Leica Elmar 24mm f3.8 ASPH trial.

Tom A

Tom A

RFF Sponsor
Local time
1:50 PM
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
6,124
Location
Vancouver, BC, Canada
View My Gallery
During the LHSA meeting in Louisville, Kentucky I had the chance to try out the new Elmar 24f3.8 ASPH for a day and a half. Small and nice lens and very sharp. Still has the typical "flare" sensitivity of any Asph lens. I shot about 5 rolls of ACROS 100 and developed it in Beutler - a combination that does not take any prisoner in the sharpness fight.
It might not be as "sexy" as the 21f1.4 or 24f1.4 - but it is about as sharp a lens as I have ever tried. The MTF curves are impressive (Leica has them on their site) and Stefan Daniel, M-product manager for Leica and an avid photographer to boot said "You really dont gain anything by stopping it down, just depth of field. Optimum sharpness is already there at f3.8".
Most of the shots were done on a bustrip to Woodford Reserve Distillery and at least at the beginning of the shooting I tried some low light stuff in the barns and barrel srorage areas. Most of that stuff is shot at 1/15 or 1/8 of a second and at f3.8!
It also has the advantage of looking positively "low-priced" compared to the 21/1.4 and 24/1.4 and positively cheap compared to the 50f0.95!!!
If you go to Flickr and use the tag "Leica Elmar 24mm f3.8 ASPH" ypu should be able to see some of the shots.
 
Tom

Tom

I like the FL of this lens for both for Digital and film, but haven't seen it available yet. Just how small is it, and how does it compare to the CV? How about using it on the M8, FOV would be +/- 31mm. I like to use the Ultra wides for daylight, so this lens looks like a maybe next lens for me. From what I have read, there isn't a chrome version, bummer, but not a deal breaker.
 
I too would like to know how this lens compares to ZM 25mm lens - from handling to performance? Could you comment on that, Tom, please?
 
It is considerably smaller than the 25f2.8 ZM or Leicas 24f2.8 Asph. I found it quite comfortable to use, virtually no encroaching of the hood on the R4M and only slightly on a MP 0.58.
If you already have the 25f2.8 or 24f2.8 Asph and can live with the size I cant see any reason for buying it - BUT if you are looking for an extremely high performance "daylight" lens, I would seriously look at it. Virtually no vignetting and as sharp a lens as you will ever need. I think it is mainly aimed at the M8, but obviously with no "cutting corners" in image quality for film.
I have a lot of wide angles and, yes I would like a 21f1.4 ASPH, but there is no way I can justify that kind of money. The 24f3.8 is about 1/3 of the cost of the 21 and Christmas is coming and after that itis soon summer and more light!
From looking at the negs and scans, it seems similar in performance to the C- Biogon 21f4.5 (and that is about as high praise a wide-angle can get in my book).
 
Tom,

what about your subjective view on the look of the images, especially compared to teh vastly cheaper ZMs?

Rgds
 
Vastly cheaper, not to mention handier, would also include the CV 25/4 for M. Now there would be an interesting performance & horsepower-for-money calculus.
 
The difference between the VC 25/4 and the 24f3.8 is noticable, particularly in the wide open performance (as it should be with one lens being 1/6 of the price!). The 25f4 has more edge fall off and a bit more distorsion - BUT that doesn't mean that the VC is not a good lens. It is a very good performer and I suspect that for 90% of all shooting, it will hold its own! The difference is in critical edge to edge shots at maximum aperture, where the Elmar 24 is better. If you stop both lenses down to mid aperture (f8-f11) I doubt you will see much of a difference, at least in black/white. If you are an occasional user of medium wides - I would go for the P-mount (coupled) VC 25f4 and only if you do critical work and working with the M8 would I recommend the Elmar 24.
I am seriously considering it - but I am also seriously considering restocking my XX supply and the $2300-2400 would keep me in film for an other year and a bit (about 1400 rolls). It is not like I am short of medium wides by any means - but a new lens is always tempting!
 
Thanks for the follow-up Tom. I agree the idea of the Elmar 24 is tempting, but for me an easily resistable one. I had a 24/2.8 ASPH from back in the day of saner Leica pricing and a stronger dollar, and found it a great performer whose handling didn't quite suit me. For my less critical purposes, even the uncoupled CV Snapshot Skopar was plenty good enough and came more easily to hand, especially for walking around. When I need the best performance, the ZM 25/2.8 does the job, and it's on the way back to me from warranty service as I write (to remedy a case of ZM wobbles). So, I apply Roger's GAS resistance test -- does this new thingee do anything my current gear doesn't, or does it help make me a better photographer? Of course, I have on occasion been known to exercise manual override over the results of this self-diagnostic.
 
I agree with your opinion of the 24f2.8 ASPH. It is a very sharp lens, but somehow, the ergonomics did not fit me. I battled with it for several years and in the end sold it. The ZM 25f2.8 is far more manageble and it is also more "level" in performance than the 24f2.8 ASPH. Leica Asph's can be very contrasty in bl/w. I also had the 21f2,8 ASPH and I had the same problem with that one - too bulky for what it did for me. Performance is the same as the 24f2.8 ASPH - very sharp but very contrasty.
The 24f3.8 is one of those lenses that you want, once you have used it. As for needing it - probably not - but that is an other kettle of fish. It was also nice to see a Leica lens that only induced a mild case of sticker shock!!
 
I had the same experience that the Leica ASPH lenses were higher in contrast than their spherical counterparts for b&w work, e.g., ASPH vs. pre-ASPH 35 Summicrons. It's enough of a difference to make printing more challenging. Does the 24/3.8 ASPH share the same very high-contrast character you found in the 24/2.8 ASPH and 21/2.8 ASPH?
 
Tom,

You're right that 24 3.8 is an amazing little lens!
It looks like you and I took a lot of the same shots in Louisville, but mine are all color neg.
I was especially impressed with the few I shot with your 50 1.5 Zeiss. I'll scan and post a few later.

Hope all is well with you,

Travis
 
Tom A said:
It is considerably smaller than the 25f2.8 ZM or Leicas 24f2.8 Asph.
Click to expand...

Some size comparison:

With hood:
3286987115_ec39659056_o.jpg


Without hood:
3287806656_5388a9b81b_o.jpg
 
Tom A,

do you find the 24 2.8 asph has more contrast in B&W than the Zeiss 25? I have been curious about this as some say the opposite leading to confusion at my end. How is the 24 3.8 compared to the 2.8 asph in terms of contrast?

I only have the ZMs and cannot directly compare contrast to the asph leica lenses mentioned. I once had a 50 lux asph for a short while and found teh contrast was fairly fierce a few stops down but not a problem. I gather this asph, like the 28 cron, is considered less contrasty than some of theother asph offerings.

How would you compare the image qualities between the 24 asph and the 25 ZM?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom