21 1.4 or 24 1.4 anyone try these yet.

[jaymz007]

I am wondering which one to get 21 1.4 or 24 1.4.
My set consists of 35 lux, 50 lux, 75 summicron.
I shot indoors and low light. available light. do not like to use flash or lighting.
I just like to see if anyone has any real world samples of these two lens and how they feel about each one.
Thanks
James

 

[Stuart Richardson]

I think you are better off picking based on focal length rather than on performance -- the lenses are fairly similar designs. Personally, I prefer the 24mm focal length, but lots of people like wider! I think 24 pairs very well with 35mm...

 

[jeffreytotaro]

Another thing to consider is that the 21 needs an external viewfinder and the 24 does not. I rather like using the 21 with the VF since I wear glasses I find it easier to see and it is brighter than the rangefinder in the M8. There's the trouble of focusing with the RF and then composing with the VF. Personal choice but a necessary consideration. You can get the Cosina Voigtlander 28mm VF which works well with the 21 for a lot less than the Leica VF.

 

[TimothyHyde]

Actually, the 24 1.4 works a lot better with the external finder. I've never been comfortable using external viewfinders before, but I bought the new one for the 24 (brutally expensive, but a real beauty) and use it most of time. These focal lengths accommodate zone focus well, so the kit becomes fairly fast to use at, say, f8. Wide open, my personal routine so far is to frame with the finder first, then zero in the focus; at other f-stops my sequence is reversed.

 

[jaymz007]

Thanks everyone for your input.
I just like to see some images side by side if possible.
Thanks
Jaymz

 

[glenerrolrd]

There are several good sources ..Reid Reports ..a pay site has an excellent write up on both lenses with plenty of tests. You can see what Erwin Puts wrote on his reviews (free) and the article in LFI shows examples.

The results in summary...both are fantastic lenses and very comparable to your exist 35/1.4 . They were designed together by the same design team and have similar formulas and MTf charts. Personally it would be hard to say one is better than the other..they are both the best available at their focal length.

Two issues both noted above should help you decide:

1. The 24/1.4 may handle a little better if you can use the M8 with the 24 framelines. (some eyeglass wearers have difficulty and end up with an external finder anyway). You buy this glass to use wide open (otherwise buy the 21 or 24 elmarits for less than 50%) . You can frame and focus accurately without an external finder using the 24.

2. The FOV is normally the most important factor with Leica M glass(its all good)..the 21 provides the traditional 28mm preferred by street shooters . The widest I can go without worrying too much about distortion issues . The 24 is really a 32FOV not all that wide but a favorite for most M photographers.

I went with the 21 for the field of view. You can see my thread on the 21/1.4 in Paris. On my website you can find about 100 street images from Paris most with the 21 or 35 summiluxes..you can see they work well together .

 

[Stuart Richardson]

Also, I don't think you are going to find many people with both, as who spends 12,000 dollars on two lenses right next to each other in focal length? The reviews Roger mentioned are your best bet.

 

[Paratom]

I am tempted by those lenses as well but when deciding I think we should keep in mind some M9 which might be full frame might appear.
So I wouldnt only select based on the M8-crop factor but also how it would work for you on full frame.
The othr question is how often do we need f1.4 when these are used as real wideangle?
For my part I will wait and see until the M9 is out.

 

[glenerrolrd]

I am tempted by those lenses as well but when deciding I think we should keep in mind some M9 which might be full frame might appear.
So I wouldnt only select based on the M8-crop factor but also how it would work for you on full frame.
The othr question is how often do we need f1.4 when these are used as real wideangle?
For my part I will wait and see until the M9 is out.

With the M8 you need 1.4 to have a full range of effective EV s . The 21mm focal length is my most used accounting for about 25% of my street images. The size and handling are the only issues with the 21/1.4 and once I start using it .....I forget the size and a it works seamlessly with the 35 1.4 on a 2nd body.

I still have the 21/2.8 elmarit and the zeiss 21/2.8 and use them in certain situations. The 21/2.8 asph is just as good except its 2 stops slower. I have tried to use the 21/2.8 as my sunny day alternative and when I want to carry less (both weight and $$$). Just finished a week in San Francisco and I lost too many images to changing light where I needed the extra 2 stops of the 1.4. Hard to do street work at less than 1/125 .

Interesting(maybe?) but I tend to focus on a point where action may peak and then wait. So I generally see a opportunity(great light,clean background)....watch how people move through a location and prefocus on a spot. This is the only way I have found effective to focus at 1.4 on a moving subject. See the picture of the two dogs in the post on the 21/1.4 in Paris.

It is a fair point that the 24/1.4 would be a better choice on FF and I would actually go back to the 28/2 summicron. But then I would probably complain about the lack of reach with the 135apo ?

The new lenses are the best news out of Solms since the M8.

 

[Paratom]

....
It is a fair point that the 24/1.4 would be a better choice on FF and I would actually go back to the 28/2 summicron. But then I would probably complain about the lack of reach with the 135apo ?

The new lenses are the best news out of Solms since the M8.

I am not even sure if the 24/1.4 would be the better choice (for my taste) for FF.
My most used lenses with the M8 are the 28/2.0, the 50/1.4, 75/2.5 and the WATE.
If I use the WATE I often go for 16mm which would translate to 21mm in FF-world.
Now in FF the 35/1.4asph could be the lens which would be used instead of my 28/2.0 (but then there is the focus shift problem of the 35asph/1.4).
I could use a 21 or 24 mm prime instead of the WATE.
I have used the M6 with film a lot with 21,35 and 90.

But again, when 21 or 24 are used as superwides - is f1.4 that important any more? I dont know yet.

I think its much more important when one uses it on the M8 as a 28/35mm lens.

 

[jaymz007]

Thanks you every one for your input and post.
I think I better save more money and wait for that M9 full frame and then decide.