Why no 24 or 25mm f/2 lens?

sleepyhead

sleepyhead

Well-known
Local time
2:48 AM
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
1,682
Gee, wouldn't it be nice to have an f/2 affordable 24 or 25mm lens from Cosina?
I've used their skopar in the past, as well as Zeiss's Biogon, but the tiny 24mm f/1.9 lens on my now sold Fuji Natura Black got me wondering, why no 24 or 25mm f/2 offering from any of the manufacturers?
Such a lens would make a great combo with a fast 50mm lens...
 
Last edited:
I'd like one too. Maybe Mr. K will get around to it! Maybe Tom A. can suggest it on his next trip to Japan (hint).
 
It might be nice, but if I were Mr K I'd be looking at the size of the market and figure that there are many more Leica M types out there than Bessa R4's. The Leicas have frames for 28 but not anything wider, so how many 2/25 lenses would I actually expect to sell and would it warrant the development and tooling costs? I think I'd be saying "no deal".
 
Leigh Youdale said:
It might be nice, but if I were Mr K I'd be looking at the size of the market and figure that there are many more Leica M types out there than Bessa R4's. The Leicas have frames for 28 but not anything wider, so how many 2/25 lenses would I actually expect to sell and would it warrant the development and tooling costs? I think I'd be saying "no deal".
Click to expand...
I would be happy to use an auxiliary viewfinder...
 
For some reason 24/25mm lenses don't seem to have ever been that popular. I don't know why. I had a 24mm for my SLR that I really enjoyed using. Filled the gap between 18mm and 28mm very well. But actually, how many people go wider than 28mm?

I'm not talking about those few of us enlightened ones :)D), but the general populace. If you listen to how many praise the 35mm, you have to wonder. In fact, as an aside, I have often thought so many find the 35mm so wonderful only because they can't afford to take the leap to a wider lens. I know I can't justify a 28mm for my Kiev, based on my usage of the camera. But in SLR, I have 35mm, 28mm, 24mm, and 18mm, along with three zooms that cover 18mm to 150mm.

Edit: In MF, with my Super Press 23, I had a 65mm, but lusted for a 50mm (25mm equivalent) for years until I got one at a price I could afford.
 
Last edited:
I've been complaining about this for awhile now. there's 2.8 /2/1.4 lenses in the Leica stable. The 24/2 is missing, and I'd own one in a heart beat.
 
perhaps the more glaring omission is the lack of a 28 1.4 asph.

One of the reasons for a lack of fast wides is the much greater precision required in assembly to get a good performance wide open as lenses widen. Just look at the focus shift issue on the 28 F2 ulton since tghey dropped the asph approach of the 1.9. I would imagine the problems would be compounded considerably with from 28 to 24 too.

With the slow 21 and 25P some of the decentering was to an extent masked by DOF, but not so at F2. I am not saying it would be beyond CV, but it might be beyond them to do it at the price point they would want. Who knows though!

I would imagine that a 50mm 1.5 in M mount would be more of a priority followed by a 50 f2 potentially and some 2.8 or f4 wides with characteristics to allow for great results when coded as leica lenses. Designs will need to change to be optimised for the M9.
 
JSU said:
I'm waiting for someone (Cosina Voigtlander, are you listening?) to come out with a prime 15 or 16mm at either F-2.8 or 3.5 to provide a 21mm look for the M8.2.

I have the very fine CV 15/4.5 which gets me the 21mm look for the M8.2 but after using the Super Angulon 21/3.4 on film for many, many years, I find the F-4.5 of the CV 15mm just a bit too slow. It is fine for most out doors shooting but really is an issue indoors where I am trying to keep the ISO as low as reasonably possible to minimize digital noise.

The WATE @ F-4.0 is overly big and pricey and not enough of a gain in speed to justify the price, plus I don't care for the philosophy of a multi-focal length (not actually a zoom) lens. There also is the Zeiss ZM 15/2.8 which I would consider if it also wasn't so big but the real deal buster is that this lens isn't RF coupled, what a stupid design decision. The Zeiss Distagon 18/4.0 is a great lens but only sees a 24mm FoV on the M8.2, not the 21mm.

A CV 15/4.5 that is one stop faster and still RF coupled would be most welcome.

Sorry for my rant and going somewhat off topic.
Click to expand...

Well, BIG is what you get if you want a 15/2.8 - it is, after all, over twice as fast as the15/4.5.

Of course you don't need RF coupling on a 15mm, but I was surprised it wan't incorporated, just to satisfy all those who, even though they understand intellectually that it's pointless, still want it coupled (I am in that camp too).

To return to the 24/25, it was never a canonical Leica length (unlike 21-28-35 etc) but it was quite common with Zeiss. My suspicion is simply that it's not in much demand compared with a 21mm, so Leica made the definitive superfast 24 and a 'cheap' (by Leica standards), slow 'snapshot' version for those who buy the M8.2 because it's a Leica and their family has always had Leicas. After that there's a very good middling-fast Zeiss 25 and a slow CV that is astonishingly good in absolute terms and even more astonishing for the money. How much bigger is the market?

Cheers,

R/
 
Give me a Zeiss 25mm or 28mm f/2.0 lens

Give me a Zeiss 25mm or 28mm f/2.0 lens

I would purchase a Zeiss f/2.0 25mm ZM to go with my 50mm Planar in a second. Even a 28mm would be attractive, especially if it was as good as the Cron. For natural light wedding shooters such as myself, f/2.8 lenses just aren't fast enough in many situations. In fact, I don't really consider f/2.8 lenses to be in the category of "fast".
 
I'd be thrilled if CV came out with any f/2 lens other than 50mm! But consider how they have moved away from aspherical surfaces in their recent designs. A non-asph 24/2 would be a fairly complicated optical design. It would probably be closer to the ZM 21/2.8 in bulk, expensive... and will draw endless complaints of focus shift from digital M shooters :p. Does Mr. K really want to deal with the latter?
 
I'm very happy with my 28/1.9.

Would much prefer to get a re-issued 50/1.5, in the form of a 0.7m min. focus 50/1.4.

Roland.
 
Im fine with my 35/1.4 pre-asph. Got the 21mm/4.0 Skopar for special occasions. Maybe someday I'll get the 75mm Summicron and call mine a complete set.
 
A bit curious on a faster wide, 24-25: aside from obviously being faster for less available light condition, any other reason? Small DOF at this focal length?
 
oftheherd said:
In fact, as an aside, I have often thought so many find the 35mm so wonderful only because they can't afford to take the leap to a wider lens.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. I think that many of us like the 35 as a wide normal. Don't get me wrong. I love the 24. But the 35 is much easier to use for general photography than a 24, or even a 28. The 35 is easy to previsualize, it doesn't make people look strange (or at any rate, stranger than they started out), and it's relatively easy to avoid ridiculous converging lines.

(I never did get along with the 28, though. The 24 is the perfect medium wide.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom