Summilux 21 vs 24

ymc226

ymc226

Well-known
Local time
4:34 PM
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
320
What would make you pick one over the other? I am trying to decide which I would get. Using film only so full frame.

I like the shots I am getting with the 18 Super Elmar but would like more speed for indoors/night environs. I also use a 35mm Lux and am expecting a small 28mm Elmarit. The 35mm seems a little to normal and not wide enough.

What other issues should I be thinking about to decide?
 
24 seems a lot wider than 28, but 18 doesn't seem a lot wider than 21 (to me)- when it comes to field of view. I'd think the 24 might be different enough in your kit to be used more.
 
ymc226 said:
What would make you pick one over the other?
Click to expand...
My preference for one angle of view over the other, it's a personal thing. Having used both 21 and 24 for years I feel much more comfortable with the 24mm focal length. It works for me and the 21 doesn't.
 
I agree with Peter that 24 is more comfortable. That said, the rendering of the summilux 21 is just a tad more interesting to me than the 24, and I think that I will someday own a lux 21 after I throw out the kids.

BTW, a really versatile 3 lens kit is the 21, 35, and 75....so perhaps?
 
Last edited:
21 - (35) - 50 is a quite versatile kit for me. If I would have the money, 21/1.4 would be my next lens purchase.
 
Well, Im a wide person anyways so I would prefer the 21mm. But for me, a 21mm means getting really close so I would caveat that choice with your own shooting style and comfort zone. Still not sure just how valuable f/1.4 would be to me over my 21mm Elmarit - especially with the price$$$. Overall I run a 21mm, 35mm and 90mm with the Leica.
 
just remember the DOF effect f1.4 will have and be sure this is acceptable in the sort of images you want. Also bear in mind toggling between your focus and accessory finder, if the FL you select does not allow fir internal frame lines. This won't be much use for people if they move.

I would regard the 24 1.4 as the much more useful lens on FF, esp with your 18mm.
 
Thanks for all of your input. I will give it some thought but if there is more of a difference between the 28 and 24 than between the 21 and 18, I would lean more toward the 24.
 
I currently have 18-21-24-28 (Zeiss-Summilux-Summilux-CV) and while I like the 24 most on the M8.2, I like the 21 more on film... And my wife (who normally shoots film only) rarely uses a 21 of any kind but loves 18. She sees a much greater difference between 18 and 21 than I do, but then, she likes 28 and I don't... And so on.

There's a 24mm review here but although it covers the 24 on film it's slanted towards the M8.2:http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/reviews summilux 24.html

Cheers,

R.
 
Here's my view (FWIW) -

I have both 24 and 21mm Leica Elmarits and find, in practical usage, very little difference. I am a wide-angle freak, but never miss the 21 when using the 24. There is a world of difference between the 28 and 24 and another world of difference between the 21 and 18 - all completely different animals (IMHO).

Basically, what I am saying is, if your choice is between the 24 and 21, it makes very little difference which you chose. However, to put another twist on it, I have shot the 24 Summilux and absolutely hated the new drop-in filter/shade design. When mounting the lens I twisted the shade off - every time. So if you frequently change lenses, I would steer you away from the 24. I have never used the 21mm Summilux, but I suspect the same issue would exist as the front of the lens is even larger.

Even though I still hate the shade design, the 18mm Super-Elmar is a beautiful lens. The shade is relatively small and I never had the issue of twisting off the shade. If I didn't already have the 18mm Zeiss (which performs virtually identical compared to the Leica), I would buy it.

Bottom line - if you are restricting yourself to a choice between a leica 24 or 21, I would take the 24mm Asph Elmarit. It is two stops slower than the Summilux, but it is a much nicer handling lens.

Then later, if in your situation, I would buy the 18. This provides for a 28 – 24 – 18 combination. Sweet!
 
Thanks all. I already have a 35mm lux ASPH. Size-wise, how does the 21 or 24 lux compare?

I just received a 28mm Elmarit ASPH which uses a 39mm filter. It is quite small (in fact, the smallest sized lens I have) and I love it.
 
ymc226 said:
Thanks all. I already have a 35mm lux ASPH. Size-wise, how does the 21 or 24 lux compare?

I just received a 28mm Elmarit ASPH which uses a 39mm filter. It is quite small (in fact, the smallest sized lens I have) and I love it.
Click to expand...


The 24mm Summilux is marginally smaller compared to a Noctilux f/1, overall, while the 21mm Summilix is marginally larger. The 24 is smaller compared to the 21 by about 15% due to the smaller filter size (series VII vs series VIII, respectively).

Your 35 Summilux (minus the shade is about the size of a 50 Summilux) will be dwarfed (about half the size of the 21mm Summilux) by either.

Your 28mm Elmarit is arguably the smallest Leica M lens currently in production. The 35mm Asph Summicron is only a few millimeters taller.
 
Last edited:
For that much money, i sure has H*ll would try either on my camera.
I have used a 24mm Nikkor for many years as my standard lens for a Nikon SLR and currently have the 21mm ASPH f2.8 on my M's. The 24mm on the Nikon is easy to use but on the M, the 21mm is not so far. I also would use the new finder from Leica at the same time. Take at least one roll of film and look at the results before making a purchase.
Better yet, use an new M9 and you have an instant decision!-Dick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom