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!
24 mm Lux
- Thread starter Woody Campbell
- Start date
Woody Campbell
Workshop Member
The bokeh is very similar (possibly by design) to the f1.0 version Nocti that I owned at one point - I sold it because at F1.0 I couldn't reliably focus it. People love it or hate it. Like the Nocti it is inconsistent - on the two Guggenheim details and the parade bokeh is reasonably smooth (but not as creamy as my 35 chron v 4); in the phone and the "digital prints" it looks like a double image. Has anyone with experience with this lens or the Nocti figured this out? Maybe the double image look kicks in at very close focus. I'll experiment.
Last edited:
jaapv
Subscriber Member
The D-Lux 4 one.
innerimager
Member
Commenting on the bokeh issue, in regard to my experience with the 21 lux, I agree that this is not a strong point of the lens. Having recently acquired the 35mm pre-asph cron version IV I can't resist saying "I have met the bokeh King, and you sir, are not him" to my 21 lux. But this goes beyond that comparison. I do find that often, but not always, the bokeh is a bit busy and edgy. While I do prefer a more rounded and smooth look in OOF in general, I have to say that in many instances the edginess adds to the dynamic feeling of the 21 lux, so that I often find it to be a contributing factor to the energy of the image even if I wouldn't show the OOF area itself as a crop and say...wow, what gorgeous bokeh, as I might with many other lenses, including my last version 50/1.0 pre-asph. I disagree that my 21 lux OOF looks a lot like my noctilux anyway. best....Peter
Thanks Woody, Peter and All for your response to my observations regarding the OOF areas and bokeh of the 21 & 24mm Luxes. I agree, ti does appear to be fussy (busy) at times. A bit different than the 50mm f1.0 pre asph Noct I used to have, but clearly not as smooth or like some of the usual fast lenses we associate with nice bokeh. Still as Peter says, in some images, it lends to the lenses signature and of course these lenses have so many other positive attributes. Something to look forward to maybe aquiring in the future. Thanks again!
Dave (D&A)
Dave (D&A)
Congrats Woody. The more you play with this lens the more you'll get out of it. :thumbs:
My main motivation for the 24/1.4 LUX was to use a lower ISO is dark available light situations I face frequently in my paying work. I just use a WATE when the light is good.
My expectations were mostly driven by that need, and I didn't really think that this would be a Bokeh champion when it so damned sharp at close focusing distances ... pretty hard to accomplish both with a super-wide I would think. However, knowing that going in, one can take it into account and try to compose so the OOF areas are more distant to somewhat counteract the floating element's effect on things just beyond the field of focus. I've attached a job shot, and a test shot.
I've been so impressed with this lens that I stoled money from my MFD fund and ordered the 21 Lux so I have 2 ranges of lens line-up: 21,28.50, 90 ... or 24, 35. 75
:ROTFL:
My main motivation for the 24/1.4 LUX was to use a lower ISO is dark available light situations I face frequently in my paying work. I just use a WATE when the light is good.
My expectations were mostly driven by that need, and I didn't really think that this would be a Bokeh champion when it so damned sharp at close focusing distances ... pretty hard to accomplish both with a super-wide I would think. However, knowing that going in, one can take it into account and try to compose so the OOF areas are more distant to somewhat counteract the floating element's effect on things just beyond the field of focus. I've attached a job shot, and a test shot.
I've been so impressed with this lens that I stoled money from my MFD fund and ordered the 21 Lux so I have 2 ranges of lens line-up: 21,28.50, 90 ... or 24, 35. 75
:ROTFL:
Double Negative
Not Available
Great stuff, Woody. Thanks for sharing!
I have to agree with Peter and others about the wiry or "nervous" bokeh in some cases. But the lens(es) definitely seem sharp, contrasty, have lovely color - and of course go to f/1.4! On an M8, I can see the 1,4/24 as a fantastic combo for myself (mostly because the lens equates to a nice 35mm focal length in film and is bright enough for darker scenes). On an M9/film, I'd probably lean more towards the 35 or 50 Lux. But, I love my wides!
If you don't need the speed and want practically distortion-free, super sharp and punchy shots; check out the 2,8/25 ZM. Naturally, my biggest complaint with this lens is that it's "only" an f/2.8 - but it has neither stopped me from using it, nor enjoying it's fantastic imaging qualities.
As for this 24 Lux, I'll be keeping my eye on these...
Ahh, so many lenses - so little time!
I have to agree with Peter and others about the wiry or "nervous" bokeh in some cases. But the lens(es) definitely seem sharp, contrasty, have lovely color - and of course go to f/1.4! On an M8, I can see the 1,4/24 as a fantastic combo for myself (mostly because the lens equates to a nice 35mm focal length in film and is bright enough for darker scenes). On an M9/film, I'd probably lean more towards the 35 or 50 Lux. But, I love my wides!
If you don't need the speed and want practically distortion-free, super sharp and punchy shots; check out the 2,8/25 ZM. Naturally, my biggest complaint with this lens is that it's "only" an f/2.8 - but it has neither stopped me from using it, nor enjoying it's fantastic imaging qualities.
As for this 24 Lux, I'll be keeping my eye on these...
Ahh, so many lenses - so little time!
GrahamWelland
Subscriber & Workshop Member
The latest crop of Summilux's are definitely very impressive lenses. It's just a shame that you need a ski mask and/or Ponzi scheme to afford them. Ditto the viewfinders btw.
I originally had the new Leica 24mm viewfinder (which is great btw) but when I went with the 21 'lux instead of the 24 I changed over to the very impressive Zeiss. I swear that this thing amplifies the light ...
I originally had the new Leica 24mm viewfinder (which is great btw) but when I went with the 21 'lux instead of the 24 I changed over to the very impressive Zeiss. I swear that this thing amplifies the light ...
Double Negative
Not Available
^ I can't speak of the Leica finders, but the Zeiss... Wow. Huge, bright, clear. I think they got it down to a science - the built-in finder of the Ikon is equally sweet. Though admittedly, I'm not a fan of external finders in general, regardless of merit.
Lloyd
Active member
+1, on all counts... :thumbup: on the shots and performance, :thumbdown: on the "unattainable" status for me.Beautiful shots Woody. The colors and sharpness are amazing!! Subject separation wide open is also unreal.......... but for >$5000, I would expect nothing less.
IN summary, this is another addition to my "unattainable" lens lust file.
Woody Campbell
Workshop Member
Two more from my daily blog from Manhattan. Both shot with the 24 Lux.
This one is a two frame stitch.
This one is a two frame stitch.
Woody Campbell
Workshop Member
Three from New Orleans, also from my daily blog.
The third image is a good test of the purple fringing issue. Indeed, as Guy suggested, doing the conversion in C1 eliminates the issue.
The third image is a good test of the purple fringing issue. Indeed, as Guy suggested, doing the conversion in C1 eliminates the issue.
Lloyd
Active member
Impressive results (these and those above). Remarkable results from this lens. Makes my wallet cry.
Woody, great stuff. This is my favorite lens. I coughed up the change to get it because I knew that I would love it, considering how much I have loved the Canon 24/1.4. In fact, I sold my Canon gear to get this lens and haven't regretted it one bit.
On the M9, this lens is worth *every penny.*
As for the viewfinder, I find that I can approximate quite fine just using the full FOV of the M9 finder. It's not perfect, but its close enough, and I just chimp to verify.
Jeff
On the M9, this lens is worth *every penny.*
As for the viewfinder, I find that I can approximate quite fine just using the full FOV of the M9 finder. It's not perfect, but its close enough, and I just chimp to verify.
Jeff
m_driscoll
New member
Woody: Great images! I'm going to have to try the stitch. The last photo of the church is exceptional. Like Jeff, i skip the viewer, and just shoot. The viewer seems to get in the way of the process. Cheers, Matt.
http://mdriscoll.zenfolio.com
http://mdriscoll.zenfolio.com
Double Negative
Not Available
Woody, is that second shot Café Du Monde?
Excellent shots. This lens is looking really sweet.
Excellent shots. This lens is looking really sweet.
I just recently got the 24mm f/1.4L Mark II myself (having wanted it forever) along with other L primes... And I'm sorely tempted to do the same. Don't get me wrong, I love my Canon gear. But it's so bulky and heavy and honestly, the bodies lately just don't do it for me anymore. I still have my 1D Mark IIn that I can't be bothered to upgrade. The only camera that might keep me in the ring is the 1Ds Mark IV (which is due out Any Time Now(TM) supposedly).