The 24mm Summilux: does it make any sense in the age of good high ISO sensors?

[sleepyhead]

Hello RFF'ers

For the last few years I've been dreaming (and slowly saving) for a 24mm Summilux to use with my Leica M9. However, now the Leica M10 is out, and it looks like that camera has at least two stops better high-ISO usability. While I can't afford an M10 now, I can see one in my future.

My goal is to have a lovely 3-lens kit for indoor gatherings of friends and family. The 24mm Summilux would fit in for this purpose with my 35/1.4 and 75/1.4 Summiluxes. I don't shoot landscapes or street photography with these lenses, so their large size and weight is not a factor. But it is exceedingly DARK in Scandinavia for a good part of the year, and I don't use flash or artificial light.

So the question becomes: does a 24mm Summilux still make sense? Perhaps one of the smaller, less expensive 24/25mm lenses out there with an eventual M10 is a better choice? For example, the price of the 24mm Summilux can get me a good way towards an M10 with 25mm Zeiss f/2.8.

The only reason I can see for getting the Summilux is for the distinctive look it gives, that is, wide view combined with somewhat shallow depth of field. It's a look that love. Especially since these would be people pictures indoors.

Any thoughts from RFF members who have used the 24mm Summilux as well as other 24/25mm lenses for the purposes I have described would be MUCH appreciated! Thanks.

 

[Timmyjoe]

Never been lucky enough to have a 24mm Summilux, but did have the Zeiss 25mm f2.8 lens you mention. Used it on an M8.2. Didn't like the way it rendered, when paired with my 50 Lux and 90 Cron. It rendered like all the Zeiss lenses I've had over the years, sharp, contrasty, and cold. One of those things some might not notice, but I found it to be painfully obvious when used with the other two Leica lenses.

 

[sleepyhead]

Timmyjoe, thanks for bringing this point up. It's important to me that the character of the 24mm I end up getting doesn't obviously differ from the 35/1.4 ASPH (pre-FLE) and Mandler 75/1.4. Is this another concern about the 24mm Summilux?

Perhaps the 24/2.8 Elmarit-M character matches my other lenses better?

By the way, a 28mm Summicron currently fits this role in my lens line up, but I would probably sell it in order to afford the 24mm Summilux anytime soon... (I want the f/1.4, and 28mm is a bit close to 35mm.)

 

[dof]

I've owned the 35mm & 75mm Summiluxes and the 24mm Elmarit. The 24 and 35 hail from the same design era when manufacturing aspherical lens elements at scale became technically feasible. Being close cousins, they share a similar contrast and imaging signature. The 75mm Summilux is famously a bit softer wide open and sharpens when stopped down.

I haven't shot the 24mm Summilux, but as low-light performance is critical, both its maximum aperture and from what I've seen, its lower contrast relative to current 24mm offerings will be benefits. If shooting wide open is as important to you as not resorting to flash lighting is, then perhaps it's really the only choice.

 

[Leica All Day]

I am sorry I can't comment in direct relation to the 24mm lux, but I'm in a similar situation as you when it comes to the 28mm lux. The price difference is huge when compared to a 28mm cron, but the lux just has a certain look to it that I love. I only shoot film, mostly ISO 100 but that extra stop isn't as big a deal as the look of the 28mm lux is.

Sorry I couldn't be of any help.

Cheers,
Michael

 

[sleepyhead]

I did look at the 28mm Summilux briefly, but since 35mm is my "base" focal length, I want a bit more difference from that focal length, but not as wide as a 21mm.

 

[x-ray]

I owned the 35 FLE and still own the 75 Summilux. I also owned the 25 Biogon and 24 Elmar. The 75 Summilux is at the opposite end of the spectrum from the FLE and Elmar. The Biogon is in the middle. The 75 has old world character wide open being slightly softer in contrast and slightly less sharp but certainly sharp enough. As you stop down a stop it gains contrast and sharpness but still remains pleasant through the aperture range. It works quite nicely with a V4 summicron 35.

The 35 FLE and Elmar 24 are extremely sharp wide open with high contrast. They look totally different from the 75 1.4. IMO the 35 and 24 lack subtlety and are lacking character. I sold the ones I had and went back to classic Leica lenses.

I regrettably sold my 25 Biogon to buy the 24 Elmar. Both are super sharp but the Biogon wasn't as harsh and produced more natural looking images. I'm a big fan of Zeiss glass and feel it's a good blend of modern and classic rendering. The have superior flare control with superb sharpness without being harsh and clinical.

 

[f16sunshine]

It seems like maybe your question is, .. Which comes first the Summilux 24mm or the M10?
The Lux24 is unique. If you want that look from a leica lens it seems inevitable.

In the search for greater light gathering ability, I think it makes a lot more sense to migrate to the M10 from the M9 first.
The look of the lux24 wide open is really special but, think of your other lenses as well.
Having the ability to stop down for depth of field with that 75mm would be sweet.
Same with the 35mm giving better hyperdocal capability and flexibilty.
Getting 2-3 usable stops of iso over the m9 is no small thing.

 

[FrozenInTime]

If you are going for wide open and close up ( even at friends around the table distances ) then optical viewfinder switching and parallax really make life difficult. I traded my 21/1.4 for the 28/1.4 so I could stick to the rangefinder view alone.

These days, for interior shots the wider slower lenses giving more depth of field along with slower shutter/higher ISO do seem to make sense and the external OVF/EVF or back panel LCD is less troublesome.

 

[aizan]

good point about the viewfinder issue. in indoor settings, 28mm offers a significant practical difference from 35mm that overrides their adjacency.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Well, unlike most people here, I HAVE used the 21 Summilux. And the 24. I find it frankly weird to have seriously shallow depth of field with extreme wide angle lenses. For me, f/2.8 works better.

Cheers,

R.

 

[MCTuomey]

The only reason I can see for getting the Summilux is for the distinctive look it gives, that is, wide view combined with somewhat shallow depth of field. It's a look that love. Especially since these would be people pictures indoors.

I think you answered well. This would be sufficient reason for me.

I have a Q that I shoot mostly wide open, for the look, not because I need the speed.

 

[sleepyhead]

Thanks for your thought-provoking comments everyone!

Roger, I can well understand that some people don't like the wide-angle-with-shallow-DOF look, but it works for me when the people are separated from the indoor background but that there is still enough information in the background to understand the setting of the picture.

Reading the above comments, my latest thinking is:
Sell the 35mm Summilux and the 28mm Summicron, and use the money plus my savings to buy an M10 first, and a second-hand 24mm Summilux, eventually. Go back to using my 35mm pre-ASPH Summicron as my main lens, and 75mm Summilux, which DO match well in terms of contrast.

Now to just save and save some more...

 

[Benjamin Marks]

I can't imagine needing it, but that doesn't make it a waste of space, just not right for me. Here is my reasoning.

When do I need a fast lens? When light levels are low or when I want to isolate a subject. When light levels are low with a wide, you can actually hand-hold to a pretty low shutter speed. When I want to isolate a subject, as Roger says, I rarely use a wide lens. I don't think I have ever been in a situation where I needed a really wide lens in low light, but didn't have access to a tripod. Dark museums maybe?

In general, I do think that the more innovative lens designs that are out there, the better it is for photographers in general. I photographed for years, coexisting on the planet at the same time as the Hologon, but I never needed one. When C/V came out with their little zone-focus 15, though I bought one and it opened new worlds for me. Not saying this fast 24 is the same category, but the principle still holds.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Thanks for your thought-provoking comments everyone!

Roger, I can well understand that some people don't like the wide-angle-with-shallow-DOF look, but it works for me when the people are separated from the indoor background but that there is still enough information in the background to understand the setting of the picture.

Reading the above comments, my latest thinking is:
Sell the 35mm Summilux and the 28mm Summicron, and use the money plus my savings to buy an M10 first, and a second-hand 24mm Summilux, eventually. Go back to using my 35mm pre-ASPH Summicron as my main lens, and 75mm Summilux, which DO match well in terms of contrast.

Now to just save and save some more...

Sure, if it works for you, it works for you. Very often, my posts are deliberately contrarian, against those who believe "It's newer and more extreme (and often more expensive), and therefore it's better" -- often, on the basis of no experience whatsoever.

Until I hit 12mm, I liked wider and wider lenses. Great: 21mm, 18mm, 15mm, even 14mm... But 12mm was too wide for me. Likewise 50/1.4, 50/1.2, 50/1. Yes, I love 50/1. But I don't find it useful enough to justify the expense: f/1.2 suffices (and is a lot cheaper with my old Canon).

There are without doubt many who can use a 24/1.4 or 50/1 (or 50/0.95) better than I. But I strongly suspect that there are even more who will make worse pictures with more extreme lenses; and they need to be reminded of this.

Cheers,

R.

 

[MCTuomey]

Fast wides have their uses, at least for me. I couldn't have gotten this shot's isolation combined with "environment" with a 50:


20170318-051-web by Mike Tuomey, on Flickr
Shot at f/1.7 with Q.

Extreme lenses provide more possibilities, not bad pictures. Unless the photographer cooperates, of course 😉

 

[Emile de Leon]

There is only 1 way to find out..get the lens...and use it..
But if I were shooting people a lot...I would want the lowest distortion WA I could find..unless you like distortion..!
But you shoot natural light in very dark situations..
The M10 and 1.4..could be the ticket..or..perhaps better yet..an A7S..
Or..you could save a bundle..and just use flash..with a smaller Elmar wa or similar..on your M9...
I use the WATE..and am more than happy with that..and get 3 focal length choices as well..but f4...cant have everything can we...
I would luv to have the 21/24 f1.4 option though...and may well get that lens eventually..as it supplies a look..as well as a level..that cant be achieved with any other lens..

 

[Doug]

The 24 Summilux is attractive... Nice that it's smaller than the 21 Summilux, but it's still a big lens. Maybe there should be a 24mm Summicron?

I have a Pentax 24mm f/2 that is also unfortunately large, and with a silver finish that makes it rather visible. The f/2 aperture is useful to have, and with the wide angle less DoF is given up when using it wide open than with longer lenses. Here's one shot with that lens on a Pentax LX that I think is f/2... (seems like she wants her arm back!)

 

[uhoh7]

I see a nice 24 Lux went for 3k on Ebay, recently.

The M9 wold love such a lens. 🙂

Of course that money + value of M9 = M10.

But then you need a decent 24....... LOL

24 is pretty nice FL. I wish the CV 21/1.8 was a 24. That is a very nice lens.

@Roger actually 1.4 makes alot more sense at 24 than 50. You still have huge DOF. Much easier to use WO. The look is like 50/2.8 or 50/4.

Looking at 24 Lux samples on Flickr I think I'd rather have that lens than a M10 😉

 

[Roger Hicks]

I see a nice 24 Lux went for 3k on Ebay, recently.

The M9 wold love such a lens. 🙂

Of course that money + value of M9 = M10.

But then you need a decent 24....... LOL

24 is pretty nice FL. I wish the CV 21/1.8 was a 24. That is a very nice lens.

@Roger actually 1.4 makes alot more sense at 24 than 50. You still have huge DOF. Much easier to use WO. The look is like 50/2.8 or 50/4.

Looking at 24 Lux samples on Flickr I think I'd rather have that lens than a M10 😉

And, as I say, I've tried it and you haven't. It didn't work for me. Until you try one for yourself, you simply can't say (at least authoritatively) "1.4 makes alot more sense at 24 than 50" because you don't actually know.

By the same token, although I love f/1.4 and f/1.5 lenses (my most used lenses are a 35 Summilux and a 50 C-Sonnar) I find the DoF of the f/1 Noctilux to be freakishly low (I've used that extensively too) and the Canon 50/1.2 (which I own) can be tricky.

It may be that I have become accustomed to fast 35s and 50s, perhaps through sheer familiarity with my own pictures and those of others, while fast 21s and 24s (I had a 24/2 for a while for my Nikons) do less for me -- the more so because (as Benjamin Marks pointed out) you can use ridiculously long shutter speeds.

Yes, there will be people who can use the 21 and 24 Summiluxes very well, either because they are the lenses they have been praying would be made or out of sheer happy coincidence: we have all had the experience of trying lenses out of idle curiosity or simple availability (a loan from a friend, whatever), and then falling in love with them. On the other hand, as I said earlier, you won't necessarily get better pictures just because a lens is faster, wider or otherwise out of the ordinary. It is your vision that counts.

Cheers,

R.