Mackinaw
Think Different
- Local time
- 9:27 AM
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2005
- Messages
- 4,739
Absolutely no way you can compare a 2.8 lens to a 1.4 lens. Different optical design parameters.
Jim B.
Jim B.
Anyone splurge on the 24 summilux?
- Thread starter letvet
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 27
- Views 2K
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
To be fair, I was specifically referring to a faster 24mm lens. I have and regularly use a 50mm Summilux wide-open.
With all due respect, if you're saying I can't compare optical results from an f/1.4 lens with an f/2.8 lens up through f/2.8, then your statement is ludicrous. I have done it quite effectively, and so have Erwin Puts (who also gets into the technical aspects), Tom Abrahamsson, and others.
If that’s not what you mean, then what are you saying?
Benjamin
Registered Snoozer
Shouldn't we be talking about the bokeh by now?
yanidel
Well-known
Would love to see some good shots taken with the 24mm Lux ? Anybody can provide that ? (please no flowers and so on ...)
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Funny, I really like the drop-in Series filters and ultra-compact hoods -- which are not really optional with one of the lenses (21mm, I think) because the front of the lens protrudes forwards from the surrounding ring.
As for not needing the speed, well, some shoot low-light and others don't. I regularly use ALL my lenses wide open. Not for all shots, but even if it's just 1%, that's a lot of shots over the course of a year.
On the other hand, I almost never use the wide-angles (35/1.4, 24/1.4, 21/1.4) for differential focus, because that looks odd to me with wide-angles. I do it with 85mm and longer lenses, though, and sometimes with 50mm.
Finally, as well as snobbery, there is anti-snobbery: people who seem unable to accept that expensive lenses have any reason for existing, other than to gratify the fantasies of overly wealthy photographers.
Sturgeon's Law* applies as much to photographers as to anything else, so in the nature of things there are more bad photographers with wonderful lenses than brilliant photographers with everyday, ordinary or average lenses. But there are also a few photographers who can afford ultra-expensive, highly specialized lenses and can also use them very well indeed.
*Someone said to Theodore Sturgeon, "Ninety per cent of science fiction is rubbish." He replied, "Ninety per cent of everything is rubbish." This has since become known as Sturgeon's Law.
Tashi delek,
R.
As for not needing the speed, well, some shoot low-light and others don't. I regularly use ALL my lenses wide open. Not for all shots, but even if it's just 1%, that's a lot of shots over the course of a year.
On the other hand, I almost never use the wide-angles (35/1.4, 24/1.4, 21/1.4) for differential focus, because that looks odd to me with wide-angles. I do it with 85mm and longer lenses, though, and sometimes with 50mm.
Finally, as well as snobbery, there is anti-snobbery: people who seem unable to accept that expensive lenses have any reason for existing, other than to gratify the fantasies of overly wealthy photographers.
Sturgeon's Law* applies as much to photographers as to anything else, so in the nature of things there are more bad photographers with wonderful lenses than brilliant photographers with everyday, ordinary or average lenses. But there are also a few photographers who can afford ultra-expensive, highly specialized lenses and can also use them very well indeed.
*Someone said to Theodore Sturgeon, "Ninety per cent of science fiction is rubbish." He replied, "Ninety per cent of everything is rubbish." This has since become known as Sturgeon's Law.
Tashi delek,
R.
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
One was designed to be used at f/1.4 and one designed to be used at smaller apertures. That's the difference. I had a bike that was designed to run at its best at 8000 RPM and surely you can't compare that to a Gold Wing.
Riccis
Well-known
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
With respect to those who have bought off on your logic, I am telling you your analogy does not work in this case.
Once again, a camera (or a lens) is not an automobile (or a motorcycle). Leica Summilux lenses, in this case in particular, are designed to operate up through f/1.4, not to operate at their best at f/1.4. Often lenses (even fast lenses) perform at their best stopped down to about f/5.6 or f/8. Don’t take my word for it - 20 minutes worth of research will confirm this is true.
The first time I posted one of my lens comparison tests (here on RFF) I got blasted for my conclusions based on the low-resolution pictures I was able to post; even then I used PN for the pictures because they allow you to post higher resolution images (and I don’t have a website). So now I just post my conclusions if and when the issue comes up.
If you want to see some pictures and comparisons, feel free to send me a PM, and I can email them to you.
Similar threads
