rdubois Posted July 9, 2009 Share #21 Posted July 9, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) For what it's worth... The M8 was my first rangefinder and I've gone through a slow learning curve since January 2008. Started with a 35mm Biogon: couldn't really get on with it Followed with a secondhand Biogon 25mm: loved it Bought a 1.5 Sonnar: a wonderful lens and an immediate success Sold the 35mm and bought a 28mm Biogon and found that as the 35mm pretty average Took the plunge and got the 24 Lux: Just amazing )) and, for me, positively better in almost every way than the already excellent 25mm Biogon. As soon as I can figure out how to use a polariser with the 24mm Lux (someone please help) I'll sell the 25mm and the 28mm Biogon and just keep the 24 Lux and the 50mm Sonnar. I just don't miss the intermediate (28 or 35) lengths. Dubois Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 Hi rdubois, Take a look here Anyone went from 24 + 35 kit to 28mm only ?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Peter Branch Posted July 9, 2009 Share #22 Posted July 9, 2009 I'm curious, why do you say that? Also, may I ask what critical situations would a 28 Cron outclass a 35 Cron/Lux? And how the 35 Summarit deserves praises where the 35 Cron/Lux don't? Thanks. There are many ways to answer your first question. Each of these 35mm lenses has a fan club whose members each paid a lot of money for them and is quite happy - I understand that. However just to get started I suggest you look at the MTF curves which Leica publish. (These are calculated rather than measured so a comparison with other manufacturers’ data is not really possible.) The more modern lenses such as the 28mm Summicron, 50mm Summilux and 75mm Summicron are simply better corrected and most particularly have less curvature of field and less focus shift. (This is much more critical on an M8.) The 24mm Elmarit is by popular consent an outstanding lens. The more subjective test is to take pictures and make A3 size prints. We could debate for hours how to evaluate images in these circumstances but I am totally satisfied that some lenses produce “better” images. The rendition of very fine detail off axis is one of the relative weaknesses of the current 35mm Summicron and Summilux. One can see what the MTF curves predict. Some people value the individualism of particular lenses. Nowhere is this more apparent than in their use for portraiture. Leica recognised this effect in the 1930’s and introduced the Thambar, 90mm f2.2 – but the Thambar is not a “better” lens, it is one that is optimised for a very specific application and is for all intents and purposes unusable in other applications. My interest is in having lenses that have the widest possible application. The answer to your second question is linked to the first. There are many circumstances, perhaps the majority, where an image is hardly affected by any deficiency in a particular lens. It has been argued by many, including E. Puts, that all hand held photograph will exhibit more camera shake than any aberration in the sort of lenses we are talking about. This is equally true of images taken at high ISO where system noise masks and outweighs lens defects. However if one uses a sturdy tripod and takes great care over exposure and focus then the lens can become the limiting factor. This is especially true on an M8. I have done this for architecture and landscape work for example and in such circumstances the 35mm Summicron I own and the 35mm Summilux I have used are simply not as good as the other lenses. A good example of what I’m saying relates to me selling my perfectly good Noctilux f1.0 and buying the current 50mm Summilux. Hand held in poor light the Noctilux was more than acceptable but it could never compete with the Summilux in the vast majority of situations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted July 9, 2009 Share #23 Posted July 9, 2009 Now the 24mm and 35mm lenses stay in the bag or are even left at home. I use them when particular situations make them the preferred choice, but 90+% of the time I now select the 28 rather than either of them. It has to be said that neither the current 35mm Summicron or the Summilux are Leica’s proudest achievements. The M8 is merciless and these two lenses are outclassed when used in critical situations by lenses such as the 28mm Summicron. What you're saying here is that you're prepared to compromise the image for the sake of convenience. We all do that from time to time, but there's no situation where a 24mm, or a 35mm are needed and a 28mm will do a better job !. If it's so wide that a 24mm is req'd, or you want the angle, then the 28mm will have to back off and image quality will suffer - a compromise. A similar scenario can be described for the 35mm. However, if your sample 28mm is marginally better than a 24/35mm you've had the privilege to hold for a short time then I' defy you to demonstrate any result where the difference is noticeable. On what basis do you report that these two, or any two lenses modern Leica lenses are not their proudest achievements ? Without any images to support your claims I can only assume you're commenting on MTF chart info and repeating biased opinions from other web sites. Show a single image where you've been constrained by the quality of a 35mm Summilux or 24mm Elmarit. I truly believe your comments are without foundation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yanidel Posted July 9, 2009 Author Share #24 Posted July 9, 2009 thanks for all the information shared, always very useful ! To answer some of the points/suggestions : - DOF (Kully, glad you are active on this forum too !). I understand the 35mm 1.4 gives a lot more capability for thin DOF, but I also found out that in street photography, the rate of miss is very high when shooting at 1.4. Especially with moving subjects. 28mm F2 still gives a thin enough DOF, but a little more room for misfocusing. But anyways, I will not sell the 35mm Lux, it is a special lens, low light option and great for Paris shots - to V64. I am also quite tall but I think going for wider lenses is a mistake to remedy the problem of cut legs . Indeed, the wider the lens, the most distortion you will incur and bending the knees (believe it or not, I hurt one of mine seriously doing that ...) is not always an option (woman are going to think you want to ask them to marry ...). I think it is better to change the framing and create a "tall people" style - 24mm Elmarit. As many pointed, an extraordinary lens in all purposes (colors, rendering, sharpness). But really, be it the 35mm Lux or 60 Hexanon, its look is so different that when I look at a series of shots I took, I get the impression it was taken with another system. The 35mm Lux and 60mm Hexanon are more similar, especially 1.4 to 2.8. I still am not sure how the 28mm Cron will look compared to these two (?), I will go try one this afternoon and play with the files. - 24 Lux. I thought about it despite the large cash ouflow it would mean but several facts tell me this is not the good solution as standard lens for me : - it is quite wide. It is a good low light option but when light goes, dark areas tend to invade much of the picture. So usually I go longer at night (35mm Lux). - it is heavy and big. The 60 Hexanon is 420 gr, I don't want to add a 500gr lens, it kind of kills the advantage I adore about RF, the reduced size and weight of the kit. - framelines. Why I also find essential in RF is the space outside the framelines. With a 24mm (I don't believe in external finders), you basically should like a DSLR finder, I don;t want that for my main lens, I need to see what is around to anticipate. The ideal framelines are the 35mm but it gets polluted by the 24mm ones. The 28mm are probably a better compromise (as I found using my 15€ Industar 69 which is an excentred 28mm) - DOF, by using a DOF calculator, a 24mm 1.4 will create basically the same DOF as a 28mm F2, so this is a tie between both lenses. - 90% of my pictures are during day time. I don't like much night photography especially the digital rendering of it after my post processing (that I could improve though). So, as menitoned, I will take a few tests shots to assess the rendering of the 28mm compared to the 60 Hexanon and 35 Lux Asph. If conclusive, I will probably end up selling the 24mm Elmarit and keep 28mm, 35mm, 60mm with 28-60 (or 35-60) being the main kit. I guess it is a combination close to the 28-50 kit elected by many and my goal is to at some point be able to go on a trip with only two lenses that I feel fully comfortable with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jplomley Posted July 9, 2009 Share #25 Posted July 9, 2009 I'm a big fan of the 21/2.8 Asph and 28 Cron combination. I dedicate one M8 to each lens. On my M7 I have a 35 Cron Asph. The 28 Cron is a wonderful lens with a very unique signature, a 3D rendering unlike any other lens I have used. But it is not the highest resolution lens in the world. It also takes some care with DOF, in that it does not behave like the other Asph's or Biogons. Focussing a subject and then placing that subject off-axis requires tighter parallelism than with any of my other lenses. So you need to be more of a technician with this lens. But the lens does perform. f/2 on this focal length furnishes a wonderfully smooth bokeh. From wide open to three stops down, performance is similar. No focus shift on either of my M8's, and on film it's low contrast is valued when coupled to TMY-2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
efftee Posted July 9, 2009 Share #26 Posted July 9, 2009 There are many ways to answer your first question. Each of these 35mm lenses has a fan club whose members each paid a lot of money for them and is quite happy - I understand that. However just to get started I suggest you look at the MTF curves which Leica publish. (These are calculated rather than measured so a comparison with other manufacturers’ data is not really possible.) The more modern lenses such as the 28mm Summicron, 50mm Summilux and 75mm Summicron are simply better corrected and most particularly have less curvature of field and less focus shift. (This is much more critical on an M8.) The 24mm Elmarit is by popular consent an outstanding lens. The more subjective test is to take pictures and make A3 size prints. We could debate for hours how to evaluate images in these circumstances but I am totally satisfied that some lenses produce “better” images. The rendition of very fine detail off axis is one of the relative weaknesses of the current 35mm Summicron and Summilux. One can see what the MTF curves predict. Some people value the individualism of particular lenses. Nowhere is this more apparent than in their use for portraiture. Leica recognised this effect in the 1930’s and introduced the Thambar, 90mm f2.2 – but the Thambar is not a “better” lens, it is one that is optimised for a very specific application and is for all intents and purposes unusable in other applications. My interest is in having lenses that have the widest possible application. The answer to your second question is linked to the first. There are many circumstances, perhaps the majority, where an image is hardly affected by any deficiency in a particular lens. It has been argued by many, including E. Puts, that all hand held photograph will exhibit more camera shake than any aberration in the sort of lenses we are talking about. This is equally true of images taken at high ISO where system noise masks and outweighs lens defects. However if one uses a sturdy tripod and takes great care over exposure and focus then the lens can become the limiting factor. This is especially true on an M8. I have done this for architecture and landscape work for example and in such circumstances the 35mm Summicron I own and the 35mm Summilux I have used are simply not as good as the other lenses. A good example of what I’m saying relates to me selling my perfectly good Noctilux f1.0 and buying the current 50mm Summilux. Hand held in poor light the Noctilux was more than acceptable but it could never compete with the Summilux in the vast majority of situations. Thank you for your response. Are you referring to the ASPH versions? I have not read a bad review, not even a marginally less than good one, on the ASPH versions of the 35 Lux and to some extent, the 35 Cron. That includes Erwin Puts, whom you quoted. His assessment of both these lenses were nothing short of exceptional - an appraisal echoed by every technical and non-technical analyses I have read, including Sean Reid, who has published quite comprehensive reports on just about every wide angle M lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jplomley Posted July 9, 2009 Share #27 Posted July 9, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thought I would post a few images taken with the 28/2 Cron at f/2... These are not meant to be stellar images, just test shots I had taken wandering around the streets when I first got the lens. All images processed out of C1 Pro with default sharpening, no other post processing. I'll post the full frame first and then a 100% crop. Note, I can accept no liability when you rush out at top speed to buy this 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! 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/90158-anyone-went-from-24-35-kit-to-28mm-only/?do=findComment&comment=957897'>More sharing options...
yanidel Posted July 10, 2009 Author Share #28 Posted July 10, 2009 Well yesterday went to a dealer and did about 40 test shots of 28 cron and my 24mm Elmarit to compare. Conclusion : the 24mm Elmarit, 35mm Lux Asph and 28mm Cron are three very different lenses with their own pros and cons and applications : - 24mm Elmarit : travel, landscape, nature or in your face street photography due to a large FOV, deep DOF and amazing resolution (significantly better than the 28mm IMO at all stops). It's got the most distinctive rendering of the three. Somewhat get the impression to look at a medium format file on landscapes, tonal range being evidently lesser. Main issue is lack of speed and framelines. - 35mm Lux Asph : "the lyric lens", Renders great atmosphere, special look at 1.4 then modern and also very sharp. Allows thin DOF. Slightly too long is my main issue with it. - 28mm : also has a great look at F2, a bit less warm and contrasty than the Elmarit, which I like. Less resolution overall than the other two. Best framelines, great size and handling. DOF not thin enough at F2 in the 3-5 meters range. So really, the 28mm Cron can't be a compromise lens in my case. For the moment, I'll keep using the 24mm + 35mm + 60mm Hex trio. Of course, a 28mm Lux with the main characteristics of the 35mm Lux would definitely be hard to resist... Thanks for all the input ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
misha Posted July 10, 2009 Share #29 Posted July 10, 2009 24 and 35 is my main kit but for the trip i am on right now i decided to take a russian-made orion-15 28mm f6 and a pre-asph 50 lux. that said, if i only had to have one lens, it would be the 35 cron. misha http://www.medvedia.com Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecaton Posted July 10, 2009 Share #30 Posted July 10, 2009 Well yesterday went to a dealer and did about 40 test shots of 28 cron and my 24mm Elmarit to compare. Conclusion : the 24mm Elmarit, 35mm Lux Asph and 28mm Cron are three very different lenses with their own pros and cons and applications : - 24mm Elmarit : travel, landscape, nature or in your face street photography due to a large FOV, deep DOF and amazing resolution (significantly better than the 28mm IMO at all stops). It's got the most distinctive rendering of the three. Somewhat get the impression to look at a medium format file on landscapes, tonal range being evidently lesser. Main issue is lack of speed and framelines. - 35mm Lux Asph : "the lyric lens", Renders great atmosphere, special look at 1.4 then modern and also very sharp. Allows thin DOF. Slightly too long is my main issue with it. - 28mm : also has a great look at F2, a bit less warm and contrasty than the Elmarit, which I like. Less resolution overall than the other two. Best framelines, great size and handling. DOF not thin enough at F2 in the 3-5 meters range. So really, the 28mm Cron can't be a compromise lens in my case. For the moment, I'll keep using the 24mm + 35mm + 60mm Hex trio. Of course, a 28mm Lux with the main characteristics of the 35mm Lux would definitely be hard to resist... Thanks for all the input ! I have the 24, 28 and 35cron. But your description of the 35lux rendering might cost me a lot of money. How could you.......:D:D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jplomley Posted July 10, 2009 Share #31 Posted July 10, 2009 Interesting, the 24mm being significantly better than the 28 Cron. Would you really need any more resolution than what I posted above? Any chance of sharing some of the comparison images between the 24/28? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yanidel Posted July 10, 2009 Author Share #32 Posted July 10, 2009 Interesting, the 24mm being significantly better than the 28 Cron. Would you really need any more resolution than what I posted above? Any chance of sharing some of the comparison images between the 24/28? It is a good point because when I saw your images I thought it was already extremely sharp, and as you say, I would not need more resolution in this case. Now if you take a landscape with stone buildings or trees, posters with writing, in other words very small objects, the 24mm renders the details more precisely, even with the lesser magnification. Colors are also a bit warmer (I prefer the ones of the 28mm though). I don't want to post the comparison because I know where it generally leads too (JPG conversion, WB, raw converter, exposure, tripod....). This was uninformal little test by the store I did that has absolutely no scientific value. I just spent a long time analyzing the raw files and these are my impressions, I felt less sharpness and contrast from the 28mm Cron vs the 24mm. The above comments is the opinion the came out of it, it could prove wrong and your pictures definitely also show the great capability of the 28mm Cron. I will try to post a similar shot (portrait) tonight taken with the 24mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jplomley Posted July 10, 2009 Share #33 Posted July 10, 2009 Looking forward to it. In the meantime, I will dig up some urban scenes I've taken with the 28 Cron. One thought I would like to toss out there, and that is, differences in contrast can be equalized in post. Resolution can be moderately improved in post with good sharpening algorithms. So for me, the overall rendering/signature/drawing of a lens is more important. That is, how does the final print look. I'm just not all that convinced that this pixel peeping stuff gives us an accurate assessment of an optics complete capabilities. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yanidel Posted July 11, 2009 Author Share #34 Posted July 11, 2009 Looking forward to it. In the meantime, I will dig up some urban scenes I've taken with the 28 Cron. One thought I would like to toss out there, and that is, differences in contrast can be equalized in post. Resolution can be moderately improved in post with good sharpening algorithms. So for me, the overall rendering/signature/drawing of a lens is more important. That is, how does the final print look. I'm just not all that convinced that this pixel peeping stuff gives us an accurate assessment of an optics complete capabilities. I fully agree about the rendering/signature/drawing. I meant that if the main goal of lens is to do landscape, travel, I feel the 24mm Elmarit is the better tool overall for my usage. Here is a picture taken last month on Les Champs-Elysées. Nothing special but it shows the wonderful rendering of the 24mm Elmarit at F2.8. Sharp and smooth bokeh. Second shot is the 1:1 close up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jplomley Posted July 11, 2009 Share #35 Posted July 11, 2009 That is a fine example. Love the color toning on this image. Just got in the door, did not get a chance to post some urban scapes...possibly Sunday. Would love to see other examples of what people are getting with their 24/2.8 Elmarit and 28/2 Crons, and if someone has both, a side by side evaluation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
efftee Posted July 11, 2009 Share #36 Posted July 11, 2009 Yanidel, may I ask if your 24 Elmarit is coded? I see some vignetting - is that done on purpose for effects or raw? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevem7 Posted July 11, 2009 Share #37 Posted July 11, 2009 Well yesterday went to a dealer and did about 40 test shots of 28 cron and my 24mm Elmarit to compare. Conclusion : the 24mm Elmarit, 35mm Lux Asph and 28mm Cron are three very different lenses with their own pros and cons and applications : - 24mm Elmarit : travel, landscape, nature or in your face street photography due to a large FOV, deep DOF and amazing resolution (significantly better than the 28mm IMO at all stops). It's got the most distinctive rendering of the three. Somewhat get the impression to look at a medium format file on landscapes, tonal range being evidently lesser. Main issue is lack of speed and framelines. - 35mm Lux Asph : "the lyric lens", Renders great atmosphere, special look at 1.4 then modern and also very sharp. Allows thin DOF. Slightly too long is my main issue with it. - 28mm : also has a great look at F2, a bit less warm and contrasty than the Elmarit, which I like. Less resolution overall than the other two. Best framelines, great size and handling. DOF not thin enough at F2 in the 3-5 meters range. So really, the 28mm Cron can't be a compromise lens in my case. For the moment, I'll keep using the 24mm + 35mm + 60mm Hex trio. Of course, a 28mm Lux with the main characteristics of the 35mm Lux would definitely be hard to resist... Thanks for all the input ! Good choice and your descriptions are right on... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevem7 Posted July 11, 2009 Share #38 Posted July 11, 2009 Some 24 elmarit samples... This was a review sample but it will be my next lens. I will then have a 24, 35 lux, 50 lux pre-asph and the 90 cron. I traded off my 28 cron after using the 24 elmarit. It really is that good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotomiguel Posted July 11, 2009 Share #39 Posted July 11, 2009 It's a bit difficult to see the qualities of a lens when the images are already croped and they have a strong PS edition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yanidel Posted July 11, 2009 Author Share #40 Posted July 11, 2009 Yanidel, may I ask if your 24 Elmarit is coded? I see some vignetting - is that done on purpose for effects or raw? I should have posted the non-processed image. So here it is as opened by Lightroom 2, so it gives a better idea of the qualities of the lens. Yes, I add back vignetting in my post processing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.