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
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!
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
The 28/Cron is my favorite lens this side of tech cameras. It's balance of sharpness and character is in my experience unequaled. (OK, maybe the 50/Lux preASPH, but I don't shoot 50 that often). If only I could see the frame lines! In fairness, I have not shot with the other 28s on your list. I didn't even keep the Leica 24 - the only M lens I've sold, as I don't use that FoV that much. If I want to go wider than 28, I end up with a Zeiss 21.

Example of 28/Cron, M9, Silver FX:


Best,

Matt
 
Last edited:

iiiNelson

Well-known member
24 Elmar is excellent across the frame and by f/5.6 pretty much the whole frame beyond 5 ft or so is in focus (if memory serves correctly. The 24 Elmarit is great as well and probably is the best balance between size, speed, and sharpness where performance is of concern in a Leica WA.
 

sven

New member
I have used them all but the lux. 24mm and 28mm are very different in perspective but if I need to choose one, it will be the Super Elmar. If you can live with its slow aperture, the sharpness and character is unsurpassed.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Thanks for the notes so far. :)

I owned the Elmarit-M 24mm f/2.8 ASPH once upon a time. It was a lovely lens, like with any Leica lens I probably should regret having sold it but, eh?, "equipment is transitory" and all that stuff.

To my eye, there's not so much difference between 24 and 28 FoV and perspective—a 24 is about 9 more degrees on the diagonal, which isn't nothing but it's not huge. I tend to shoot 'loose' with a rangefinder camera to allow for cropping, etc, anyway.

The speed of the Super Elmar 24 is not a problem (I don't feel f/3.8 is particularly slow coming from cameras with f/4 and f/8 lenses), but one benefit of the Elmarit-M 28/2.8 is its compactness.

More comments graciously appreciated. I'm particularly interested in the lens performance for the M9 (and M (type 240)) between those in the list.

thanks again!

G
 

JohnBrew

Active member
Hi Godfrey, I have the Elmar-M ASPH 24 and I think Leica hit the proverbial home run with the design. It's quite sharp as it should be but I was also surprised how close I could get with it. You can shoot into the sun and be rewarded with very nice starburst effect at small apertures. I've attached an example which was shot @f16.
 

rayyan

Well-known member
Hi Godfrey.

Ihe widest I have. Used is the corn 28 asph..a lens I love. It is sharp without being clinically sharp.

I did find that it vignettes slightly depending on the dr of the scene. A lens that I have paired with the lux 50 on a lot of my trips.

The original hood is a joke.

The diminutive 28/2.8 asph is believed to be stellar at a stop less.

I personally would go for a 28 and next down a 21. Skip the 24.

But I am not you..:D
 

wattsy

Well-known member
I own the 28 Summicron and have owned the 28 F2.8 ASPH and the 24 F2.8 ASPH in (what seems the distant) past. If I was buying again I'd probably buy the 24 F3.8 because I think it is likely a better match to the 35 Summilux "FLE" that I use most of the time. I'm less enamoured by the Summicron than most seem to be – I think it is a better lens for film use than for full frame digital sensors (quite heavy natural vignetting when used with the M9) – and I don't remember being wowed by the 28 Elmarit when I owned it for a short period when I had an M8 (though the small size is nice). Interestingly, I remember the 24 Elmarit as being superlative and wished I hadn't sold mine (during my film days). I considered buying another recently but when I tested it on my Monochrom I was a little bit ambivalent about how it "rendered" (hate that expression) and passed. Again, I suspect a lens that might be optimal on a film M. All said, I think I'll muddle on with my 28 Summicron.:D
 

Ocean

Senior Subscriber Member
You may want to consider the Zeiss ZM 25/2.8 Biogon. It's actual focal length is about 26.5mm. It's an excellent lens, particularly on M9. If you are thinking about upgrading into an M240, then Leica Elmar-M 24/3,8 may be a better choice. I sold my Leica Elmarit-M 24/2,8 after I got my Biogan and Elamr-M.

Those are taken with M240 with Elmar-M 24/3,8.
 
Last edited:

Double Negative

Not Available
Summicron-M 28mm f/2 ASPH! I loooove this lens. Sharp, great rendering, lovely bokeh.

The Biogon 2,8/25 ZM is a fantastic lens also. It was pretty much glued to my M8.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
If this will be your widest lens then I would go for 24mm and probably the f3.8 version.

Personally I use a lot of 35mm and if I want wider I go most often directly to the 21/3.4 which I love. I even sold my 24/1.4 some months ago becaue I used it too seldom.

I also like the 28 Summicron but I just don't use this focal length often.
28 mm has the big advantage compared to 24mm that you don't need external viewfinder.

For me now 21/35/50 and sometimes 75.
My 28,90 and 135mm M lenses are not used very often, and the 24mm is sold.

But its really a question of taste.

For people images I think 28mm is much more forgiving in regards of perspective than 24mm and more flexible.
 

Woody Campbell

Workshop Member
The 24mm Lux is one of my most used lenses. The ability to actually throw backgrounds far out of focus with a very wide makes this lens unique. Bokeh is lovely. My travel kit is the 24 lux, 50 cron asp and 75 chron.
 
Godfrey,

I've used the Summilux-M 24mm f/1.4, Elmarit-M 24mm f/2.8, Super Elmar-M 24mm f/3.8, and Elmarit-M 28mm f/2.8.

I LOVED the 24 Summilux-M... what an amazing lens. In a perfect world I'd have kept it. A draw back for me was the Series VII filters and not being able to stack filters. The bulk never bothered me. Used it on an M9 and Monchrom... it was beautiful on the Monochrom. It worked fine on the M9, definitely want to use an 3-stop ND filter!

I liked the 24 Elmar-M for it's size but felt limited with f3,4 aperture. Used on an M9 & Monochrom, no issues on either.

I really liked the 24 Elmarit f/2,8 and have always regretted letting it go. Out of the three 24's this is the one I will get again. It had an awesome 3D quality. I used this only on an M9 and found it very lovely!

I used a 28 Elmarit-M on an M8 and for a little while on an M9. Very nice lens, small and focused pretty well. Personally I see the choice in getting a 28 to be between 35 and 28 and not between 24 and 28. I've always looked at 24 being a choice between it and 21 or 18. I went with 24 because I felt I could get by without an external viewfinder without issue, which I did.

I recently sold my 35 Summilux and plan to pick up a 28 Summicron. People seem to really love this lens!

When I shot with a Nikon D700 my two most used lenses were a 24 and 28... I find 21 just a little too wide, and found there to be enough of a difference between 24 & 28.

Good luck with your decision!

Michael

ps
If interested, you can see pics taken with these lenses here:
~ 24 Summilux
~ 24 Elmarit-M
~ 24 Elmar-M
~ 28 Elmarit-M

Cheers!
 
Last edited:

richardman

Well-known member
I could have sold you my 28 cron 3 weeks ago! I needed the money to buy the Cooke PS945 :-/

Anyway, if you have the money, the 28 cron will be the BEST THING EVER. Barring that, I would actually go for a 2.8 ZM on either focal length (hmm,,, does Zeiss have a 28/2.8?). The ZM shoots like a Leica, except bluer, at 1/3 the prices.
 

erudolph

Member
I have been wrestling whether to travel with the 24mm Elmarit or the 28mm Summicron, on the Type 240. In my test shots, the 24 has more character but an uncomfortable amount of distortion. If it had less distortion I'd choose it over the 28.
 
The main reason I parted with the 24 Elmarit-M was that my next focal-length up at the time was a 50, which was too big a jump for me. I needed something in-between. If having to choose between 24 and 28, the 28 is better walking around lens, similar to a 35, but with just a little bit extra width, just enough, for out and about.
 
I'd eliminate the 28 Elmarit Asph as being too contrasty for sunny-day exposure range. I sold it for 28 Cron, and have also been using 28 focal length of MATE for landscapes. I find myself stitching multiple files for landscapes, and for that reason have been thinking about 25 Zeiss. People speak well of them, and the price difference makes it seem worth giving it a try.

Kirk
 
Top