If the Loxia is dear to you & fantastic,then whats the problem exactly....?
You just want a new toy
I'd never replace a lens I loved,and used often.
nampramos wrote:
I'm doing some reshuffling of my kit and the 24GM is kind of calling for me
My Loxia 21 is a dear lens to me and I know it is fantastic and feels hard to let it go. I do have a buyer for it already if I do decide to sell and I would like to replace it with the 24GM if I do so.
I'm shooting with the 12-24G more and more for landscapes for its flexibility and will be adding a 24-105G to it as well for a two lens kit does it all when going for long hikes.
No but may want to think about the fact you will have 3 24mm focal lengths. Maybe a nicer idea I’d go 12-24 which 24 is the weakest anyway in that zoom than add some primes. So like 12-24,24,55,85 or go the other way . Like 18,24,24-105. Now I say that because I’m not the biggest zoom lover anyway so could be a moot point but if you do the two zooms and a 24 1.4 than you got two slow zooms at F4 and only one fast Lens. If you went 12-24,24,55,85 than you have 3 fast lenses in a nicer range. Just playing devils advocate here as it may give you some more abilities. Something to consider. I personally would go for AF the 18,24,50/55,85 route and I have except for the 18 I’m 24,50 all 1.4 than 85/135 Batis. Now I could go back and add a 12-24 or a 18 for a little wider. That’s just my AF side. My MF side is totally diffrent in 15,21,40,75
For now I’ve got this lens on rental. It’s probably a better lens than I’m capable using, but I really like it. Thinking of making it my first GM purchase. Took it with me as I brought the dog for an afternoon walk on a cold and dull day.
I know it's a bit silly to let go of a good lens but when going on hikes (where I'd use the L21), most of the time I end up taking the 12-24G instead. That's the main reason. The second reason is I got a great offer for mine.
I already have the Z55 and 90G so that more than covers my prime needs on the normal to short tele. Then the 100400GM is the big gun when more reach is needed.
I'll be covered in all the range with 12-24G, 24-105G and 100-400GM. This will be my hiking kit, where the GM might not follow every time.
The 24GM is obviously being influenced by GAS from my side. I'm sure it is not as good as the L21 for landscape, but I use it less and less for that purpose. As a fast prime for astro or night photography, it would be a better lens.
In the end, it's either a 24GM or a CV40/1.2.... Though choices...
Any advice for a guy like me who’s been trying to track down a copy of this lens for the past couple months? Heard any rumors of future restocks soon? If you know a shop with one, please PM me! Thanks!
Thanks for the heads up. I didn’t get the email, and when I called it seems that the most recent shipment of lenses were reserved for pre-orders. I’ll keep looking though!
eyal wrote:
Focus Camera just emailed with with an In Stock alert
The 24 GM is definitely appealing also to me but in real world probably it doesn't meet my shooting style.
For landscapes I like framing around 15 to 21mm and then tend to jump all the way to 60-70 and beyond.
For people I like 35 and 40 a lot more as my widest tool
For astro I prefer to be around 15mm for single framing or 35mm to frame panoramas
I’m considering the 24mm GM, but I feel the same... I’m not a wide angle shooter much at all, I have a 35mm and rarely use it. My favorite focal length is 85mm. For Astrophotography, I prefer 105-135mm for imaging. I use a star tracker though so I can expose for several minutes. I just received my new SkyWatcher Star Adventurer pro ($415 for the whole thing) today and I hope to test it out soon! So, if I get the 24mm GM, I’ll have to sell the 35mm, I won’t need both.
fplstudio wrote:
The 24 GM is definitely appealing also to me but in real world probably it doesn't meet my shooting style.
For landscapes I like framing around 15 to 21mm and then tend to jump all the way to 60-70 and beyond.
For people I like 35 and 40 a lot more as my widest tool
For astro I prefer to be around 15mm for single framing or 35mm to frame panoramas
fplstudio wrote:
The 24 GM is definitely appealing also to me but in real world probably it doesn't meet my shooting style.
For landscapes I like framing around 15 to 21mm and then tend to jump all the way to 60-70 and beyond.
For people I like 35 and 40 a lot more as my widest tool
For astro I prefer to be around 15mm for single framing or 35mm to frame panoramas
Does anyone feel the same?
Yes!
This and a few other threads have made me seriously consider getting the 24GM. I even ordered it on B&H...only to cancel the very next day.
I have the 24-105 for landscapes and looked at what I shoot. Almost 40% of my shots were at 24mm but then I looked at the others and realized what I would have 'missed' by going out only with the prime.
I thought about it for environmental portraits but used the zoom at 24, 35, and 40 and decided I preferred the latter two focal lengths.
I've only shot astro a few times so that wasn't a big draw.
Its ok to realize you don't need a lens,despite the fanfare
I rarely shoot 24mm also,at weddings when the folks are getting ready. Thats about it. Got that covered.
eyal wrote:
Yes!
This and a few other threads have made me seriously consider getting the 24GM. I even ordered it on B&H...only to cancel the very next day.
I have the 24-105 for landscapes and looked at what I shoot. Almost 40% of my shots were at 24mm but then I looked at the others and realized what I would have 'missed' by going out only with the prime.
I thought about it for environmental portraits but used the zoom at 24, 35, and 40 and decided I preferred the latter two focal lengths.
I've only shot astro a few times so that wasn't a big draw....Show more →
It's not an easy focal length to use for sure, especially when shooting environment portraits. People's faces or body parts can't be too close to the edges and small camera tilts can make the human body look distorted. Gotta pay a lot of attention to the camera level as well.
However, with enough practice, it works quite well whenever the background is interesting. (Great for travel photography)
For landscapes, I find it to be a classic focal length. Wide enough, without too much perspective distortion.
Here is 24mm vs 40mm for the same subject. Which do you like the most?
As to the photo, I prefer the 24mm for this subject as it keeps the mountains distant and works to highlight the isolation of the cabin. The 40 compresses the background just enough (too much?) that the mountains appear closer.
