peewee
Established
Hello
I am having a hard time deciding between these two lenses, i hear very good things about them both.
I am concerned that the 35 is a little too long and that the 24 is a little too wide and so i have decided to base my decision on the 'look'. They both seem quite 'punchy' which i like.
Please can any one tell me, what are the differences, similarities between these lenses in the way that they 'draw'?
Thankyou in advance
http://www.flickr.com/photos/httpwwwflickrcomphotoslucylu/
I am having a hard time deciding between these two lenses, i hear very good things about them both.
I am concerned that the 35 is a little too long and that the 24 is a little too wide and so i have decided to base my decision on the 'look'. They both seem quite 'punchy' which i like.
Please can any one tell me, what are the differences, similarities between these lenses in the way that they 'draw'?
Thankyou in advance
http://www.flickr.com/photos/httpwwwflickrcomphotoslucylu/
Last edited:
kipkeston
Well-known
Leica makes two 28mm lenses.
Rafael
Mandlerian
There are lots of images taken with both lenses posted at the Flickr M-Mount Group.
tightsqueez
Well-known
Owning both of these lenses, the way they draw is the absolute last thing I'd use to differentiate the two. There are plenty of other determining factors for picking up one lens or the other. But if you want to know my opinion...
The 24 really isn't one of those overtly tell tale lenses; it's signature is very very subdued due to the fact it is quite wide and a f2.8 (Even the 24 f1.4 doesn't over due the out of focus affect like many longer lengths do). Wide open you can tell what shapes in the background are and they own a good amount of outline.
The 35 shows more character on the other hand but I guess someone may mistaken it for just being more able to give you shallower depth of field. It's a pretty sterile rendering if you ask me. You may want this, as I don't find it bothersome. Sometimes character gets in the way of an image. I see it so much nowadays. There's a time and place for a certain lens. I think the only thing you can fault the lens is that it flares quite a bit (not too excessive though). Overall it's a day in and day out lens that could be said to be predictable.
I have really boring examples of these two lenses of the same subject if you really want to see them. I'd have to email larger sizes to you though. Let me know, I have no problem sending them.
Combine these two lenses into one and you have the 28 Cron; A better lens in most respect all around.
The 24 really isn't one of those overtly tell tale lenses; it's signature is very very subdued due to the fact it is quite wide and a f2.8 (Even the 24 f1.4 doesn't over due the out of focus affect like many longer lengths do). Wide open you can tell what shapes in the background are and they own a good amount of outline.
The 35 shows more character on the other hand but I guess someone may mistaken it for just being more able to give you shallower depth of field. It's a pretty sterile rendering if you ask me. You may want this, as I don't find it bothersome. Sometimes character gets in the way of an image. I see it so much nowadays. There's a time and place for a certain lens. I think the only thing you can fault the lens is that it flares quite a bit (not too excessive though). Overall it's a day in and day out lens that could be said to be predictable.
I have really boring examples of these two lenses of the same subject if you really want to see them. I'd have to email larger sizes to you though. Let me know, I have no problem sending them.
Combine these two lenses into one and you have the 28 Cron; A better lens in most respect all around.
peewee
Established
I had the 28 cron for a while but i found it a little clinical. I sold it to get the 35 Lux or the 24 Elmarit. I may take a trip to Mayfair to try both.
Thanks very much for your help and the links.
Cheers, Lucy
Thanks very much for your help and the links.
Cheers, Lucy
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
lenses don't draw anything. Luckily, since it would take an awful lot of time.
Lenses project damn images.
The 28 is too "clinical", the 35 is too narrow, the 24 is too wide, how about forgetting Leica then alltogether?
There are zoom lenses in the 24-105 mm range that are definitely not "clinically sharp"
Lenses project damn images.
The 28 is too "clinical", the 35 is too narrow, the 24 is too wide, how about forgetting Leica then alltogether?
There are zoom lenses in the 24-105 mm range that are definitely not "clinically sharp"
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
You have a few very nice portraits there in your flickr stream. I suggest you keep what you have and be happy (and skip the peewee-talk about drawing, punchy lenses)
by the way a lens can only be punchy if you dropped in the punch bowl in a wild blurry night. Which, again, brings me to the conclusion that you should forget about Leica and go for a cheap zoom
sorry for being harsh, lol
by the way a lens can only be punchy if you dropped in the punch bowl in a wild blurry night. Which, again, brings me to the conclusion that you should forget about Leica and go for a cheap zoom
sorry for being harsh, lol
peewee
Established
Ha, I can see you don't care too much about lenses, your work is so dull.
Sorry for being harsh, lol.
Sorry for being harsh, lol.
Sparrow
Veteran
this is a drawing, can you spot the difference now?
yanidel
Well-known
I used both extensively on the M8 and felt the same. 24mm a bit too wide as standard lens (and the framelines are kind of a bother) and 35mm a bit too tight. I tried the 28mm Cron but do not like the lens rendering, even though the FOV was the best on the M8.
They are both punchy but very different IMO so when I shot series with both, I could clearly identify the pictures that were taken with one or another. The biggest difference in my perception is warmer colors on the 24mm Elmarit. It is also sharper. I used it a lot in travels and I really feel that some of my best pictures ever were taken with it. You have less out of focus to play with but it is a very smooth and pleasing one. It also renders skin tones great and actually like it as a portrait lens.
The 35mm Lux Asph is maybe more versatile as F1.4 is a special look in itself. I always call it a "lyric" look. Then starting at F2 it becomes more normal, good contrast, sharp.
Finally, I find the F2.8 on the Elmarit (with a highest ISO of 640) a bit limitating in interiors and as soon as the sun disappeared.
As for the English speaking experts, I myself never quite understood the difference between drawing, rendering and so on. But I think that with a little bit of good will, it is easy what to understand what the OP meant in his question.
They are both punchy but very different IMO so when I shot series with both, I could clearly identify the pictures that were taken with one or another. The biggest difference in my perception is warmer colors on the 24mm Elmarit. It is also sharper. I used it a lot in travels and I really feel that some of my best pictures ever were taken with it. You have less out of focus to play with but it is a very smooth and pleasing one. It also renders skin tones great and actually like it as a portrait lens.
The 35mm Lux Asph is maybe more versatile as F1.4 is a special look in itself. I always call it a "lyric" look. Then starting at F2 it becomes more normal, good contrast, sharp.
Finally, I find the F2.8 on the Elmarit (with a highest ISO of 640) a bit limitating in interiors and as soon as the sun disappeared.
As for the English speaking experts, I myself never quite understood the difference between drawing, rendering and so on. But I think that with a little bit of good will, it is easy what to understand what the OP meant in his question.
Last edited:
Sparrow
Veteran
One doesn’t need to be an expert, a drawing is a picture made chiefly by means of lines and rendering is the production of fats and oils from animal remains, simple
yanidel
Well-known
Sorry, I don't leave in the countryside so your definition of rendering is probably a local one.
Rendering
1.an act or instance of interpretation, rendition, or depiction, as of a dramatic part or a musical composition: her rendering of the part of Hedda. 2.a translation: Chapman's rendering of Homer. 3.a representation of a building, interior, etc., executed in perspective and usually done for purposes of presentation.4.Building Trades. render1 (def. 21).
Rendering
1.an act or instance of interpretation, rendition, or depiction, as of a dramatic part or a musical composition: her rendering of the part of Hedda. 2.a translation: Chapman's rendering of Homer. 3.a representation of a building, interior, etc., executed in perspective and usually done for purposes of presentation.4.Building Trades. render1 (def. 21).
Sparrow
Veteran
I was just agreeing with Pherdinand, and demonstrating how easy it is possible to mislead, not looking for a fight.
However; if we each choose to use different words for the same function we will understand each other less not more, that should be obvious to anyone.
However; if we each choose to use different words for the same function we will understand each other less not more, that should be obvious to anyone.
Richard G
Veteran
Punchy thread from which I am withdrawing.
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
I'm only an amateur shooter and by no means a lens expert, but I'll gladly pass on my personal experience.
Looking at your flickr stream I do get the impression you like characterful lenses, so older glass may deliver more for you.
I found the Canon LTM 35mm 1.5 to be very nice. Colours were from it were more vivd that some modern lenses I compared it to but it produced a slightly softer image (so not punchy). I'm sure it would flare more than newer lenses, but I like it's performance more than the 35mm Noktons.
If you want a punchy lens I'd look towards Zeiss. The Zeiss levels of micro contrast can give images a real 'pop'. I have a 50mm Planar and find it superb.
Despite all this I bought a 35mm 'Lux in the end. I found it the best all round performer and liked the way it produced fats and oils from animal remains.
Looking at your flickr stream I do get the impression you like characterful lenses, so older glass may deliver more for you.
I found the Canon LTM 35mm 1.5 to be very nice. Colours were from it were more vivd that some modern lenses I compared it to but it produced a slightly softer image (so not punchy). I'm sure it would flare more than newer lenses, but I like it's performance more than the 35mm Noktons.
If you want a punchy lens I'd look towards Zeiss. The Zeiss levels of micro contrast can give images a real 'pop'. I have a 50mm Planar and find it superb.
Despite all this I bought a 35mm 'Lux in the end. I found it the best all round performer and liked the way it produced fats and oils from animal remains.
Last edited:
edodo
Well-known
the 24 is really a wide lens while the 35 can be used to isolate the subject, that's the main difference.
peewee
Established
Yanidel and Bobfrance, thanks very much for your help.
Just spent a while looking through the'Leica master shots' and have drawn (damn, i must stop using that word in an expressive way) the conclusion that i love the way the 35 transfers light onto the sensor!
Thanks, Lucy
Just spent a while looking through the'Leica master shots' and have drawn (damn, i must stop using that word in an expressive way) the conclusion that i love the way the 35 transfers light onto the sensor!
Thanks, Lucy
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Sparrow said:
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
As for the English speaking experts, I myself never quite understood the difference between drawing, rendering and so on. But I think that with a little bit of good will, it is easy what to understand what the OP meant in his question.
[sneezing] sorry i guess im just allergic to bullsh\t. (will smith quote
)i have plenty of good will (really, i do! ask anybody here) and what i wrote was serious by the way.
Maybe it's my english...? (3rd language only)