The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

21/1.4 lux or 24/1.4 lux Opinions anyone?

Stuart Richardson

Active member
Isn't that the point though? That it is a special effect for most people? I certainly won't say that the 21 or 24mm summiluxes are bad lenses, they are not in any way! But the Elmars, Elmarits and Biogons ARE better optically at the apertures super wide angle lenses are mostly used for. They are also smaller, lighter and MUCH cheaper. They are a better option for almost everyone. I will be quick to note that they are not the better option for everyone, but if you do not already know that your work truly benefits from having 1.4 to 2.5 at 21-24mm, then it probably is not the best option for you. Of course, it is easy to say, well it's nice to have the security of having 1.4 in a super wide, but most photos would be better taken either with a more moderate wide angle or with a smaller aperture. Given how good the low light is on digital now, there are not that many situations where these lenses are necessary. Heck, they didn't even exist in the M system before a couple of years ago, and pretty much everyone was very happy to work with their 28/2's and 35/1.4's for the lowest light wide angle work.

Those of us with a lot of experience already know how much nicer it is to shoot with a compact, light 28mm f/2 or 35mm f/1.4 or f/2...the lenses are optically fantastic, they are light and ergonomic, they are much easier to work with since they don't have a fussy external viewfinder. It is easier to work quickly and with confidence in low light when you can focus and frame with one fluid motion. But someone just coming to the system might not know these advantages, so they just see that the 21mm and 24mm are wider and faster and more expensive, so they figure they must be better. That's not the case, and it is a road to a 7000 dollar mistake for most people! That's all I am trying to say.
 
R

Rob Martin

Guest
I bought the 35/2 which is as you describe Stuart.
The WATE looks good for my wider stuff, as I don't really need the low low light that wide......
I am transitioning from a 1Ds3 where I used a 17/4 a lot (which I love)
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Isn't that the point though? That it is a special effect for most people? I certainly won't say that the 21 or 24mm summiluxes are bad lenses, they are not in any way! But the Elmars, Elmarits and Biogons ARE better optically at the apertures super wide angle lenses are mostly used for. They are also smaller, lighter and MUCH cheaper. They are a better option for almost everyone. I will be quick to note that they are not the better option for everyone, but if you do not already know that your work truly benefits from having 1.4 to 2.5 at 21-24mm, then it probably is not the best option for you. Of course, it is easy to say, well it's nice to have the security of having 1.4 in a super wide, but most photos would be better taken either with a more moderate wide angle or with a smaller aperture. Given how good the low light is on digital now, there are not that many situations where these lenses are necessary. Heck, they didn't even exist in the M system before a couple of years ago, and pretty much everyone was very happy to work with their 28/2's and 35/1.4's for the lowest light wide angle work.

Those of us with a lot of experience already know how much nicer it is to shoot with a compact, light 28mm f/2 or 35mm f/1.4 or f/2...the lenses are optically fantastic, they are light and ergonomic, they are much easier to work with since they don't have a fussy external viewfinder. It is easier to work quickly and with confidence in low light when you can focus and frame with one fluid motion. But someone just coming to the system might not know these advantages, so they just see that the 21mm and 24mm are wider and faster and more expensive, so they figure they must be better. That's not the case, and it is a road to a 7000 dollar mistake for most people! That's all I am trying to say.
Hi Stuart,

I agree overall but would say there is only one real disadvantage of the Summiluxes: price!

Yes, the 24/1.4 is bigger than a 24/2.8 bigger than a 24/3.8.
But the 24/1.4 is still small and I never found it to be a problem.

Yes, the 24/3.8 might be optically better at f5.6 or f4 than the 24/1.4 at the same f-stop, but frankly the 24/1.4 is still an excellent lens, even when closed to f4 or 5.6.
 

Y.B.Hudson III

New member
If you are interested in a fast exotic lens er car... Rent one first. Then if you fall in love with it, buy it. Others reviews live on the internet in a virtual fog!

I hope that helps, Hudson
 

francishmt

New member
For me, I find the speed of 1.4 lens at 21mm (which is what I own) is so powerful that other similar focal lens with smaller aperture but perhaps better optical quality cannot compete against. Many may prefer optical excellence including lack of distortion, coma with tack sharp corners, my personal need is just the opposite. The summilux is certainly very good and good enough for me in these criterial, and when added with 1.4 aperture, it is my most loved lens. Imagine wide angle environmental portrait with ultimate freedom on DOF... Yummy!!!!!!
 

Chuck Jones

Subscriber Member
Stuart, I'd probably have to agree with you, most people don't "need" a 24mm lens, and even fewer need a 21mm. There is no question that both of these are wide angles of view that few people would ever master using without thousands of frames shot in practice. Most people do indeed consider wide and ultra-wide angels of view to be for effects - or worse yet - simply to get a snapshot of the whole group in one frame.

For these people, your absolutely right, it is a waste of a whole lot of money. $7,000 for a lens is a serious investment, regardless of your income. I see so many people choosing lenses based upon how "sharp" they are or how much they cost. I don't want to come off here as telling anybody what they should think, or how they should think it, but I would like to point out a different perspective on how I choose my own lenses for consideration in this discussion.

The considerations of how sharp a lens is, what it's cost, weight, speed, or size may be are all secondary to me. My own first consideration is do I need that focal length to tell my story? Does adding that lens to my bag allow me options for angle of view or depth of field that I don't already have? Is the return on investment there that enhances my photography in some way that makes the investment worth it? I'm a storyteller, so does this let me tell a better story?

Since I shoot primarily to tell stories, I have the need for several focal lengths in lens options. Stories get pretty dull to me if there isn't variety. But stories only sell when they have a foundation, in this case, foundation photographs that set the location in your viewer's mind. These I always shoot wide. 21mm is my choice for this, wide enough to capture the panorama but not so wide to distort the reality if your careful using it.

I also use a 24mm. The 24 is for getting in close - close enough to smell the garlic on their breath from the pizza they ate an hour ago. If your photography isn't good, your not close enough. These tight shots add drama and emotion to your story. They're one of what I call the "personal elements" that act as highlights in every good story.

Depth of field is also a strong element I use in telling my stories. The faster the lens, the greater your ability to control your focus point and depth. In a crowed environment, an invaluable tool to have. I have two ways to isolate a subject, by choice of focal length and by choice of aperture. This is a huge advantage of owning the two f/1.4 versions to me, the flexibility. Without them, I'd loose a very valuable tool that I use in every shoot; control of my depth of view.

I just got the new Leica 21mm f/3.4 from my local dealer this last week. I already own the old 21mm f/3.4 SA, one of my favorite lenses on my M8. It is small and light - so now that my need is firmly established for a wide lens at 21mm, I'm trying to decide if I can live with the slower speed given the advantage of lower cost, smaller size, easier to focus, etc. For my reportage needs, the answer is no, I can't. It will hurt my storytelling loosing the speed, so in spite of the cost I have to use the faster Summilux glass. For the average enthusiast the f/3.4 would be perfect - for me as a professional it just doesn't fit my work.

I'd suggest the rest of you take into consideration what stories your trying to tell with your photography first, and then decide the usefulness of a fast wide angle for your own bag. It's a huge difference in cost getting that last oink out of the pig, but sometimes you've got no choice but pay the price to bring home the bacon.

Have a look on my website if you want to see some examples of how I use my wides telling my own stories. The "Send & Receive" story in particular, as I used all three lenses for it, 21 & 24 'Lux, and the new 21 f/3.4.
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
Chuck -- I don't think we are in disagreement at all. I think we are saying the exact same things from different perspectives. I was trying to say don't buy a 21 or 24mm summilux just because they are wide and because they are summiluxes, buy them if you need their very specialized abilities for your photography. Otherwise there are other lenses that tend to be much more practical for most people.

I am not sure how it was for everyone else, but I certainly noticed that as got more and more experience, the more my lens use consolidated around the normal focal lengths. I would say around 95% of my photos are now between 28 and 100mm equivalent. I don't do documentary or photojournalism though, so maybe that's the difference.
 

Jan Brittenson

Senior Subscriber Member
I bought the 35/2 which is as you describe Stuart.
The WATE looks good for my wider stuff, as I don't really need the low low light that wide......
I am transitioning from a 1Ds3 where I used a 17/4 a lot (which I love)
That's exactly what I shoot - WATE, 35/2 - and 75/2. Of these, the WATE and 35/2 are perfect for a rangefinder. A lens that can be shot at 1/12, 1/8 or with some good bracing 1/4s, f/4 is really pretty low light at ISO 400 or 640. Especially on the M9 where it's easy to lighten the shadows in post. The 35 is great for people and their immediate surroundings. The 75, as long as the subject isn't moving back and forth from the camera works very well. For closer shooting of people it's hard to beat an AF DSLR, like the a850 with a CZ 85/1.4. But personally I don't do much of that and for just isolation of static subjects the 75/2 works great.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Isn't that the point though? That it is a special effect for most people? I certainly won't say that the 21 or 24mm summiluxes are bad lenses, they are not in any way! But the Elmars, Elmarits and Biogons ARE better optically at the apertures super wide angle lenses are mostly used for.
HI Stuart - you speak as if it's a fact . . . . but it's all a matter of requirement and opinion. . . . I haven't compared MTF figures, but what I do know is that my 24 lux is really uncriticisable except for a very small amount of CA in the corners - easily to deal with. . . . and I use the wide aperture much more than I expected.

The elmarits and biogons are (as I understand it) symmetrical lenses rather than retrofocal (as are the WATE, and the 21 and 24 summiluxes). This has both advantages . . . and disadvantages - one disadvantage is that they don't work very well on small interchangeable lens cameras (whereas the retrofocal lenses do - see Cyndy's shots with the WATE on the NEX 5n for instance).

If it were me I'd go for the 24 rather than the 21, because, at a push (and with a little practice), you can use it without an external viewfinder - and for the rare occasions when I want wider, then I really don't need faster, and the WATE does a grand job for less money than the 21, and with more flexibility.

As for combinations of lenses - we all have our preferences. Most times I carry a WATE, and two bodies, one with a 50 'lux, the other with a 75 'cron. Others I'll have a 28 'cron, a 50 nocti and a 90 elmarit - all depends on the circumstances really!

here are a couple of simple shots from today with the 24 'lux



 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
With respect Jono, what I stated is a fact, not an opinion. I said that the Elmarits and Elmars perform better OPTICALLY at the apertures most use super wides for, meaning they are closer to an ideal lens (note, ideal from the perspective of physics, not any particular person's ideal). If the question is what lens is better on a Nex camera, then that is a different story. The OP asked about the M9, and that is the only one I can speak to. In any case, I am obviously in the minority about this, and I made my point, so now its up to everyone to do whatever they want. Just wanted to help someone save a few thousand dollars, assuming they did not have a very clear need for such a specialized lens!
 

jonoslack

Active member
With respect Jono, what I stated is a fact, not an opinion. I said that the Elmarits and Elmars perform better OPTICALLY at the apertures most use super wides for, meaning they are closer to an ideal lens (note, ideal from the perspective of physics, not any particular person's ideal).
Sorry Stuart - I intended no respect (just read an interesting interpretation of what Englishmen mean when they say 'with respect') :). More to the point, I did understand your point, even though you've now added some clarification.

I wasn't suggesting for a second that you should spend the extra so that you could put it on the NEX - but then I wouldn't suggest that you shouldn't spend the extra because the Elmarits and Elmars are better optically. Simply that it was an interesting consideration - in rather the same way that the optical excellence of symmetrical lenses is an interesting consideration.

I think that my feeling is that if you think that the speed might sometimes be useful, and you can afford the luxury of the lux, then it's rendition at smaller apertures is not something which should cause you too much concern!

. . . . and if I gave any offence then I apologise.

all the best
 

jonoslack

Active member
That's a nice rendition, with great looking shadows and tonality! Is it the lens or the light? It has a very soft filtered quality.
HI Jan
Well, it was pretty light - but I think it's a bit of both - I used the 24 'lux quite a bit when I first got it, then it rather fell out of favour, and now I'm rather enjoying it again - I think it has a character all of it's own, even stopped down a little.

all the best
 

Chuck Jones

Subscriber Member
Jono, in this we do agree. I've always liked the 24mm focal length for that kind of shot, and always stopped down just as you did. I think the perspective in that shot of yours is perfect. One of your best landscape images you've shown, in my opinion. Spectacular light, captured to perfection. Great work, Jono!

I'd also take issue with the statement your making Stuart about the 'Lux versions of the 21 and 24 not being up to snuff optically when compared with their slower brethren. I owned and used the 21 f/3.4 and the 24 f/2.8 ASPH for years, since it first came out in fact. It was a great lens, and my favorite on my M7 then my M8. The contrast was excellent.

The only thing I find superior myself is the newer design of the 24 f/1.4. Stopped down to f/2.8, it will kick my old Elmarit's ***. It dang near does it wide open. I find my 21 f/1.4 to be the same, superior in every regard to my old 21 f/3.4 SA and the latest 21 f/3.4, which is a great lens by the way. These lenses are incredible, in my opinion, and totally unique in their color and drawing signatures, stopped down or not. Each to me has it's own individual flavor to savor.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
I rarely consider the optical quality of when selecting from any of the current Leica M lenses. (I think they are all great and my IQ will benefit more from better technique than from differences between the lenses). I shoot primarily street and travel . Selecting the FOV that works for you is most critical and this often related to what other lenses you will be carrying and if you work with one or two bodies . Plenty of posts available on setting up the best focal lengths for a specific situation.

But assuming that you decide ..I really need a 21 . The trade offs are cost ,size and speed. I really like the 21/2.8 asph ..its been one of my favorite lenses since the M8 (where it got a work out as my 28FOV) .....but I found it too slow for a lot of situations. I also have a WATE . What a great lens with 16-18-21 all in a small size ..but its too slow for street . (wonderful for travel) . So the 21/1.4asph is expensive and larger but until Leica makes an M that has clean ISO1600 and handles ISO3200 ...I need the speed.

I want a smaller 21 and this winter I will work with the 21/3.4asph in Florida where most of the time I will have good light ..

As always these discussions depend on the individuals requirements and are very hard to generalize .
 

fotografz

Well-known member
If you see wide ... go W I D E.

If you have the need, the need for speed ... go FAST

The 21/1.4 is the fastest of the wides.

When they brought out the 24/1.4, there was no 21/1.4. When I got the 21/1.4, I stopped using my 24/1.4 ... then sold it.

It seems that every time I've had a slower lens mounted, I end up someplace where I need a faster one. You can stop down a fast lens, you can't open a slow lens to f/1.4.

It's not just a matter of throwing the background OOF, it's a matter of enough light.

Get the 21/1.4 ... it's unique.

-Marc
 

Chuck Jones

Subscriber Member
I rarely consider the optical quality of when selecting from any of the current Leica M lenses. (I think they are all great and my IQ will benefit more from better technique than from differences between the lenses). I shoot primarily street and travel . Selecting the FOV that works for you is most critical and this often related to what other lenses you will be carrying and if you work with one or two bodies . Plenty of posts available on setting up the best focal lengths for a specific situation.

But assuming that you decide ..I really need a 21 . The trade offs are cost ,size and speed. I really like the 21/2.8 asph ..its been one of my favorite lenses since the M8 (where it got a work out as my 28FOV) .....but I found it too slow for a lot of situations. I also have a WATE . What a great lens with 16-18-21 all in a small size ..but its too slow for street . (wonderful for travel) . So the 21/1.4asph is expensive and larger but until Leica makes an M that has clean ISO1600 and handles ISO3200 ...I need the speed.

I want a smaller 21 and this winter I will work with the 21/3.4asph in Florida where most of the time I will have good light ..

As always these discussions depend on the individuals requirements and are very hard to generalize .
Roger, I'm going to be very interested to hear what you think of the new 21 f/3.4. David said you just got yours as well. I've had the chance to shoot it now on one job, and honestly wish I had shot my 21 'Lux instead. I had good light, so felt the slower speed was fine. But once I opened up the day's take on my screen, I found the big difference.

It seems to me that Leica goes to great length in the 21mm 'Lux to not only provide a fast lens, but also a lens that is very well corrected in the center. You get the "womp" of the 21mm focal length at the edges with the 'Lux, and enjoy a very sweetly corrected center. On the f/3.4, you get the opposite. It's got great edges, and barrel in the center. I will be very interested to hear what your own thoughts are on yours.

I guess the extra $4,000 does buy you something more than just a couple stops of speed...
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Chuck

You have gone thru a lot of leica glass and first impressions are often pretty accurate . I could tell for example that the new 35 1.4 asph FLE is as good as it gets in a 35mm FOV. But I have also confused higher contrast with better IQ (e.g 50 lux verse 50 cron) .

But if I am working with most of Leica s newer lenses ... it often comes down to splitting hairs when debating IQ. I can easily see the differences between the pre asph lenses and the current offerings .

I am hoping the new 21/3.4 asph is a good match for the Florida light ..I will know in a few weeks .
 
R

Rob Martin

Guest
Well, I've bought the WATE, have a 21/4 on order, missed one by a day, and have the 50 lux and 35 cron .... this will do for now....

great discussion by all, much appreciated

Rob
 

jonoslack

Active member
Well, I've bought the WATE, have a 21/4 on order, missed one by a day, and have the 50 lux and 35 cron .... this will do for now....

great discussion by all, much appreciated

Rob
Congratulations - the WATE is fab - and I'm sure also the 21/4 (although slightly confused why you need both . . .do you mean 21 f1/4?).
 
Top