Reasonably priced insurance for valuable Leica kit that covers you living in Afghanistan is akin to unicorn horn!
Sure, I understand that the 24 FL may be one's choice, but I imagine for FF users it would be less common for them to need the speed on a really wide lens than one somewhat longer... but for those who need fast and 24, I understand the need. For M8 users its 32mm or so, which I imagine appeals to a lot of people. I would imagine most 35mm users find themselves asking for more speed mainly in the 28+ bracket.
I rarely have issues with needing faster lenses, but I do sometimes wish for faster films with finer grain. The issue I have is that while a super fast lens may allow for sufficient shutter speeds, I get very shallow DOF. With the sort of shooting I do (mainly reportage if I could characterise it as such) I want a certain amount of DOF and don't appreciate the look I get with super fast lenses apart from very occasionally. I personally think that a lot of people make a mistake in thinking that professional reportage/street/documentary shooters need super fast lenses - they forget about DOF and the need to show more than a sliver of the scene in focus. What about the images shot over the last 70 years and aperture? fast lenses have been about for ages, but not that many images are shot wide open and the reason is not image quality, but the desired DOF. It can work or even be desirable, but more so with medium wides and longer because you don't invariably have to include loads of the surrounding area (as you do with very wide lenses, even with portraits). Most of the most well known street/reportage/docu images seem to be at f4-f11 and I think this is something more people should consider before determining that a 24 1.4 (on FF) is the solution.
I would love a 24 1.4 in my arsenal (A 28 1.4 would be more appealing) but cannot think of enough situations where, as a 35mm user, I would really need to combine very wide and very fast, but i realise thats a personal thing. I have already seen some super work done with the summilux 24 wide open on FF, but did not recall thinking that the lens was the only solution to the problem.
FWIW I have found monopods more useful than super fast lenses. I can get more DOF and use it as a club if the worst comes to the worst. A lot cheaper too. I am sure for a few niches the 24 lux on 35mm will be the ideal lens, but I suspect that far more people will buy one because they want one than because there is any real need for one. Call me a cynic, but I suspect far more will be used to take dreary images under poor light when 'no other lens would do' than anything inspiring. Sadly, this also seems to be the fate of most noctiluxes.
I am not attempting to bash the lens (or the Noctilux) - I would love to own both - but do find their use frequently gratuitous rather than necessary. Still, for those who need them, the new 21/24 luxes are peerless!
