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

[michaelwj]

Unlike Roger, and like most others, I haven't had the opportunity to use the wide summilux's, and I think I'd struggle. Using wides on M's with the external VF I focus by feel (scale with the tab), or when critical, I do the VF juggle. I'd be worried that at f/1.4 the VF juggle would cause a missed focus, and even though the DoF is larger, it's still blindingly obvious when you miss.
I think that fast wides scream for TTL viewing, and even then when going wide I want the surrounding information, not a blurry mess, so would stop it down anyway.
I'd get the M10 and the 24 Elmarit Asph or the 24 Elmar. That's of course if I were you. The M10 will work with your other lenses too, but the 1.4/24 won't make the 35 and 75 any better (better being totally subjective)

 

[MCTuomey]

Michael raises a very good point. EVFs (and AF too), like the Q's, make framing and shooting efficiency much easier when using big wides at wide apertures. I rarely use anything wider than a 35 on my OVF cameras, not because I can't, but because it slows me down unacceptably.

My life with wides took a positive turn with a Fuji XT1 + XF 16/1.4 and the Q. Both cameras' EVFs and AF capability allow me to work very quickly and accurately, which was never true for me with OVF, manual focus gear.

 

[fotomeow]

Yes it makes sense, cuz we love that sharp f1.4 to control the in and out of focus planes.
But it all depends on how fat the wallet is...

 

[icebear]

f1.4 is about using it wide open to isolate the subject from the background. If you want everything in focus and relatively sharp all the time and shoot at f4 or smaller, then a 24/1.4 is a waste of money and too heavy to carry around. High ISO capabilities have nothing to do with this.

I also have a Q and the 28/1.7 combined with the excellent AF is a joy to use and I have shot wide open with great results. No experience with the 24 or even 21/1.4 on the M10, obviously shooting these lenses wide open on a RF without live view or focusing aid might be a challenge. But nailing the focus exactly where you want it will give a unique result not achievable with 2.8 lens.

 

[tightsqueez]

The 21/24 Luxes and 50 Noct (0.95) came out to help out the M8 in regards to lowlight. I've owned the 24 Lux and the 50 0.95 for about six years and then sold them both with ZERO regret. Looking back I consider them half-baked. Sure, if you strive to subtlely erase some of your background a little more than the slower siblings or need that extra stop... fine (which I truly think is BS because going from an 1/8th to a 1/15 isn't going to save you, however the subject and technique will).

The problem with the 21/24 and 50 Noct is that they come with so much baggage the return just isn't worth it. All three of those lenses in my book are garbage lowlight lenses because of color blooming and CA, not to mention other issues such as silly filters sizes, wave shaped distortion, odd focus planes, etc. Bokeh of all three are insanely goofy on digital, although this is less of an issue with film (like all other lenses). Also, they take up so much finder space. Even the 28 Lux is a joke. I wouldn't take one for the price of a 28 Cron. Again, the tradeoff isn't worth it.

Been there, done that. I tried my hardest to incorporate lenses like these into my kit but in the end of the day they were a bridge too far.

With the last two models being pretty good with higher ISO's (M240 & M10), I see no point of these lenses. They ruin the whole beauty of a limber rangefinder.

 

[sleepyhead]

Mike, thanks for posting this. This is a good example of what I would like to achieve at parties and gatherings with friends and family. The main subject or subjects "in the limelight" due to the shallow DOF, but enough of the surroundings to easily recognize what and where it is.

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 😉

 

[sleepyhead]

Tightsqueez, I appreciate your insights, you having used the lens in question for quite some time. Your "review" of the 24mm Summilux certainly gives me pause for thought. But my first question is: did you get ANY pictures from the lens that you absolutely love, and which would have not been as good with another lens, say the 28mm Summicron? (Any chance you could share a photo or two? I have admired your photos in other threads...)

Also, what is the color blooming that you mention?

The 21/24 Luxes and 50 Noct (0.95) came out to help out the subpar M8 in regards to lowlight. I've owned the 24 Lux and the 50 0.95 for about six years and then sold them both without ZERO regret. Looking back I consider them half-baked. Sure, if you strive to subtlety erase some of your background a little more than the slower siblings or need that extra stop... fine (which I truly think is BS because going from an 1/8th to a 1/15 isn't going to save you, however the subject and technique will).

The problem with the 21/24 and 50 Noct is that they come with so much baggage the return just isn't worth it. All three of those lenses in my book are garbage lowlight lenses because of color blooming and CA, not to mention other issues such as silly filters sizes, wave shaped distortion, odd focus planes, etc. Bokeh of all three are insanely goofy on digital, although this is less of an issue with film (like all other lenses). Also, they take up so much finder space. Even the 28 Lux is a joke. I wouldn't take one for a price of a 28 Cron. Again, the tradeoff isn't worth it.

Been there, done that. I tried my hardest to incorporate lenses like these into my kit but in the end of the day they were a bridge too far.

With the last two models being pretty good with higher ISO's (M240 & M10), I see no point of these lenses. They ruin the whole beauty of a limber rangefinder.

 

[KM-25]

I'm kind of on the same page as Tightsqueez, I have 4 Leica lenses and only one is 1.4 and that is my 35 FLE. Where we differ is the practicality of high speed lenses and higher ISO ranges. If you gave me an M11 that had clean ISO 50,000, I would just go to town with it in some amazingly nuanced low light.

Once you get below EV-0, things get interesting real quick in how even the most miniscule change in peripheral light sources can make a dramatic difference in the way the light paints. If one works in the fringes of that kind of light, being mostly reflected, bounced and passing through many layers, the way it can wrap around subjects can be truly remarkable.

Is 1.4 relevant with higher ISO settings? You bet it is if you like to play in that kind of sandbox.

 

[sleepyhead]

Thanks for bringing up the point about framing and EVF vs. using the optical viewfinder. I was planning on trying the 24mm with the OV without accessory viewfinder on the M9, and seeing how it goes. Eventually, if I have an M10, I could using Live View and the visoflex if framing and focusing with the OV is difficult.

By the way, getting a Sony A7S is not an option. I have a Leica M3 and an M9. They take the same lenses and work similarly. I am "a bear of little brain" and I cannot handle a second digital camera with different menu systems and buttons all over the place and features that I will never use.

Yes, I think I'm stuck in my ways, but all of this photography stuff IS PURELY FOR ENJOYMENT for me, so I will continue to only use cameras that I enjoy to shoot with and which give me the results that I want. If I was shooting weddings professionally, things would surely be different...

 

[sleepyhead]

My latest thoughts (in case anyone gives a #### 🙂 is to keep the equipment I have, keep saving for a Leica M10, and in the meantime (I think I'm still a year away from the M10) try TO RENT a 24mm Summilux for a weekend, throw a party, use the 24mm, and see what I think then!

 

[MCTuomey]

My latest thoughts (in case anyone gives a #### 🙂 is to keep the equipment I have, keep saving for a Leica M10, and in the meantime (I think I'm still a year away from the M10) try TO RENT a 24mm Summilux for a weekend, throw a party, use the 24mm, and see what I think then!

Good plan!

 

[Ronald M]

It may be dark outside, but you must have lights inside.

Suggest you use some flash bounced or modified so the light is decent and then use a low shutter speed so as to pick up some lamp and ambient light. The effect is is quite beautiful and you do not need an expensive lens.

 

[MCTuomey]

.... it is exceedingly DARK in Scandinavia for a good part of the year, and I don't use flash or artificial light..

Ron, the OP isn't apparently interested in flash (bold added).

 

[ferider]

Mike, thanks for posting this. This is a good example of what I would like to achieve at parties and gatherings with friends and family. The main subject or subjects "in the limelight" due to the shallow DOF, but enough of the surroundings to easily recognize what and where it is.

Well, Mike could have used a 35 as well.

Which was shot with an f1.7 lens "only", using a type 240. Plenty of light, even without flash and super high ISO capabilities.

I'm the last one to tell you not to buy an expensive lens. But you don't need to justify it with technical need, IMO. The shorter the focal length, the less speed you need. How about trying a 21/1.8 Ultron and see where it leads you ? Or a 28mm Summicron, which is quite "affordable" today, if you buy the older version (still a great performer and its price dropped since the new one came out). At least you'll keep framelines for your quick compositions.

On another note, the M10 will benefit your 75 for sure, the longer the lens, the harder the above type of shot is to get.

Roland.

PS: I admit, I have always wondered why there is no M-mount 24/2 lens on the market ...

 

[Roger Hicks]

f1.4 is about using it wide open to isolate the subject from the background. ... .

Not for me. For me it's about shooting at low light levels. Far too many shots using shallow depth of field under good lighting fall into the category of "because I can" and just look freakish.

Cheers,

R.

 

[willie_901]

...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.

I think it makes a great deal of sense... especially if you use raw files.

The limiting factor is not the sensor noise levels. It is the the longest, practical, hand-held, shutter time.

There is no substitute for signal (light/exposure). "Good high ISO sensors" only mean the noise levels are low. What matters is the signal-to-noise ratio when the shutter is open. The 1.4 aperture means at the longest, practical, hand-held shutter time you can record more signal compared to f 2 or 2.8. The ISO recommended by the meter will be lower so the signal-to-noise ratio can be higher.

But, if you look at your history of shutter times and apertures and discover you rarely go below f 2.8 to achieve optimum DOF, f 1.4 is not important.

With raw files you can recover more highlight information in post-production, This means you can increase exposure to the point where unimportant highlight regions start to clip. If all highlight regions are always important (including specular highlights), then in extremely low ambient light raw offers no signal-to-noise ratio advantages.

 

[MCTuomey]

There is no substitute for signal (light/exposure).

If there are any absolutes in making photographs, this must be the first.

One may not like fast glass due to its price, size, weight, or image quality, but its utility for those who work in challenging light on active subjects isn't much of a question.

 

[ferider]

OP: this is the lens you really need 🙂 http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost-classifieds/showproduct.php?product=51739

 

[DavidKKHansen]

Didn't you once have the Voigtländer 21mm f/1.8? Why is that not an option, but 24 Summilux is?

 

[Doug]

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.

I think it's not so much of a question of either/or, as it is a matter of added flexibility. At some point in "existing darkness" we are boxed in by limits... highest ISO, longest usable shutter speed, and max aperture... at this point you have no options in settings to handle the scene. Having a higher ISO can provide a stop or two of additional flexibility... just as having a faster lens does too. Combining the two gives even more options on motion-blur and depth-of-field.

I'm always a little puzzled when the answer is "use a faster film" as there's a limit to how much faster the film or sensor can be, before circumstances box you in again! Of course that's always going to be the case, but the faster lens offers some elbow-room, a bigger box. 🙂

One more reason for the Summilux ... Wide lenses can be a problem on full-frame sensors. Italian-flag syndrome, as light rays hit the corners at a steep angle. I have this situation with the 25 Biogon for instance. I'm pretty sure the 24 Summilux is more "tele-centric" and avoids most of that. One more reason to consider this fast lens on an M9!