guidomo Posted May 7, 2009 Share #41 Posted May 7, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Summiluxes 24 and 75. That will be a great combo, can't wait to get my 24. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 7, 2009 Posted May 7, 2009 Hi guidomo, Take a look here Happy Happy. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
NZDavid Posted May 8, 2009 Share #42 Posted May 8, 2009 I got my 2.8/24 from Ffordes and agree, great service. The resolution is brilliant. I wonder how much less DOF (or extra bokeh) you get with a 24 v a 21 'Lux? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted May 10, 2009 Share #43 Posted May 10, 2009 Hi Jaap, I like those few images you posted here and they have a very nice look, defined and detailed but still smooth. So far I have used my 28/2.0 much more than my 24/2.8 (one of the reasons being I find the 28/2.0 to render somewhat smoother transitionss etc., another reason to have 2.0, plus I prefer the handling) I am very tempted by the 24/1.4, 1 stop faster as the 28/2.0 (specially good for a cam like the M8 whith somewhat limited higher ISO, and then for some occasions the nice combination of somewhat wider view with limited DOF. BUT: If you take the crop of the M8 this lens "translates" into a 33mm/1.4 lens - or - if we take the influence of the crop on the FOV it translates into the DOF/FOV of a 33mm/2.0 lens on full frame,admitted with very good optics, for 5000€. I am not sure yet if I can justify this expense and would be interested how you feel about this thought. Yes, it is a full frame lens and one day we might have a full frame M9 but of today we dont (and if we will have a full frame M9 there will be probably no 24mm frame in the internal viewfinder). Regards, Tom Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
noah_addis Posted May 10, 2009 Share #44 Posted May 10, 2009 The posters on this forum, in combination with Sean Reid's (excellent) review site, are no doubt conspiring to get me to change my mind about the 24 Summilux! I thought it was too big, too expensive and a bit of overkill. But I've come to realize that 24mm is my favorite focal length on the M8. Obviously the 21mm is closer to my film/full frame favorite which has always been 28mm, but I prefer working without a finder. So since I've settled on the 24mm as my favorite for the M8, I can't help but wonder how nice it would be to have the option of F/1.4. At the same time, it's a large and expensive lens, and I'd have to sell my 24 Elmarit to help pay for it. Of the 24/1.4 users out there, have you felt a need for a second, smaller 24 for shooting in good light? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
darvin2138 Posted May 11, 2009 Share #45 Posted May 11, 2009 Congrats!!! Just a newbie question planning to get another Leica wide lens.. Why Lux 24 and not Lux 21 or SElmar 18?..What would be the prime usage of your 24? Just want to get ideas on what is the next candidate for myself.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 11, 2009 Author Share #46 Posted May 11, 2009 (edited) It is just the way one shoots. For one thing, the wider a lens gets, the more specialized it gets. Also, the wider a lens gets, the deeper the DOF is. For instance, the Elmar 18 with its relatively slow (not for the length, but in general!) aperture and short focal length, is a bit of a sharp-from-front-to-infinity type of lens. Ideal for some users, but not for me. The 21 and 24 are fast, but the 21 is more bulky and heavier, and still a pronounced wideangle, even on the M8. So I knew it would get far less use than the 24 which goes to a slightly thinner DOF and more universal angle of view. And a lot lighter and smaller, so it will be used far more often. At the moment I am thinking of having the lens release button removed from my M8 . The nice thing about the 24 is that it will work as a slightly wide standard lens when used at a distance, but still will show a real wideangle character as you get close to your subject. That holds for both the M8 and 24x36, albeit in different extent. Edited May 11, 2009 by jaapv Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted May 11, 2009 Share #47 Posted May 11, 2009 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) The 24 is certainly a lot more manageable than the 21 and it's a sobering thought that the Noctilux is even bigger. The lenses are not that huge in absolute terms - compared to a DSLR lens, for example - but they are bigger than the Leica benchmark. The 24 wins in the practicality stakes and the comment that it's only a little bit wider than the conventional 35mm lens on 35mm FF is interesting. I'm wondering whether the lenses will actually be too wide on a FF camera and instead we'll be crying out for a better behaved 35mm Summilux. Huge achievement for Leica, the pair, however. The other thing that strikes me is how and why both these lenses are priced the same. There's more "stuff" in the 21, including an extra ASPH surface, so it's surprising that it's not more expensive. It's not clear how the lenses are priced - what the market will bear or related to the material and labour content? If Leica can countenance further price increases (can't think of any instance of a Leica lens coming down in price other than on promotion) in lenses, it wouldn't surprise me if the 21mm edges further into the stratosphere ahead of the 24mm. Here in the UK, where we have big tax rises in store, it's a case of battening down the hatches and making hay while the sun shines in a metaphor-mixing sort of way, so if you are at all minded to buy one of these, I would jump on the band-wagon or else you'll miss the boat... [Cue comment from Bill about my posts making his eyes itch... LOL] Edited May 11, 2009 by marknorton Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 11, 2009 Author Share #48 Posted May 11, 2009 I thing I have noticed on the M8 - and it runs absolutely contrary to theory and numbers - is that lenses tend to keep the character of their focal length. For instance the 24 behaves more like a 24 than a 35, a 35 more like a 35 than like a 50 etc. I have no explanation for this phenomen. It is plainly impossible - but there it is... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted May 11, 2009 Share #49 Posted May 11, 2009 Although I love the shallow DOF effect that you get with large aperture lenses I find that the images produced when using this technique only work (for me) when the intended focus of the image is actually pin sharp. By intended focus I mean not some area close by. Otherwise the phrase 'if only' comes to mind. I realise that it is easier to do this with a wide angle lens but even so I am not sure that at f1.4 these lenses can produce a 'pin sharp' anywhere in the image. This perception may of course be related to lack of contrast when the lens is wide open. Although this thread has generated a great urge in me to order one of these and possibly sell my only recently purchased 24 elmarit I am resisting. I would also like to see where Leica is going with the digital M. I dont buy Leica to collect just to use and I am not keen on 'big' lenses. Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted May 11, 2009 Share #50 Posted May 11, 2009 (edited) I thing I have noticed on the M8 - and it runs absolutely contrary to theory and numbers - is that lenses tend to keep the character of their focal length. For instance the 24 behaves more like a 24 than a 35, a 35 more like a 35 than like a 50 etc. I have no explanation for this phenomen. It is plainly impossible - but there it is... I agree. I have never warmed as much to the 35 Lux ASPH as to the 50 Lux ASPH, as great as the 35 Lux ASPH is in its own right. I look forward to the FF digital M. However, I don't consider it impossible... There is something, whether lens design, sensor/film size, or something else, which is responsible for otherwise unexplainable phenomena. There is something similar going on with medium format. A 6x6 image taken with an 80/2.8 is just different than a 35mm image taken with a 50/2, the closest equivalent. Edited May 11, 2009 by carstenw Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 11, 2009 Author Share #51 Posted May 11, 2009 (edited) Although I love the shallow DOF effect that you get with large aperture lenses I find that the images produced when using this technique only work (for me) when the intended focus of the image is actually pin sharp. By intended focus I mean not some area close by. Otherwise the phrase 'if only' comes to mind. I realise that it is easier to do this with a wide angle lens but even so I am not sure that at f1.4 these lenses can produce a 'pin sharp' anywhere in the image. This perception may of course be related to lack of contrast when the lens is wide open. Although this thread has generated a great urge in me to order one of these and possibly sell my only recently purchased 24 elmarit I am resisting. I would also like to see where Leica is going with the digital M. I dont buy Leica to collect just to use and I am not keen on 'big' lenses. Jeff The 24/1.4 is pin-sharp in the plane of focus wide open. Another thing with this lens is that it actually has higher contrast wide open than stopped down, a phenomen remarked upon by Sean Reid as well. If you go back to the images I posted earlier, you'll find a 100% crop of the lens, which shows that the sharpness in the plane of focus is defined by the diffraction of the sensor. Plus that it can be focussed in the middle of the native dof of the sensor, i.e. the zone of maximum sharpness coincides 100% with the intended plane of focus.Retina-scratching Edited May 11, 2009 by jaapv Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
guidomo Posted May 11, 2009 Share #52 Posted May 11, 2009 The other thing that strikes me is how and why both these lenses are priced the same. There's more "stuff" in the 21, including an extra ASPH surface, so it's surprising that it's not more expensive. It's not clear how the lenses are priced - what the market will bear or related to the material and labour content? If Leica can countenance further price increases (can't think of any instance of a Leica lens coming down in price other than on promotion) in lenses, it wouldn't surprise me if the 21mm edges further into the stratosphere ahead of the 24mm. This is a point I made when I opened the "Summilux 21 or 24" thread, but nobody jumped on it. I agree the 21 must have a higher production cost and is "the landmark design" more than the 24. Keeping that in mind I found it difficult to settle for the 24, paying no less than for the 21. I nevertheless did, and perhaps that is why the 24 is indeed priced the same: it has certain advantages that make it just as tempting as the 21 (being size, weight and the possible use of the M8's viewfinder). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
darvin2138 Posted May 11, 2009 Share #53 Posted May 11, 2009 It is just the way one shoots. For one thing, the wider a lens gets, the more specialized it gets. Also, the wider a lens gets, the deeper the DOF is. For instance, the Elmar 18 with its relatively slow (not for the length, but in general!) aperture and short focal length, is a bit of a sharp-from-front-to-infinity type of lens. Ideal for some users, but not for me. The 21 and 24 are fast, but the 21 is more bulky and heavier, and still a pronounced wideangle, even on the M8. So I knew it would get far less use than the 24 which goes to a slightly thinner DOF and more universal angle of view. And a lot lighter and smaller, so it will be used far more often. At the moment I am thinking of having the lens release button removed from my M8 . The nice thing about the 24 is that it will work as a slightly wide standard lens when used at a distance, but still will show a real wideangle character as you get close to your subject. That holds for both the M8 and 24x36, albeit in different extent. Thanks for the information.....Oh my..24 is too close to my 28 Cron...... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_n Posted May 11, 2009 Share #54 Posted May 11, 2009 So since I've settled on the 24mm as my favorite for the M8, I can't help but wonder how nice it would be to have the option of F/1.4. At the same time, it's a large and expensive lens, and I'd have to sell my 24 Elmarit to help pay for it. The one thing that gives me pause about the lens is Jaap's report that the focus throw is much longer than that on the 24 Elmarit. I use my 24 Elmarit for street and I need that short focus throw. I wouldn't sell the Elmarit before using the Summilux. I'm beginning to have 2nd thoughts about the 1.4 but I've been unable to try out a 24/1.4 for myself here in Boston despite several months of waiting. I even went to a special Leica day where the lens was promised but no cigar. Very frustrating... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerimager Posted May 11, 2009 Share #55 Posted May 11, 2009 The one thing that gives me pause about the lens is Jaap's report that the focus throw is much longer than that on the 24 Elmarit. I use my 24 Elmarit for street and I need that short focus throw. I wouldn't sell the Elmarit before using the Summilux. I'm beginning to have 2nd thoughts about the 1.4 but I've been unable to try out a 24/1.4 for myself here in Boston despite several months of waiting. I even went to a special Leica day where the lens was promised but no cigar. Very frustrating... Hi Peter- I know how much you love your 28 elmarit (both of them!), and I feel the same about mine. It's the main reason I've decided that if I get either new lux, it will be the 21. I'm not too concerned about using an external finder, when I do so I generally get a feel of the frame looking through the external, then keep my eye on the range finder and guesstimate the edges. For the candid work I generally do, the exact edge is really not so critical. I'm also very interested in what the 21/1.4 will do on my film bodies. All this is not to say that the 24/1.4 isn't a great looking lens...it clearly is! best....Peter Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted May 11, 2009 Share #56 Posted May 11, 2009 I bought a 24mm Summilux. The box have a space for a missing piece. I think my reseller put the hood on the lens, and that hole was for the hood. Is it correct? (The red circle in the picture) 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/83942-happy-happy/?do=findComment&comment=896745'>More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted May 11, 2009 Share #57 Posted May 11, 2009 I bought a 24mm Summilux. The box have a space for a missing piece. I think my reseller put the hood on the lens, and that hole was for the hood. Is it correct? (The red circle in the picture) For a finder I'd say... can be they have tought of a lens+finder set then abandoned the idea... or reserve it for some "special edition" or so... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted May 11, 2009 Share #58 Posted May 11, 2009 (edited) The other thing that strikes me is how and why both these lenses are priced the same. There's more "stuff" in the 21, including an extra ASPH surface, so it's surprising that it's not more expensive. In addition, the 24mm has two flat surfaces, and the 21mm none. Flat surfaces are less costly to manufacture. This is true but... The 24mm has an additional constraint: overall size and specifically front lens diameter. Maybe this forced Leica to sacrifice cost (a different design, more costly) and/or a lower optical quality. You assume the 24mm design isn't as costly as the 21mm is, but I am not sure about that. The 24mm design has 2 very thick elements (third and fourth from the front lens element, which is the first one). Maybe this is expensive too, just like curved surfaces and aspherical surfaces are. I am not sure about the relative optical quality of these two lenses either. According to Erwin Puts, the 24mm seems to have a bit lower contrast at full aperture, but a more even performance across the frame (than the 21). This relative behaviour keeps the same between f/1,4 and f/2,8. The 24mm seems to have more resistance to veiling glare and lower chromatic aberrations (Puts' article). The 24mm seems to be crispier stopping down too. Puts' overall valuation seems to prefer the 21mm (read carefully the conclusions), but you have to consider the alternatives: the 24mm Summilux has two powerful brothers (the Elmarit and Elmar) and the 21mm Summilux just one (the Elmarit, not considered in the review by Puts). On the other hand, when you "read" the MTF graphs you see higher contrast for the fine details in the 21mm stopping down (20, 40lp/mm), but the tangential and sagittal structures greatly differ (it reminds me the 50mm Summilux). This translates in a softer rendition of fine details. The 24mm, on the other hand, has curves with steepier declining shapes, but the tangential and sagittal curves are paired. The contrast for all resolution values at the edge/corners is higher for the 24mm. Sean Reid's analysis may be different. Edited May 11, 2009 by rosuna Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 11, 2009 Author Share #59 Posted May 11, 2009 The one thing that gives me pause about the lens is Jaap's report that the focus throw is much longer than that on the 24 Elmarit. I use my 24 Elmarit for street and I need that short focus throw. I wouldn't sell the Elmarit before using the Summilux. I'm beginning to have 2nd thoughts about the 1.4 but I've been unable to try out a 24/1.4 for myself here in Boston despite several months of waiting. I even went to a special Leica day where the lens was promised but no cigar. Very frustrating... The focus throw is about 100 degrees. It feels just fine to me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted May 12, 2009 Share #60 Posted May 12, 2009 The focus throw is about 100 degrees. It feels just fine to me. I agree. Have you more experience with this lens jaapv? How it performs for you? I haven't time for testing now... 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.