Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Leicas and other Leica Mount Cameras > Leica M Lenses and Images

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

The 24mm Summilux: does it make any sense in the age of good high ISO sensors?
Old 04-09-2017   #1
sleepyhead
Registered User
 
sleepyhead's Avatar
 
sleepyhead is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 1,686
The 24mm Summilux: does it make any sense in the age of good high ISO sensors?

Hello RFF'ers

For the last few years I've been dreaming (and slowly saving) for a 24mm Summilux to use with my Leica M9. However, now the Leica M10 is out, and it looks like that camera has at least two stops better high-ISO usability. While I can't afford an M10 now, I can see one in my future.

My goal is to have a lovely 3-lens kit for indoor gatherings of friends and family. The 24mm Summilux would fit in for this purpose with my 35/1.4 and 75/1.4 Summiluxes. I don't shoot landscapes or street photography with these lenses, so their large size and weight is not a factor. But it is exceedingly DARK in Scandinavia for a good part of the year, and I don't use flash or artificial light.

So the question becomes: does a 24mm Summilux still make sense? Perhaps one of the smaller, less expensive 24/25mm lenses out there with an eventual M10 is a better choice? For example, the price of the 24mm Summilux can get me a good way towards an M10 with 25mm Zeiss f/2.8.

The only reason I can see for getting the Summilux is for the distinctive look it gives, that is, wide view combined with somewhat shallow depth of field. It's a look that love. Especially since these would be people pictures indoors.

Any thoughts from RFF members who have used the 24mm Summilux as well as other 24/25mm lenses for the purposes I have described would be MUCH appreciated! Thanks.
__________________
__________________
Film for B&W, digital for colour
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-09-2017   #2
Timmyjoe
Registered User
 
Timmyjoe's Avatar
 
Timmyjoe is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,050
Never been lucky enough to have a 24mm Summilux, but did have the Zeiss 25mm f2.8 lens you mention. Used it on an M8.2. Didn't like the way it rendered, when paired with my 50 Lux and 90 Cron. It rendered like all the Zeiss lenses I've had over the years, sharp, contrasty, and cold. One of those things some might not notice, but I found it to be painfully obvious when used with the other two Leica lenses.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-09-2017   #3
sleepyhead
Registered User
 
sleepyhead's Avatar
 
sleepyhead is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 1,686
Timmyjoe, thanks for bringing this point up. It's important to me that the character of the 24mm I end up getting doesn't obviously differ from the 35/1.4 ASPH (pre-FLE) and Mandler 75/1.4. Is this another concern about the 24mm Summilux?

Perhaps the 24/2.8 Elmarit-M character matches my other lenses better?

By the way, a 28mm Summicron currently fits this role in my lens line up, but I would probably sell it in order to afford the 24mm Summilux anytime soon... (I want the f/1.4, and 28mm is a bit close to 35mm.)
__________________
__________________
Film for B&W, digital for colour
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-09-2017   #4
dof
Fiat Lux
 
dof's Avatar
 
dof is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: San Francisco, California
Posts: 720
I've owned the 35mm & 75mm Summiluxes and the 24mm Elmarit. The 24 and 35 hail from the same design era when manufacturing aspherical lens elements at scale became technically feasible. Being close cousins, they share a similar contrast and imaging signature. The 75mm Summilux is famously a bit softer wide open and sharpens when stopped down.

I haven't shot the 24mm Summilux, but as low-light performance is critical, both its maximum aperture and from what I've seen, its lower contrast relative to current 24mm offerings will be benefits. If shooting wide open is as important to you as not resorting to flash lighting is, then perhaps it's really the only choice.
__________________
-J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-09-2017   #5
Leica All Day
Registered User
 
Leica All Day's Avatar
 
Leica All Day is offline
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Florida
Age: 46
Posts: 2,058
I am sorry I can't comment in direct relation to the 24mm lux, but I'm in a similar situation as you when it comes to the 28mm lux. The price difference is huge when compared to a 28mm cron, but the lux just has a certain look to it that I love. I only shoot film, mostly ISO 100 but that extra stop isn't as big a deal as the look of the 28mm lux is.

Sorry I couldn't be of any help.

Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-09-2017   #6
sleepyhead
Registered User
 
sleepyhead's Avatar
 
sleepyhead is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 1,686
I did look at the 28mm Summilux briefly, but since 35mm is my "base" focal length, I want a bit more difference from that focal length, but not as wide as a 21mm.
__________________
__________________
Film for B&W, digital for colour
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-09-2017   #7
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 71
Posts: 4,624
I owned the 35 FLE and still own the 75 Summilux. I also owned the 25 Biogon and 24 Elmar. The 75 Summilux is at the opposite end of the spectrum from the FLE and Elmar. The Biogon is in the middle. The 75 has old world character wide open being slightly softer in contrast and slightly less sharp but certainly sharp enough. As you stop down a stop it gains contrast and sharpness but still remains pleasant through the aperture range. It works quite nicely with a V4 summicron 35.

The 35 FLE and Elmar 24 are extremely sharp wide open with high contrast. They look totally different from the 75 1.4. IMO the 35 and 24 lack subtlety and are lacking character. I sold the ones I had and went back to classic Leica lenses.

I regrettably sold my 25 Biogon to buy the 24 Elmar. Both are super sharp but the Biogon wasn't as harsh and produced more natural looking images. I'm a big fan of Zeiss glass and feel it's a good blend of modern and classic rendering. The have superior flare control with superb sharpness without being harsh and clinical.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-09-2017   #8
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 51
Posts: 6,255
It seems like maybe your question is, .. Which comes first the Summilux 24mm or the M10?
The Lux24 is unique. If you want that look from a leica lens it seems inevitable.

In the search for greater light gathering ability, I think it makes a lot more sense to migrate to the M10 from the M9 first.
The look of the lux24 wide open is really special but, think of your other lenses as well.
Having the ability to stop down for depth of field with that 75mm would be sweet.
Same with the 35mm giving better hyperdocal capability and flexibilty.
Getting 2-3 usable stops of iso over the m9 is no small thing.
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-09-2017   #9
FrozenInTime
Registered User
 
FrozenInTime's Avatar
 
FrozenInTime is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,759
If you are going for wide open and close up ( even at friends around the table distances ) then optical viewfinder switching and parallax really make life difficult. I traded my 21/1.4 for the 28/1.4 so I could stick to the rangefinder view alone.

These days, for interior shots the wider slower lenses giving more depth of field along with slower shutter/higher ISO do seem to make sense and the external OVF/EVF or back panel LCD is less troublesome.
__________________
It's the weird colour scheme that freaks me. Every time you try to operate one of these weird black controls, which are labeled in black on a black background, a small black light lights up black to let you know you've done it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-09-2017   #10
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Torrance, CA
Age: 37
Posts: 4,668
good point about the viewfinder issue. in indoor settings, 28mm offers a significant practical difference from 35mm that overrides their adjacency.
__________________
Ugly Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-09-2017   #11
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,943
Well, unlike most people here, I HAVE used the 21 Summilux. And the 24. I find it frankly weird to have seriously shallow depth of field with extreme wide angle lenses. For me, f/2.8 works better.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-09-2017   #12
MCTuomey
Registered User
 
MCTuomey's Avatar
 
MCTuomey is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: U.S.
Age: 65
Posts: 3,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepyhead View Post
The only reason I can see for getting the Summilux is for the distinctive look it gives, that is, wide view combined with somewhat shallow depth of field. It's a look that love. Especially since these would be people pictures indoors.
I think you answered well. This would be sufficient reason for me.

I have a Q that I shoot mostly wide open, for the look, not because I need the speed.
__________________
--Mike

My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-09-2017   #13
sleepyhead
Registered User
 
sleepyhead's Avatar
 
sleepyhead is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 1,686
Thanks for your thought-provoking comments everyone!

Roger, I can well understand that some people don't like the wide-angle-with-shallow-DOF look, but it works for me when the people are separated from the indoor background but that there is still enough information in the background to understand the setting of the picture.

Reading the above comments, my latest thinking is:
Sell the 35mm Summilux and the 28mm Summicron, and use the money plus my savings to buy an M10 first, and a second-hand 24mm Summilux, eventually. Go back to using my 35mm pre-ASPH Summicron as my main lens, and 75mm Summilux, which DO match well in terms of contrast.

Now to just save and save some more...
__________________
__________________
Film for B&W, digital for colour
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-09-2017   #14
Benjamin Marks
Registered User
 
Benjamin Marks is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,664
I can't imagine needing it, but that doesn't make it a waste of space, just not right for me. Here is my reasoning.

When do I need a fast lens? When light levels are low or when I want to isolate a subject. When light levels are low with a wide, you can actually hand-hold to a pretty low shutter speed. When I want to isolate a subject, as Roger says, I rarely use a wide lens. I don't think I have ever been in a situation where I needed a really wide lens in low light, but didn't have access to a tripod. Dark museums maybe?

In general, I do think that the more innovative lens designs that are out there, the better it is for photographers in general. I photographed for years, coexisting on the planet at the same time as the Hologon, but I never needed one. When C/V came out with their little zone-focus 15, though I bought one and it opened new worlds for me. Not saying this fast 24 is the same category, but the principle still holds.
__________________
Benjamin’s Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-09-2017   #15
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepyhead View Post
Thanks for your thought-provoking comments everyone!

Roger, I can well understand that some people don't like the wide-angle-with-shallow-DOF look, but it works for me when the people are separated from the indoor background but that there is still enough information in the background to understand the setting of the picture.

Reading the above comments, my latest thinking is:
Sell the 35mm Summilux and the 28mm Summicron, and use the money plus my savings to buy an M10 first, and a second-hand 24mm Summilux, eventually. Go back to using my 35mm pre-ASPH Summicron as my main lens, and 75mm Summilux, which DO match well in terms of contrast.

Now to just save and save some more...
Sure, if it works for you, it works for you. Very often, my posts are deliberately contrarian, against those who believe "It's newer and more extreme (and often more expensive), and therefore it's better" -- often, on the basis of no experience whatsoever.

Until I hit 12mm, I liked wider and wider lenses. Great: 21mm, 18mm, 15mm, even 14mm... But 12mm was too wide for me. Likewise 50/1.4, 50/1.2, 50/1. Yes, I love 50/1. But I don't find it useful enough to justify the expense: f/1.2 suffices (and is a lot cheaper with my old Canon).

There are without doubt many who can use a 24/1.4 or 50/1 (or 50/0.95) better than I. But I strongly suspect that there are even more who will make worse pictures with more extreme lenses; and they need to be reminded of this.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-09-2017   #16
MCTuomey
Registered User
 
MCTuomey's Avatar
 
MCTuomey is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: U.S.
Age: 65
Posts: 3,312
Fast wides have their uses, at least for me. I couldn't have gotten this shot's isolation combined with "environment" with a 50:


20170318-051-web by Mike Tuomey, on Flickr
Shot at f/1.7 with Q.

Extreme lenses provide more possibilities, not bad pictures. Unless the photographer cooperates, of course
__________________
--Mike

My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-09-2017   #17
Emile de Leon
Registered User
 
Emile de Leon is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,039
There is only 1 way to find out..get the lens...and use it..
But if I were shooting people a lot...I would want the lowest distortion WA I could find..unless you like distortion..!
But you shoot natural light in very dark situations..
The M10 and 1.4..could be the ticket..or..perhaps better yet..an A7S..
Or..you could save a bundle..and just use flash..with a smaller Elmar wa or similar..on your M9...
I use the WATE..and am more than happy with that..and get 3 focal length choices as well..but f4...cant have everything can we...
I would luv to have the 21/24 f1.4 option though...and may well get that lens eventually..as it supplies a look..as well as a level..that cant be achieved with any other lens..
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-09-2017   #18
Doug
Moderator
 
Doug's Avatar
 
Doug is offline
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Pacific NW, USA
Posts: 13,140
The 24 Summilux is attractive... Nice that it's smaller than the 21 Summilux, but it's still a big lens. Maybe there should be a 24mm Summicron?

I have a Pentax 24mm f/2 that is also unfortunately large, and with a silver finish that makes it rather visible. The f/2 aperture is useful to have, and with the wide angle less DoF is given up when using it wide open than with longer lenses. Here's one shot with that lens on a Pentax LX that I think is f/2... (seems like she wants her arm back!)

__________________
Doug’s Gallery
RFF on Facebook
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-09-2017   #19
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,810
I see a nice 24 Lux went for 3k on Ebay, recently.

The M9 wold love such a lens.

Of course that money + value of M9 = M10.

But then you need a decent 24....... LOL

24 is pretty nice FL. I wish the CV 21/1.8 was a 24. That is a very nice lens.

@Roger actually 1.4 makes alot more sense at 24 than 50. You still have huge DOF. Much easier to use WO. The look is like 50/2.8 or 50/4.

Looking at 24 Lux samples on Flickr I think I'd rather have that lens than a M10
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-10-2017   #20
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by uhoh7 View Post
I see a nice 24 Lux went for 3k on Ebay, recently.

The M9 wold love such a lens.

Of course that money + value of M9 = M10.

But then you need a decent 24....... LOL

24 is pretty nice FL. I wish the CV 21/1.8 was a 24. That is a very nice lens.

@Roger actually 1.4 makes alot more sense at 24 than 50. You still have huge DOF. Much easier to use WO. The look is like 50/2.8 or 50/4.

Looking at 24 Lux samples on Flickr I think I'd rather have that lens than a M10
And, as I say, I've tried it and you haven't. It didn't work for me. Until you try one for yourself, you simply can't say (at least authoritatively) "1.4 makes alot more sense at 24 than 50" because you don't actually know.

By the same token, although I love f/1.4 and f/1.5 lenses (my most used lenses are a 35 Summilux and a 50 C-Sonnar) I find the DoF of the f/1 Noctilux to be freakishly low (I've used that extensively too) and the Canon 50/1.2 (which I own) can be tricky.

It may be that I have become accustomed to fast 35s and 50s, perhaps through sheer familiarity with my own pictures and those of others, while fast 21s and 24s (I had a 24/2 for a while for my Nikons) do less for me -- the more so because (as Benjamin Marks pointed out) you can use ridiculously long shutter speeds.

Yes, there will be people who can use the 21 and 24 Summiluxes very well, either because they are the lenses they have been praying would be made or out of sheer happy coincidence: we have all had the experience of trying lenses out of idle curiosity or simple availability (a loan from a friend, whatever), and then falling in love with them. On the other hand, as I said earlier, you won't necessarily get better pictures just because a lens is faster, wider or otherwise out of the ordinary. It is your vision that counts.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-10-2017   #21
michaelwj
----------------
 
michaelwj's Avatar
 
michaelwj is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane AUS
Posts: 2,107
Unlike Roger, and like most others, I haven't had the opportunity to use the wide summilux's, and I think I'd struggle. Using wides on M's with the external VF I focus by feel (scale with the tab), or when critical, I do the VF juggle. I'd be worried that at f/1.4 the VF juggle would cause a missed focus, and even though the DoF is larger, it's still blindingly obvious when you miss.
I think that fast wides scream for TTL viewing, and even then when going wide I want the surrounding information, not a blurry mess, so would stop it down anyway.
I'd get the M10 and the 24 Elmarit Asph or the 24 Elmar. That's of course if I were you. The M10 will work with your other lenses too, but the 1.4/24 won't make the 35 and 75 any better (better being totally subjective)
__________________
Cheers,
Michael
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-10-2017   #22
MCTuomey
Registered User
 
MCTuomey's Avatar
 
MCTuomey is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: U.S.
Age: 65
Posts: 3,312
Michael raises a very good point. EVFs (and AF too), like the Q's, make framing and shooting efficiency much easier when using big wides at wide apertures. I rarely use anything wider than a 35 on my OVF cameras, not because I can't, but because it slows me down unacceptably.

My life with wides took a positive turn with a Fuji XT1 + XF 16/1.4 and the Q. Both cameras' EVFs and AF capability allow me to work very quickly and accurately, which was never true for me with OVF, manual focus gear.
__________________
--Mike

My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-10-2017   #23
fotomeow
name under my name
 
fotomeow's Avatar
 
fotomeow is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Posts: 768
Yes it makes sense, cuz we love that sharp f1.4 to control the in and out of focus planes.
But it all depends on how fat the wallet is...
__________________
--> Gary G

Galleria RFF
[size=1]old stuff, new stuff, stuff that works and stuff that doesn't.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-10-2017   #24
icebear
Registered User
 
icebear's Avatar
 
icebear is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: just west of the big apple
Posts: 3,010
f1.4 is about using it wide open to isolate the subject from the background. If you want everything in focus and relatively sharp all the time and shoot at f4 or smaller, then a 24/1.4 is a waste of money and too heavy to carry around. High ISO capabilities have nothing to do with this.

I also have a Q and the 28/1.7 combined with the excellent AF is a joy to use and I have shot wide open with great results. No experience with the 24 or even 21/1.4 on the M10, obviously shooting these lenses wide open on a RF without live view or focusing aid might be a challenge. But nailing the focus exactly where you want it will give a unique result not achievable with 2.8 lens.
__________________
Klaus
You have to see the light.
M9, MM & a bunch of glass, Q

my gallery:http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...d=6650&showall
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-10-2017   #25
tightsqueez
Registered User
 
tightsqueez's Avatar
 
tightsqueez is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cleveland, Ohio USA
Posts: 265
The 21/24 Luxes and 50 Noct (0.95) came out to help out the M8 in regards to lowlight. I've owned the 24 Lux and the 50 0.95 for about six years and then sold them both with ZERO regret. Looking back I consider them half-baked. Sure, if you strive to subtlely erase some of your background a little more than the slower siblings or need that extra stop... fine (which I truly think is BS because going from an 1/8th to a 1/15 isn't going to save you, however the subject and technique will).

The problem with the 21/24 and 50 Noct is that they come with so much baggage the return just isn't worth it. All three of those lenses in my book are garbage lowlight lenses because of color blooming and CA, not to mention other issues such as silly filters sizes, wave shaped distortion, odd focus planes, etc. Bokeh of all three are insanely goofy on digital, although this is less of an issue with film (like all other lenses). Also, they take up so much finder space. Even the 28 Lux is a joke. I wouldn't take one for the price of a 28 Cron. Again, the tradeoff isn't worth it.

Been there, done that. I tried my hardest to incorporate lenses like these into my kit but in the end of the day they were a bridge too far.

With the last two models being pretty good with higher ISO's (M240 & M10), I see no point of these lenses. They ruin the whole beauty of a limber rangefinder.
__________________
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

Iraq & Afghanistan https://www.flickr.com/photos/703557...7645044968305/

GRAVIORA MANENT ERGO BIBAMUS
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-10-2017   #26
sleepyhead
Registered User
 
sleepyhead's Avatar
 
sleepyhead is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 1,686
Mike, thanks for posting this. This is a good example of what I would like to achieve at parties and gatherings with friends and family. The main subject or subjects "in the limelight" due to the shallow DOF, but enough of the surroundings to easily recognize what and where it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MCTuomey View Post
Fast wides have their uses, at least for me. I couldn't have gotten this shot's isolation combined with "environment" with a 50:


20170318-051-web by Mike Tuomey, on Flickr
Shot at f/1.7 with Q.

Extreme lenses provide more possibilities, not bad pictures. Unless the photographer cooperates, of course
__________________
__________________
Film for B&W, digital for colour
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-10-2017   #27
sleepyhead
Registered User
 
sleepyhead's Avatar
 
sleepyhead is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 1,686
Tightsqueez, I appreciate your insights, you having used the lens in question for quite some time. Your "review" of the 24mm Summilux certainly gives me pause for thought. But my first question is: did you get ANY pictures from the lens that you absolutely love, and which would have not been as good with another lens, say the 28mm Summicron? (Any chance you could share a photo or two? I have admired your photos in other threads...)

Also, what is the color blooming that you mention?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tightsqueez View Post
The 21/24 Luxes and 50 Noct (0.95) came out to help out the subpar M8 in regards to lowlight. I've owned the 24 Lux and the 50 0.95 for about six years and then sold them both without ZERO regret. Looking back I consider them half-baked. Sure, if you strive to subtlety erase some of your background a little more than the slower siblings or need that extra stop... fine (which I truly think is BS because going from an 1/8th to a 1/15 isn't going to save you, however the subject and technique will).

The problem with the 21/24 and 50 Noct is that they come with so much baggage the return just isn't worth it. All three of those lenses in my book are garbage lowlight lenses because of color blooming and CA, not to mention other issues such as silly filters sizes, wave shaped distortion, odd focus planes, etc. Bokeh of all three are insanely goofy on digital, although this is less of an issue with film (like all other lenses). Also, they take up so much finder space. Even the 28 Lux is a joke. I wouldn't take one for a price of a 28 Cron. Again, the tradeoff isn't worth it.

Been there, done that. I tried my hardest to incorporate lenses like these into my kit but in the end of the day they were a bridge too far.

With the last two models being pretty good with higher ISO's (M240 & M10), I see no point of these lenses. They ruin the whole beauty of a limber rangefinder.
__________________
__________________
Film for B&W, digital for colour
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-10-2017   #28
KM-25
Registered User
 
KM-25's Avatar
 
KM-25 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,682
I'm kind of on the same page as Tightsqueez, I have 4 Leica lenses and only one is 1.4 and that is my 35 FLE. Where we differ is the practicality of high speed lenses and higher ISO ranges. If you gave me an M11 that had clean ISO 50,000, I would just go to town with it in some amazingly nuanced low light.

Once you get below EV-0, things get interesting real quick in how even the most miniscule change in peripheral light sources can make a dramatic difference in the way the light paints. If one works in the fringes of that kind of light, being mostly reflected, bounced and passing through many layers, the way it can wrap around subjects can be truly remarkable.

Is 1.4 relevant with higher ISO settings? You bet it is if you like to play in that kind of sandbox.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-10-2017   #29
sleepyhead
Registered User
 
sleepyhead's Avatar
 
sleepyhead is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 1,686
Thanks for bringing up the point about framing and EVF vs. using the optical viewfinder. I was planning on trying the 24mm with the OV without accessory viewfinder on the M9, and seeing how it goes. Eventually, if I have an M10, I could using Live View and the visoflex if framing and focusing with the OV is difficult.

By the way, getting a Sony A7S is not an option. I have a Leica M3 and an M9. They take the same lenses and work similarly. I am "a bear of little brain" and I cannot handle a second digital camera with different menu systems and buttons all over the place and features that I will never use.

Yes, I think I'm stuck in my ways, but all of this photography stuff IS PURELY FOR ENJOYMENT for me, so I will continue to only use cameras that I enjoy to shoot with and which give me the results that I want. If I was shooting weddings professionally, things would surely be different...
__________________
__________________
Film for B&W, digital for colour
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-10-2017   #30
sleepyhead
Registered User
 
sleepyhead's Avatar
 
sleepyhead is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 1,686
My latest thoughts (in case anyone gives a #### is to keep the equipment I have, keep saving for a Leica M10, and in the meantime (I think I'm still a year away from the M10) try TO RENT a 24mm Summilux for a weekend, throw a party, use the 24mm, and see what I think then!
__________________
__________________
Film for B&W, digital for colour
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2017   #31
MCTuomey
Registered User
 
MCTuomey's Avatar
 
MCTuomey is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: U.S.
Age: 65
Posts: 3,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepyhead View Post
My latest thoughts (in case anyone gives a #### is to keep the equipment I have, keep saving for a Leica M10, and in the meantime (I think I'm still a year away from the M10) try TO RENT a 24mm Summilux for a weekend, throw a party, use the 24mm, and see what I think then!

Good plan!
__________________
--Mike

My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2017   #32
Ronald M
Registered User
 
Ronald M is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,532
It may be dark outside, but you must have lights inside.

Suggest you use some flash bounced or modified so the light is decent and then use a low shutter speed so as to pick up some lamp and ambient light. The effect is is quite beautiful and you do not need an expensive lens.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2017   #33
MCTuomey
Registered User
 
MCTuomey's Avatar
 
MCTuomey is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: U.S.
Age: 65
Posts: 3,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepyhead View Post
.... it is exceedingly DARK in Scandinavia for a good part of the year, and I don't use flash or artificial light..
Ron, the OP isn't apparently interested in flash (bold added).
__________________
--Mike

My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2017   #34
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepyhead View Post
Mike, thanks for posting this. This is a good example of what I would like to achieve at parties and gatherings with friends and family. The main subject or subjects "in the limelight" due to the shallow DOF, but enough of the surroundings to easily recognize what and where it is.
Well, Mike could have used a 35 as well.



Which was shot with an f1.7 lens "only", using a type 240. Plenty of light, even without flash and super high ISO capabilities.

I'm the last one to tell you not to buy an expensive lens. But you don't need to justify it with technical need, IMO. The shorter the focal length, the less speed you need. How about trying a 21/1.8 Ultron and see where it leads you ? Or a 28mm Summicron, which is quite "affordable" today, if you buy the older version (still a great performer and its price dropped since the new one came out). At least you'll keep framelines for your quick compositions.

On another note, the M10 will benefit your 75 for sure, the longer the lens, the harder the above type of shot is to get.

Roland.

PS: I admit, I have always wondered why there is no M-mount 24/2 lens on the market ...
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2017   #35
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by icebear View Post
f1.4 is about using it wide open to isolate the subject from the background. ... .
Not for me. For me it's about shooting at low light levels. Far too many shots using shallow depth of field under good lighting fall into the category of "because I can" and just look freakish.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-12-2017   #36
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepyhead View Post
...So the question becomes: does a 24mm Summilux still make sense? Perhaps one of the smaller, less expensive 24/25mm lenses out there with an eventual M10 is a better choice? For example, the price of the 24mm Summilux can get me a good way towards an M10 with 25mm Zeiss f/2.8.
I think it makes a great deal of sense... especially if you use raw files.

The limiting factor is not the sensor noise levels. It is the the longest, practical, hand-held, shutter time.

There is no substitute for signal (light/exposure). "Good high ISO sensors" only mean the noise levels are low. What matters is the signal-to-noise ratio when the shutter is open. The 1.4 aperture means at the longest, practical, hand-held shutter time you can record more signal compared to f 2 or 2.8. The ISO recommended by the meter will be lower so the signal-to-noise ratio can be higher.

But, if you look at your history of shutter times and apertures and discover you rarely go below f 2.8 to achieve optimum DOF, f 1.4 is not important.

With raw files you can recover more highlight information in post-production, This means you can increase exposure to the point where unimportant highlight regions start to clip. If all highlight regions are always important (including specular highlights), then in extremely low ambient light raw offers no signal-to-noise ratio advantages.
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-12-2017   #37
MCTuomey
Registered User
 
MCTuomey's Avatar
 
MCTuomey is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: U.S.
Age: 65
Posts: 3,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post
There is no substitute for signal (light/exposure).
If there are any absolutes in making photographs, this must be the first.

One may not like fast glass due to its price, size, weight, or image quality, but its utility for those who work in challenging light on active subjects isn't much of a question.
__________________
--Mike

My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-12-2017   #38
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,249
OP: this is the lens you really need http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...?product=51739
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-12-2017   #39
DavidKKHansen
Registered User
 
DavidKKHansen is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 201
Didn't you once have the Voigtländer 21mm f/1.8? Why is that not an option, but 24 Summilux is?
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-12-2017   #40
Doug
Moderator
 
Doug's Avatar
 
Doug is offline
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Pacific NW, USA
Posts: 13,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepyhead View Post
Hello RFF'ers

For the last few years I've been dreaming (and slowly saving) for a 24mm Summilux to use with my Leica M9. However, now the Leica M10 is out, and it looks like that camera has at least two stops better high-ISO usability. While I can't afford an M10 now, I can see one in my future.

My goal is to have a lovely 3-lens kit for indoor gatherings of friends and family. The 24mm Summilux would fit in for this purpose with my 35/1.4 and 75/1.4 Summiluxes. I don't shoot landscapes or street photography with these lenses, so their large size and weight is not a factor. But it is exceedingly DARK in Scandinavia for a good part of the year, and I don't use flash or artificial light.

So the question becomes: does a 24mm Summilux still make sense? Perhaps one of the smaller, less expensive 24/25mm lenses out there with an eventual M10 is a better choice? For example, the price of the 24mm Summilux can get me a good way towards an M10 with 25mm Zeiss f/2.8.

The only reason I can see for getting the Summilux is for the distinctive look it gives, that is, wide view combined with somewhat shallow depth of field. It's a look that love. Especially since these would be people pictures indoors.

Any thoughts from RFF members who have used the 24mm Summilux as well as other 24/25mm lenses for the purposes I have described would be MUCH appreciated! Thanks.
I think it's not so much of a question of either/or, as it is a matter of added flexibility. At some point in "existing darkness" we are boxed in by limits... highest ISO, longest usable shutter speed, and max aperture... at this point you have no options in settings to handle the scene. Having a higher ISO can provide a stop or two of additional flexibility... just as having a faster lens does too. Combining the two gives even more options on motion-blur and depth-of-field.

I'm always a little puzzled when the answer is "use a faster film" as there's a limit to how much faster the film or sensor can be, before circumstances box you in again! Of course that's always going to be the case, but the faster lens offers some elbow-room, a bigger box.

One more reason for the Summilux ... Wide lenses can be a problem on full-frame sensors. Italian-flag syndrome, as light rays hit the corners at a steep angle. I have this situation with the 25 Biogon for instance. I'm pretty sure the 24 Summilux is more "tele-centric" and avoids most of that. One more reason to consider this fast lens on an M9!
__________________
Doug’s Gallery
RFF on Facebook
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:55.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.