture. So I often own two lenses of a given focal length. What 21s and/or 24s do you have now? Cheers, Sean Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted May 4, 2009 Share #27 Posted May 4, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I am also very interested as I have one on order.BrianP I'm still looking at a lot of specific results but so I'd say that it wouldn't be too far off to think of the 21 as a wider version of the 24/1.4 - not just by the numbers but also, perhaps, with respect to various characteristics. I'm still learning about it as I work though the tests. Cheers, Sean Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted May 4, 2009 Share #28 Posted May 4, 2009 No, my current set is 35mm Summilux and 75mm Summilux... I need a versatile wide angle for fast street shooting, you know, Winogrand-style of shooting... The 24mm and 21mm aren't compact in a RF sense of the word (hood considered), and they aren't cheap either... So I am thinking on a 21/35/75 set versus 24/35/75. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted May 4, 2009 Share #29 Posted May 4, 2009 How dark the subject lighting? Do you need an F/1.4 lens? Winogrand did much of it with a Canon 28/2.8 stopped down to about F/8 or so. You'll probably recall that he was a good friend of my friend Ben Lifson and so Ben and I have talked many time about how Winogrand worked. By all means though, if you're after what Winogrand did, you've got to be able to see what you're doing - through the depth of the picture and from edge to edge. He tried to go to 24 but he told Ben he couldn't keep things under control that wide. And, boy oh boy, did that man have visual control over what he was making. Whichever fast wide you get, think about a tiny slow wide to go with it. When the light went down, Winogrand often stayed stopped down and went to flash. Cheers, Sean Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicoleica Posted May 4, 2009 Share #30 Posted May 4, 2009 Personally, I find that my 24 f:3.8 is an excellent lens on the M8. It's compact, you don't need an external viewfinder and the image quality is great. Plus it's a lot less expensive as a bonus. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 4, 2009 Share #31 Posted May 4, 2009 How dark the subject lighting? Do you need an F/1.4 lens? Winogrand did much of it with a Canon 28/2.8 stopped down to about F/8 or so. You'll probably recall that he was a good friend of my friend Ben Lifson and so Ben and I have talked many time about how Winogrand worked. By all means though, if you're after what Winogrand did, you've got to be able to see what you're doing - through the depth of the picture and from edge to edge. He tried to go to 24 but he told Ben he couldn't keep things under control that wide. And, boy oh boy, did that man have visual control over what he was making. Whichever fast wide you get, think about a tiny slow wide to go with it. When the light went down, Winogrand often stayed stopped down and went to flash. Cheers, Sean Thanks for your previous comments Sean. The reason I have gone for the 21 is that it is a 28 on the M8 . I no longer own a film camera so unless a full frame Digital M appears its always a 28. I have just had the smallest tinge of regret at trading my M6. BrianP Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted May 4, 2009 Share #32 Posted May 4, 2009 The question is Winogrand died in 1984. What lens he would use now? A fast Summilux lens allows you to do Winogrand-style work, and many other things. I need some versatility... for the price. Even if isn't too dark, I can use full aperture for interesting pictures in good light. Winogrand is my favorite photographer, and that's because I brought his name. I have a flash, and it can be used creatively, but I prefer to have the possibility of not using it. I like Bruce Gilden work, but I cannot do that... 21mm was too wide for him, but the 21mm is a 28mm FoV on the M8. Besides, I am not sure about how precise was Winogrand taking the picture... I am sure he should have felt 21mm was too wide looking at the photograph... after it was taken... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgray Posted May 4, 2009 Share #33 Posted May 4, 2009 I agree with Sean about getting a small companion lens for whichever one you decide on. I don't shoot much street, and I shoot film, but regardless, I own two 28's. The Summicron is the one I'll take when light is poor or I don't know what I'm going to run into. But when I know I'll be out during the day and that's it, the CV 28/3.5 is great. It's a lot smaller and the whole camera is considerably more compact - it will slip right into my jacket pocket even with the (miniscule) hood. Even with a slow film like Plus-X, during bright sun, I'm at f/11 at 1/250s. The Summicron and the CV look a lot more similar at f/11 than they do different... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted May 4, 2009 Share #34 Posted May 4, 2009 (edited) The question is Winogrand died in 1984. What lens he would use now? A fast Summilux lens allows you to do Winogrand-style work, and many other things. I need some versatility... for the price. Even if isn't too dark, I can use full aperture for interesting pictures in good light. Winogrand is my favorite photographer, and that's because I brought his name. I have a flash, and it can be used creatively, but I prefer to have the possibility of not using it. I like Bruce Gilden work, but I cannot do that... 21mm was too wide for him, but the 21mm is a 28mm FoV on the M8. Besides, I am not sure about how precise was Winogrand taking the picture... I am sure he should have felt 21mm was too wide looking at the photograph... after it was taken... He was extremely precise by the middle of his career. Ben sometimes used to edit his work with him. At his best, Winogrand was often as precise as Breughel. You're right that a 1.4 wide allows one to do a lot of things - I definitely agree. A true 24 mm was too wide for him but, yes, of course that was on film. He did a lot of work with a 28 which is, as you say, a 21 on the M8. I'd still consider a small slower wide to go with your larger fast wide. But you may not want it. I don't suggest that as any kind of absolute - just an idea to ponder. Cheers, S Edited May 4, 2009 by sean_reid Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted May 4, 2009 Share #35 Posted May 4, 2009 Personally, I find that my 24 f:3.8 is an excellent lens on the M8. It's compact, you don't need an external viewfinder and the image quality is great. Plus it's a lot less expensive as a bonus. What a wonderful little lens that is. Cheers, Sean Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted May 4, 2009 Share #36 Posted May 4, 2009 Thanks for your previous comments Sean. The reason I have gone for the 21 is that it is a 28 on the M8 . I no longer own a film camera so unless a full frame Digital M appears its always a 28. I have just had the smallest tinge of regret at trading my M6.BrianP My pleasure. If you want a 28 EFOV then that's that. It's a great lens - enjoy it. Cheers, Sean Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted May 4, 2009 Share #37 Posted May 4, 2009 I agree with Sean about getting a small companion lens for whichever one you decide on. I don't shoot much street, and I shoot film, but regardless, I own two 28's. The Summicron is the one I'll take when light is poor or I don't know what I'm going to run into. But when I know I'll be out during the day and that's it, the CV 28/3.5 is great. It's a lot smaller and the whole camera is considerably more compact - it will slip right into my jacket pocket even with the (miniscule) hood. Even with a slow film like Plus-X, during bright sun, I'm at f/11 at 1/250s. The Summicron and the CV look a lot more similar at f/11 than they do different... I too use various Skopars for outdoor work. Cheers, Sean Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted May 4, 2009 Share #38 Posted May 4, 2009 I'd still consider a small slower wide to go with your larger fast wide. But you may not want it. I don't suggest that as any kind of absolute - just an idea to ponder. Cheers, S I want but... the cost of the gear would multiply. Besides, I like to bring only the camera and just one lens with me. I don't want to drag a big bag all day... I have seen Winogrand at work in films. He frames very fast. I think he separated the action of taking pictures and the process of developing and selecting pictures. I love his work, very, very much. Thank you very much for your suggestions and comments Sean. R. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicoleica Posted May 4, 2009 Share #39 Posted May 4, 2009 What a wonderful little lens that is. Cheers, Sean Thanks Sean. It tends to live on my M8, and I carry a 35 for those occasions where I'd use a 50 with FF. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted May 4, 2009 Share #40 Posted May 4, 2009 I want but... the cost of the gear would multiply. Besides, I like to bring only the camera and just one lens with me. I don't want to drag a big bag all day... I have seen Winogrand at work in films. He frames very fast. I think he separated the action of taking pictures and the process of developing and selecting pictures. I love his work, very, very much. Thank you very much for your suggestions and comments Sean. R. My pleasure. What he did was to largely build the picture with just his eyes and then raise the camera to his eye quickly for the final framing. It wasn't a matter of shooting loose and then sorting things out later. Have you seen the contact sheets? With luck, you could arrange to see then in Arizona. I also love Winogrand's work and have studied it closely for a long time (for that reason). Did you read Ben's essay on it in "The Man in the Crowd"? Ben edited "Stock Photographs" with Winogrand. Winogrand was in a bookstore once with the the photographer Leo Rubinfein. Coming across a nude by Titian in a book, he yelled "Look Leo, another great photographer." Winogrand started as a painter and he learned a lot from it. Did you read the "Street Photography" article? Cheers, Sean Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.