I'm liking this lens a lot... In the pic below - move in close - it feels like one can sink right into the scene. (Leica M240, 1.4/24mm Summilux at f/4)
The 24mm Summilux: does it make any sense in the age of good high ISO sensors?
- Thread starter sleepyhead
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 65
- Views 7K
bayernfan
Well-known
in terms of zone focusing, a f/2 24mm lens makes a lot more sense than a f/2 35mm lens. i find this most advantageous when shooting ISO 400 film in low light. (yes i realize we're talking about high ISO digital sensors).
my minimum useable apertures to zone focus are roughly:
50 : f/8
35 : f/5.6
28: f/4
24: f/2.8
21: f/2
I see the 24/1.4 being particularly useful to film shooters in terms of collecting light and still retaining a reasonable DoF. I think high ISO digital shooters will be absolutely fine with the 24/3.8, the summilux would be for more artistic purposes.
my minimum useable apertures to zone focus are roughly:
50 : f/8
35 : f/5.6
28: f/4
24: f/2.8
21: f/2
I see the 24/1.4 being particularly useful to film shooters in terms of collecting light and still retaining a reasonable DoF. I think high ISO digital shooters will be absolutely fine with the 24/3.8, the summilux would be for more artistic purposes.
sleepyhead
Well-known
I wish that Leica would make a 24mm f/2 Summicron lens that was roughly the same size as the 28mm Summicron. For me, that would be a good compromise between size, light-gathering ability, and ability to isolate the subject somewhat (at close distances). Seeing as how the 24mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M is quite a bit bigger than a 28mm Summicron, perhaps this is technically not possible.
The 24mm Summilux remains a dream lens for me, and I will continue saving for it...
The 24mm Summilux remains a dream lens for me, and I will continue saving for it...
Chris101
summicronia
If sensitivity is the only concern, then yes, fast lenses are important, but the speed-to-noise ratio of the sensor can have an even greater effect on the image. But the speed of the sensor (or film) is rarely the issue for me. I use a large lens aperture to narrow the depth of field, or otherwise aberate the image, more so than to shorten the shutter speed.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I have both the M-E (M9 sensor) and the M 10 and the M 10 has better than a 2 stop advantage in low light and I can tell you that the M 10 is still good at 20,000 ISO. Here were some shots where I was testing the high ISO capabilities around the house and these were shot at 20,000 on the M 10.
Someone earlier in this thread brought up the look of a really wide lens like a 24 at 1.4 shot side open and I think that is something to also consider. I know I really like the 35 Lux FLE paired with the M 10. I also have a 24 Elmarit that I really love but there are times I wish I had the 24 Lux.
Someone earlier in this thread brought up the look of a really wide lens like a 24 at 1.4 shot side open and I think that is something to also consider. I know I really like the 35 Lux FLE paired with the M 10. I also have a 24 Elmarit that I really love but there are times I wish I had the 24 Lux.
willie_901
Veteran
Nothing beats more signal and less noise.
Nothing beats more signal and less noise.
Yup.
High S/N sensors are good. This has nothing to do with ISO. It has to do with camera's native S/N (base ISO).
Increased sensor surface area is good.
Nothing beats wide apertures for DOF control.
Without a tripod nothing beats wider apertures (more signal).
When DOF is not a constraint, wide apertures and high S/N cameras deliver the best technical IQ.
For cameras like the M240/260, ect. and M10, photon (or shot) noise dominates S/N. The electronic noise (read noise) contributions are minimal.
airfrogusmc's road sign photo is a great example. The exposure (shutter time/aperture) was optimized, so the photon noise was minimized. For the M10, read noise is constant to within 1/3 of a stop from ISO 310 to ISO 20,000. (link).
Nothing beats more signal and less noise.
Yup.
High S/N sensors are good. This has nothing to do with ISO. It has to do with camera's native S/N (base ISO).
Increased sensor surface area is good.
Nothing beats wide apertures for DOF control.
Without a tripod nothing beats wider apertures (more signal).
When DOF is not a constraint, wide apertures and high S/N cameras deliver the best technical IQ.
For cameras like the M240/260, ect. and M10, photon (or shot) noise dominates S/N. The electronic noise (read noise) contributions are minimal.
airfrogusmc's road sign photo is a great example. The exposure (shutter time/aperture) was optimized, so the photon noise was minimized. For the M10, read noise is constant to within 1/3 of a stop from ISO 310 to ISO 20,000. (link).
