Why no 24 or 25mm f/2 lens?

[sleepyhead]

A bit curious on a faster wide, 24-25: aside from obviously being faster for less available light condition, any other reason? Small DOF at this focal length?

Mainly because I like the focal length - it's great for crowded, confined spaces, and in my experience those types of places tend to be no so brightly lit.
So for me, having an extra stop or two on a 24mm would help.
Some of the best party pictures I ever took were in natural lighjt conditions with a Fuji Natura point and shoot camera which had a 24mm f/1.9 lens.
I decided to sell that lovely camera only because I found that no having any manual focus control was seriously bugging me.
Unfortunately, the 24mm Summilux is out of the question due to it's high price.
I would pay $500 to 900 tomorrow for a 24mm f/2, assuming it was as good as the 25mm snapshot skopar at f/4 and smaller, and if it was as good as the 24mm f/2 Olympus OM Zuiko at wider apertures. Actually, in my experience, under low light handheld conditions, a lens does not have to be spectacularly good wide open in order to be useful.

 

[f16sunshine]

Honestly Cosina would have much more bottom one benifit from a fast mid tele. If they could come with a f.1.4/75mm or 2/90 personally I would be stoked. Fast wides are nice but wides are much more forgiving in regards to speed. What's really missing from the cosina line is a fast portrait IMHO. Ok not so humble opinion 😉

 

[Roger Hicks]

. If you listen to how many praise the 35mm, you have to wonder. In fact, as an aside, I have often thought so many find the 35mm so wonderful only because they can't afford to take the leap to a wider lens.

For me, 35 is the perfect 'wide standard': anything wider (including 28) ceases to be 'standard', with people having funny-shaped heads at the edge of the frame. I've never got on with 28 (though Frances likes it) and 25/25 strikes me as only slightly more useful: I'd rather have a 21 (as I have had for decades). Or an 18 (Frances has one). Then 15 and 14 really are super-wide (I can use my 14 Nikon-fit Sigma via an adapter) and although I tried the 12 I knew I wouldn't use it enough to justify buying one.

It's also the widest half-affordable high-speed lens (I've used a Summilux for 30 years or so).

Cheers,

R.

 

[Tim Gray]

It's all down to personal taste...

Agreed. Though I don't find that much of a difference between 24 and 28. I know this argument can be used for almost any adjacent focal lengths, but still. 28 is wide but not too wide. I shoot a lot of 28, and am contemplating the 24/1.4 for my Canon, since it's close enough to 28.

The big advantage I see for 28 on RF is that there are frame lines in the internal finder.

 

[ampguy]

I would like to see an inexpensive 24, with a 35mm framelines M mount to bring up the 24/35 lines on an M8.

Here are some ways to minimize the cost of the lens: fixed focus (at infinity), and just 5 aperture clicks, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6 and 8.

Use the savings to enhance the build quality and reduce distortion.

 

[peter_n]

What's wrong with the CV 25/4? Just use faster film... It seems like an excellent little lens that's about a third of the size of my 24/2.8. The pictures I've seen from it are outstanding.

 

[ampguy]

I think brings up 28/90 lines

I think brings up 28/90 lines

which is OK if using a finder, but for M8 users, would be great if it brought up 24/35 lines.

What's wrong with the CV 25/4? Just use faster film... It seems like an excellent little lens that's about a third of the size of my 24/2.8. The pictures I've seen from it are outstanding.

 

[peter_n]

ah but I'm just a humble MP kind of guy, not one of these Leica digital fancy boys...

😉

 

[Doug]

which is OK if using a finder, but for M8 users, would be great if it brought up 24/35 lines.

Indeed, and fortunately, it does! From CameraQuest website: "The 25/4P in Leica M mount lens brings up the 35/135 framelines in Leica M film cameras, or the 35/24 frameline on the Leica M8."

I wouldn't mind having an f/2 24/25mm in M mount. I have an f/2 24mm for my Pentax, and have found it pretty useful.

 

[papasnap]

The 1,4/24 Summilux is just a teensy bit spendy...

hahahah what a talent for understatement you have 🙂

yes, if cash was no issue I'd buy a leica 24/f1.4 tomorrow. as it stands... i doubt I'll ever own one. I'd love a voigt or zeiss 24/f2 in m-mount.. and would buy one asap if it ever came out.

 

[ampguy]

Thanks Doug

Thanks Doug

I am going to keep my eyes open, to try this length out.

Indeed, and fortunately, it does! From CameraQuest website: "The 25/4P in Leica M mount lens brings up the 35/135 framelines in Leica M film cameras, or the 35/24 frameline on the Leica M8."

I wouldn't mind having an f/2 24/25mm in M mount. I have an f/2 24mm for my Pentax, and have found it pretty useful.

 

[myM8yogi]

I can't decide between 21mm and 24mm

I can't decide between 21mm and 24mm

As things stand right now, I'd rather buy a 21mm because neither Zeiss nor Cosina offer 24/25mm lenses with any speed advantage over their 21mm lenses... so I may as well take the extra width and crop if necessary. However, if a 24 or 25 f/2 came out, the extra stop would make it more veratile than the extra width of the wider lens, and I would certainly go for the faster wide angle lens.

I used to own a Canon 24/1.4L before I converted to rangefinder, and it was really nice to have wide angle and shallow depth of field. The closest I can get these days is the CV35/1.2 - a perfect lens in all respects except size/weight.

 

[ZeissFan]

I think that one of the prohibitive things is the physical size of the front element that probably would block the viewfinder. That's not a concern with an SLR, but it very much is a concern with a rangefinder.

 

[sleepyhead]

I think that one of the prohibitive things is the physical size of the front element that probably would block the viewfinder. That's not a concern with an SLR, but it very much is a concern with a rangefinder.

A 24/2 like the Zuiko for Olympus OM is actually quite small. Sure a rangefinder version would have to longer due to the thinner body on a Leica M mount camera, but such a lens really need not be bigger that the ZM 25/2.8 Biogon.

In fact, size (and cost) is why I would prefer a 24/2 and not a 24/1.4 - I have no doubt that the Leica 24mm Summilux is an awesome lens, but for me, it's size runs agains the spirit and reason behind having a relatively small RF camera.

 

[sleepyhead]

If some of the responses to this thread are anything to judge by, then I would judge that there would be a market for a 24/2 RF from Cosina.

Whether the market would be big enough to make financial sense, I have no idea.

 

[Doug]

In faster lenses it's more difficult to control aberrations, so elements are added, some with fancy expensive glass, and the lens grows larger. I'd like to try the 24mm Summilux; perhaps they've done an adequate job without much compromising.

What brings up this thought is recalling the CA evident in most digital shots using a premium 24/2 Pentax SLR lens; a bit disappointing, though otherwise the lens is glorious. :bang:

 

[kzphoto]

Having noted that there is a severe lack of a 24/2 in the Leica M world, has anyone considered having MS-optic rip out one of those 24/1.9 lenses and throwing it into an M-mount? The results could be interesting.

 

[Rob-F]

Nikon has a pretty good 24/2; and I just read a few posts up that Olympus has one. If they can do it, Cosina can do it.

 

[HarryW]

I would like to add a 24 / 25 mm lens preferably 2.0 or 2.8 for use on an M2 and I'm happy to use an external finder. From what I can see I have the following options:

Leica 1.4 too expensive - too big.
Leica 2.8 good size - still too expensive.
Zeiss 2.8 too big.
Cosina 4.0 good size - too slow.

Have I missed any

What's available from the used market and no longer manufactured?

Regards
Harry

 

[Tom A]

Harry, the law of physics and optics precludes a small, fast lens! ANY f2 lens for a rangefinder will be substantial -and even a 2.8 is by nature large. The M camera has a "throat" that precludes using a large rear element and that forces the design to use a sufficiently large front element to gather enough light (Yes, I know - highly scientific explanation).
Of the four lenses you have listed - the Zeiss 25f2.8 is the best one, and will give you the best bang for the buck. The Summilux 21/24f1.4 is stunning - but prize and size is detrimental to your health ( at least financially!!!). The 24f2.8 ASPH is very good - but I haven't found it better than the Zeiss 25. This is a stunning lens. Sharp, nice contrast without Asph contrast problems.
It is not huge, compared to the Leica 24's - though not exactly svelte. It works very well on a M2 by the way. Sticks out just enough so you can grab it comfortably.
We all would like a 25f2 or 2.8 the size of a 25f4 - but it would most likely only cover a 18x24 size or even smaller. If you want speed with edge performance - the size is bound to be "largish". There are times when you have to bite the bullet and go for it. At least in the case of the Zeiss 25f2.8 - the performance makes it worthwhile. Just get the smaller round hood!!!!