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?

R

Rob Martin

Guest
I am going to buy one or the other.
Can I use the 21 without an additional VF?
I am using on my new M9, learning the ropes so to speak...

Rob
 

Paratom

Well-known member
the widest frames inside the M9 are for 28mm.
I would use an external viewfinder for either of those 2 lenses.
 
You need an external viewfinder in a any case. The 24 is in my view too close to the 28 and for this reason I choose the Summilux 21.
Very good lens if you like to isolate your main subject using the shallow depth of field ( ND filter is recommended in daylight); for general use is quite large and heavy.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
24 can be used without viewfinder in a M9 but the frame lines only go to 28 so it's not super accurate without a VF. IMO if your shoot without glasses the whole frame is pretty close to 24 or 25mm FOV. 24 is pretty close to 28 but it's better for me as 28 is never wide enough to me and too close to 35. I say if you're going to go wide then go wide. 21 is good to and just wide enough that pictures normally don't look too distorted or unnatural in the 3:2 aspect ratio. 24 looks more natural to my eyes though in a 3:2 though.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Leica is across the board superb..so the decision comes down to three key questions :

1. Which field of view best supports the type of work you enjoy . I organize my lenses for each shoot based on the type of subject,light and environment (really often how close will I be to the subject) . I normally start with the 28 ,then the 50 . So going wider means I would choose the 21. If you want to build around the 35 then the 24 works best .

2. Speed/size/rendering trade offs...normally I am concerned about “do I have enough speed” at dawn or dusk you can really appreciate the summiluxes . The trade off is size and weight ...the 21 summilux is as big and heavy as the 90 summicron ...not a problem if I plan to be using it frequently but a pain if its the 3rd or 4th most used lens in my kit . Rendering differences also come into play .. the summiluxes have some field curvature and edge sharpness weaknesses that impact architecture,landscape etc . If choosing between the two summiluxes (21/24) I cant find any differences . They were designed at the same time by PK and render in a similar fashion. But don t expect the 21 summilux to outperform the 21/3.4 SE just because its more expensive . Another alternative if you plan on having a large kit is to alternate based on rendering ..so a 21/3.4SE and a 24/1.4LUX or a 21/1.4LUX and a 24/3.8E .

3. Cost ..no difference .

Long answer but it will depend most on whether you use a 28 or a 35 as your primary WA. If you use a 50 ..even the 24 maybe too wide.

Both lenses really deliver if you enjoy street shooting or any form of candid available light work .
 

Chuck Jones

Subscriber Member
Rob, that is a tough call. I've got them both presently, along with the 28mm 'Cron. Edge distortion on the 21, as you would expect, can be more extreme depending upon subject placement. I personally use an external view finder most of the time, but I find that to be an asset more than a detriment. Especially using the 21mm. The 24mm I can get away just using the edges of the viewfinder frame, but as already mentioned it is not the most accurate by any means. I think you will want the external finder with either of them.

That said, the image quality from both lenses is excellent. Sharp, even wide open, in both cases. Micro contrast is over the top great. Close focus distance is about the same. They are so close in focal length that I would suggest you probably will not need or want both. So my suggestion would be to decide what other lenses you plan to use and then decide which one to choose. In my own case, I own and love the 28mm, so keeping the 21mm makes more sense for me.

If I was shooting mainly a 35mm, and did not plan on buying a 28mm, then the 24mm probably makes more sense. The 24mm and the 28mm are so close in focal length you won't want them both. But the gap between 24mm and 35mm is just about perfect in my experience.

Since both are so wide, think in terms of pairing would be my suggestion. 21 & 28, or 24 & 35 make the most comfortable pairs I find for me. In either case, whichever choice you end up making you can't go wrong. Both are superb optics.
 

Chuck Jones

Subscriber Member
Leica is across the board superb..so the decision comes down to three key questions :

1. Which field of view best supports the type of work you enjoy . I organize my lenses for each shoot based on the type of subject,light and environment (really often how close will I be to the subject) . I normally start with the 28 ,then the 50 . So going wider means I would choose the 21. If you want to build around the 35 then the 24 works best .

2. Speed/size/rendering trade offs...normally I am concerned about “do I have enough speed” at dawn or dusk you can really appreciate the summiluxes . The trade off is size and weight ...the 21 summilux is as big and heavy as the 90 summicron ...not a problem if I plan to be using it frequently but a pain if its the 3rd or 4th most used lens in my kit . Rendering differences also come into play .. the summiluxes have some field curvature and edge sharpness weaknesses that impact architecture,landscape etc . If choosing between the two summiluxes (21/24) I cant find any differences . They were designed at the same time by PK and render in a similar fashion. But don t expect the 21 summilux to outperform the 21/3.4 SE just because its more expensive . Another alternative if you plan on having a large kit is to alternate based on rendering ..so a 21/3.4SE and a 24/1.4LUX or a 21/1.4LUX and a 24/3.8E .

3. Cost ..no difference .

Long answer but it will depend most on whether you use a 28 or a 35 as your primary WA. If you use a 50 ..even the 24 maybe too wide.

Both lenses really deliver if you enjoy street shooting or any form of candid available light work .
Dang Roger, you have faster typing fingers than I do! But you need to get your speed up even faster, so I could just have typed something like "Yea, what Roger said!" :ROTFL:
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
I am always looking for clever ways to justify having more Leica glass ...so I follow all the arguments .

What does surprise me is that wherever I am shooting there is normally one set of lenses that best match the requirements . For example if I can easily get very close then I prefer the 21 ..so in NYC a 21 is a great fit . But in Florida its normally less crowded and even a 24 feels too wide ..there I like a 28 or even a 35 as my widest lens. Point being it often depends on where you are shooting.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
The gap between the 50 and a 21 is probably too large unless you plan to add a 28 or 35 in the future. Personally I like the 21/28/50 spread of focal lengths but the 24/35/50 is also popular . If its only 2 then the 24 /50 can work .

Also keep in mind that the 24 will be a little easier to use as the focal length creates less distortion when the camera isn t perfectly square to the subject . I would go with the 24 and save the 21 for maybe the 21/3.4 SE in the future if you really enjoy the super wides . or you could go even wider with the 18/24/35 as a future kit along with the 50.

You can t get hurt to bad with either the 21 or 24 summiluxes ..they are always in short supply and can be sold easily if your kit changes .
 

Chuck Jones

Subscriber Member
Roger, again we agree. I'm normally a 21/28/50 spread shooter, with the 28 my normal primary. On film, the 24 was my go to lens for years. I've worked with the 21 for awhile now, and today find that I like getting real wide for a lot of the type of work I'm doing now. I agree completely that it really does depend upon the kind of shooting your mainly doing Rob that should dictate your choice. The 24 probably being both an easier lens to use, and a more useful focal length as an all around shooter given you are pairing it with a 50.
 

CharlesK

New member
My favourite travel kit for now is the 24, 50 and 75 Lux:) I do also have the 35 Lux Asph II and 28, 90 Cron AA. But for the style of shooting I prefer this range, and has the ability for low light shots too. I only other lens I carry now as a backup is the 35 Lux Asph II.

I was originally on a wait list for 21 SEM, but both the 21 and 24 Lux became available, so I eventually decided on the 24 Lux, as it is not so extreme as the 21, and I found that I could use it more often to fill in for the 28 Cron, and in a pinch I don't not need an external VF, but I do prefer using one. I have the CV 21/25 finder, cheaper, but is great for composing WA shots, as you have the peripheral view with the 21 lines.

The only problem I see is the choice of outstanding lenses, which no doubt makes it difficult to make a decision. Good Luck:)
 

Paratom

Well-known member
My thoughts when deciding for the 24lux were:
1) I want to use it for shallow DOF sometimes (main reason for 1.4 for me), and that means one has to focus accurate-and therefore 24 would be easier to use with the internal viewfinder here and then when shooting wide open.
Because when you first focus and then switch to external finder for framing you might loose focus again

2) I wanted to use it for "dynamic spontanious images" and thought 24mm is easier to handle than 21mm.

Having said that I still kept a 21/2.8 and for some subjects I find the 21 more interesting. In my opinion 21 is a real ultrawide, 24 is more something in between.
Not an easy decission, but I think f1.4 is more usefull in a 24mm lens then in a 21mm lens.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Would also agree that the 24 is more versatile on a FF M than the 21. Especially the 1.4/24!

A 1.4/24 lens is one of my standard lenses in all systems (where available), but especially the M 1.4/24 shines because of Leica quality AND compactness!
 
R

Rob Martin

Guest
I have a 24/1.4 new available and I see a 35 lux for sale (latest)
I want the wider angle for landscape stuff......
35 seems to be at quite a premium....
decisions......
 
S

swamiji

Guest
I went for the 24mm Lux, because there is no 28mm Lux. I have a WATE, and that provides for 21mm and wider but at f4. I discovered that anything wider than 24mm is increasingly difficult to manage. 24mm still is not all that easy, but more controllable.
 

250swb

Member
I would buy the 21mm if I were you. The 24mm is a 'so what' type of lens, neither here nor there, pretty much like the 75mm at the other end of the scale. The 24mm is neither a proper super wide, which starts at 21mm , nor far enough away from a 28mm, which because of Leica's framelines is a sensible lens to have in a set anyway. And it fits into the 21, 28, 50, 90 sequence that sets a sensible gap in between lenses. If we accept a 50mm is a stock lens the only sequence in the bag a 24mm fits into is 24, 35, 50, 90, but that means the 35 is only a few steps away from the 50mm, literally two or three steps or strides.

But in either case a separate viewfinder is essential, there isn't much point in spending so much on a lens and then guessing. And if you don't desperately need the speed, considering that unlike a film camera you can easily change the ISO on your new M9 to compensate for low light, what about the new 21mm SEM?

Steve
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
This may be too late, but I would say if you are still learning the ropes, as you say, then steer clear of the 21mm and 24mm summiluxes. They are very expensive, wider than is required for most work, bulky and not as good optically as their smaller, cheaper lighter brethren. If you are looking in these focal lenghts, consider the 21 or 25mm Biogons, which are f/2.8, and optically equal to the Leica Elmarits. Or, if it must be Leica, consider the 21mm Elmarit ASPH, 24mm Elmarit ASPH or the 24mm Elmar. They are all more compact and perform better than the summiluxes. If you are really looking for a low light wide angle, the 28mm Summicron and 35mm Summilux are better options outside of very specialized situations (i.e. if you don't already KNOW you need the lens, then you probably don't need it). You could buy three Zeiss lenses that perform better optically for the price of one of the super wide summiluxes, so that is something to consider.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Personally I had 21/2.8, 24/2.8 and 28/2.0 mm wides for the M9.
About 2 years ago I repplaced the 24/2.8 with an 24/1.4. There is a special look when using this lens wide open and having shallow DOF in an wide angle lens.
The first year I used this a lot because it waqs a new "effect" for me.
I admit though that still 35 and 50 are my most used focal length and are much easier to frame.

I would not worry about the optical quality of the Summilux being "less perfect" than the Elmarits/Elmars because it is still very good and I like the rendering.
For shallow DOF f1.4 vs f2.8 makes quite a difference - but it is a lot of money to pay for that difference.
 
Last edited:
Top