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!

which 24 or 28 mm lens ...

Godfrey

Well-known member
All perfectly reasonable. And, in the end, whatever you feel works best for your photography is all that's important.

(The imperfections of film and processing are indeed some of the reasons I still love shooting with film. The malleability and capability of digital capture is what draws me to it when it's appropriate to my intent... )

Thanks!
 
Last edited:

Godfrey

Well-known member
Thought I'd add a follow-up, lots of good information in this thread.

I've been out shooting with the M9 and the Color-Skopar 28mm lens the past week. A handy, nice feeling package. And carrying alongside it my M4-2 fitted with Color-Skopar 35mm or 50mm.

The recommendation to try the lens code for the Leica Elmarit-M 28mm f/2.8 ASPH on the M9/28 ... that's a magic trick, it corrects most of the Color-Skopar 28's tendency to color shift and vignette on the M9 sensor. And the lens profile for the same lens in Lightroom does a good number on rectilinear correction as well.

But ... there's always a 'but' ... what I find is that the 35 and 50mm lenses are more comfortable to use on the M9 unless I fit an accessory optical finder. I simply can't seen the frame lines or edges of the finder accurately enough with anything wider than 35mm with this body to frame accurately, it's always a guess. This is because of my glasses ... they push my eye too far back for the M9 finder and 28mm lenses. The accessory optical finder slows me down—not necessarily a bad thing, but there are times when it's quite inconvenient.

The difference between the M9 and M4-2 finders is marked: the M4-2 finder presents larger, clearer frame lines and a cleaner focusing patch. It makes no pretense about 28mm coverage so I have to use the accessory finder with it to get good framing accuracy. But the other difference between the M9 and M4-2 is also striking: the fact that once I load a roll of ACROS 100 film in the M4-2 I am stuck with one ISO for 36 shots is limiting, and the fact that I have to manually wind the shutter after every shot is another limitation. Having the choice of ISO and the motorized shutter re-cocking in the M9 makes me like using it more despite the extra bulk.

So you folks may have saved me a couple of grand for a new lens. I'm more comfortable when using either camera with the 50 or 35 lenses, the Color-Skopar 28 with the right lens code works beautifully on the M9. When I want wider (or longer than 50mm), the A7 and E-M1 do better. I already have the right lenses for those.

But that Super Elmar 24 and Summicron 28 do look appealing still. There's no rush... ]'-)

**
Yes, sometimes the older lenses' imaging make a difference that pleases. This is why I still love my ancient Hektor 135 and not quite as ancient M-Rokkor 90. And the modern Color-Skopar lenses ... their character reminds me much more of the older Leica lenses but with more modern flare control.
**


Leica M9 + Color-Skopar 28mm f/3.5
ISO 320 @ f/3.5 @ 1/30 second

So many fine ways to run this stuff. I'd like to have either of the Summicron 28 or Elmar 24 lenses. But a decision to buy one of them is going to be on hold until at least after I get back from my Hawaii vacation (leaving Thursday)...

Now what camera will I pack for Hawaii? Hmm... ?

G
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
By the way, is there a similar magic lens code for the Color Skopar 21mm f/4? I love my Color Skopar collection... :)

G
 

lecycliste

New member
Re: which 24 or 28 mm lens ...0.0

I have the Voigtländer Color-Skopar 28mm f/3.5 lens, which I really love for film M-mount cameras but has some imaging issues on the M9 and A7, and the Ultron 28mm f/2, which only does "okay" on either film or digital cameras.

As a thought experiment, if one were to want a Leica 24 or 28 mm lens to replace the Ultron for use on the M9 or M(Type 240), which one would you go for of the following and why:

Summilux-M 24mm f/1.4
Elmarit-M 24mm f/2.8
Super Elmar-M 24mm f/3.8
Summicron-M 28mm f/2
Elmarit-M 28mm f/2.8

I don't know that I really want to buy another M lens at the moment, but if I'm going to keep the M9, I'd like a 24-28 mm lens that performed with fewer problems.

Thanks!
Godfrey, I don't know if you're still looking at this very old thread, but I recently purchased a used 24mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH from lensauthority.com, for around 52% of the new price. I love the way it renders on an SL. When my M10 comes back from repair at Steve's Camera Repair Center in Culver City later this week (cracked main viewfinder window), I'll let you know how it performs with a rangefinder.

It's likely to block quite a bit of the viewfinder window on the M10. I'll be using it with the visoflex 020 EVF as a viewfinder after focusing with the rangefinder.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Re: which 24 or 28 mm lens ...0.0

Godfrey, I don't know if you're still looking at this very old thread, but I recently purchased a used 24mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH from lensauthority.com, for around 52% of the new price. I love the way it renders on an SL. When my M10 comes back from repair at Steve's Camera Repair Center in Culver City later this week (cracked main viewfinder window), I'll let you know how it performs with a rangefinder.

It's likely to block quite a bit of the viewfinder window on the M10. I'll be using it with the visoflex 020 EVF as a viewfinder after focusing with the rangefinder.
This thread was an eon ago... :)

I've kept the Color Skopar 28mm f/3.5 and use it on the M-D 262 now, it does a great job for B&W, not so good for color.
For most of my color ultra-wide work, I now use a WATE... Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21mm f/4. A brilliant lens! Works very well on M or SL bodies.

The 'Lux 24/1.4 is a lovely piece for sure, but I've got all the lenses I want/need now. :D

G
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Re: which 24 or 28 mm lens ...0.0

Godfrey, it is never too late to change your mind...equipment is transitory. :toocool:
It is certainly true. And I've changed my mind quite often, after a period of using particular pieces of equipment selling them off to buy other pieces of equipment that were new-found to be more suitable as my intent, project, and ideas change.

My current trend is away from more lenses and larger equipment to smaller, lighter, more portable gear. My M setup has in it very nice lenses with focal lengths from 16mm to 135mm; I use the 35 and 50 mm lenses more than 90% of the time now. Most of the time, I even forget I have the 28, the 75, the 90, and the 135. My SL languishes in its storage cabinet, mostly being taken out for use when doing tabletop and the rare moments I want long tele; frankly, my Olympus E-M1 does those things with equal facility.

In fact, most of the time I carry the Light L16 or a Polaroid SX-70 and my iPhone ... and that's proving to be more than enough for a tremendous lot of what I want to photograph these days.

So I really do have "all the lenses I want/need now", at least for right now. What the future holds is not knowable until it becomes the present. :D

G
 

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
When I saw this thread wake up, I was going to put in a word for the 24 Elmarit-asph. It's surprisingly sharp and contrasty, and has excellent colors. And I seldom use it. But I see that the OP has already settled on a 24 Summilux-asph, FLE... When the 21 and 24 SXs came out I read spec sheets for a while and decided that the 21 was the more successful design of the two. But it proved to be way too big and heavy for comfortable use on an M body, and has some bad habits contre-jour and near the edges that have to be avoided. The 21 Super-Elmar proved to be its opposite, and has gotten quite a bit of use around buildings under construction and in tight spaces. With the excellent viewfinders available on the SL and CL, these lenses are getting more use in general.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
When I saw this thread wake up, I was going to put in a word for the 24 Elmarit-asph. It's surprisingly sharp and contrasty, and has excellent colors. And I seldom use it. But I see that the OP has already settled on a 24 Summilux-asph, FLE... When the 21 and 24 SXs came out I read spec sheets for a while and decided that the 21 was the more successful design of the two. But it proved to be way too big and heavy for comfortable use on an M body, and has some bad habits contre-jour and near the edges that have to be avoided. The 21 Super-Elmar proved to be its opposite, and has gotten quite a bit of use around buildings under construction and in tight spaces. With the excellent viewfinders available on the SL and CL, these lenses are getting more use in general.
hmm. I was the OP. I first tried the Elmar-M 24/3.8 ASPH, which I thought was a lovely lens but found I didn't use it much. I traded that, in part, for the Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21mm f/4 ASPH (WATE), which is a brilliant lens that I've used a good bit.

G
 

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
hmm. I was the OP. I first tried the Elmar-M 24/3.8 ASPH, which I thought was a lovely lens but found I didn't use it much. I traded that, in part, for the Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21mm f/4 ASPH (WATE), which is a brilliant lens that I've used a good bit.

G
I should have refereed to the NP, the new poster who woke up the thread. But I agree that with all the attention going to new wide zooms for the CL and SL, the WATE is probably a rare bargain by now.
 

algrove

Well-known member
My current answer to the original question--have both.

I mainly like the 24 for the street. I also like the 28 for landscape and street on occasion. Wider I use an 18 or R19.
 
Top