I think the decision regarding focal length lies with whatever else you are carrying for a kit. Not Leica specific, if I’m carrying something like 35mm,, I will carry my 21. If I’m carrying 50mm, I’ll bring something 24/25/28. The difference between 35 and 21 is appropriate., and a combo of 28 and 50 is classic (what I had for 20 years back in the film days). The difference between 35 and 25 doesn’t feel like enough in my opinion.
jbouchard wrote:
I think the decision regarding focal length lies with whatever else you are carrying for a kit. Not Leica specific, if I’m carrying something like 35mm,, I will carry my 21. If I’m carrying 50mm, I’ll bring something 24/25/28. The difference between 35 and 21 is appropriate., and a combo of 28 and 50 is classic (what I had for 20 years back in the film days). The difference between 35 and 25 doesn’t feel like enough in my opinion.
Decisions about kits is a very personal issue, but I agree with your perspective here. When I take just two lenses it is either the 28 and 50 or the 35 and 75. When I take 3 lenses it is typically 21, 35, & 75, but sometimes 28, 50, & 90. When I take four lenses it is 21, 28, 50, & 90. I find 21 works with either 28 or 35. Personally I also find 24/25 works well with 35 or 50, but I would want a wider 18 at least some of the time. For now I am resisting getting a 24/25 or an 18, but that too can make really good sense. I would like a 24/25, 50, 90 3 lens kit a lot and an 18, 24/25, 50, 90 4 lens kit would also be great, and a 24/25, 50 two lens kit would also work well. So, I agree the decision between 21 vs. 24 depends a lot on what you would like for you full kit.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Decisions about kits is a very personal issue, but I agree with your perspective here. When I take just two lenses it is either the 28 and 50 or the 35 and 75. When I take 3 lenses it is typically 21, 35, & 75, but sometimes 28, 50, & 90. When I take four lenses it is 21, 28, 50, & 90. I find 21 works with either 28 or 35. Personally I also find 24/25 works well with 35 or 50, but I would want a wider 18 at least some of the time. For now I am resisting getting a 24/25 or an 18, but that too can make really good sense. I would like a 24/25, 50, 90 3 lens kit a lot and an 18, 24/25, 50, 90 4 lens kit would also be great, and a 24/25, 50 two lens kit would also work well. So, I agree the decision between 21 vs. 24 depends a lot on what you would like for you full kit....Show more →
Yes it is very personal. When I finally hang it up I will probably sell my 2 M 10s and all my glass except my 35 Lux FLE and the 24 Elmarit. So for me it will the M 10 Mono and the 35 and 24.
After looking at images after images, I really like the rendering of 24 Elmar or Elmarit. There is something special about how images pop from the these 2 lenses. Almost reminds me of how the 25.5mm Summilux on the Q system renders.
gordec wrote:
After looking at images after images, I really like the rendering of 24 Elmar or Elmarit. There is something special about how images pop from the these 2 lenses. Almost reminds me of how the 25.5mm Summilux on the Q system renders.
So did you pick up a 24 2.8 Elmarit?
Just a few years back they were going for around a grand with the hood. Not that cheap these days.
airfrogusmc wrote:
So did you pick up a 24 2.8 Elmarit?
Just a few years back they were going for around a grand with the hood. Not that cheap these days.
I'm waiting on a deal for it. I think I prefer Elmar. It's smaller and cheaper with the most modern Leica optics. If there is a deal on a 24 Elmarit ASPH, I may be ok. Elmarit ASPH seems to be going for more than Elmar. Not sure how often I need the f2.8.
I read that one a few times. Which one you feel has more microcontrast? From reading through a lot of threads and reviews, it seems Elmar may have better microcontrast. The sample picture remind a little of how the Q2 renders.
I have an offer from a reliable seller who I have bought before for a mint 24 Elmarit ASPH 6 bit coded for $1900. It seems bit high. What do you think? Not a lot of recent comps for it. Very rare lens.
I haven't shot with the Elmar. I just know how good the Emarit is. No reason to change. It's the one lens I willl aways hang on to. In the article the author went back to it and sold the Elmar becasue he thought the Elmarit had a better rendering. Does the 1900 include the hood? If so sounds a liitle high but not over the top. And if it's someone you trust might not be a bad deal.
airfrogusmc wrote:
I haven't shot with the Elmar. I just know how good the Emarit is. No reason to change. It's the one lens I willl aways hang on to. In the article the author went back to it and sold the Elmar becasue he thought the Elmarit had a better rendering. Does the 1900 include the hood? If so sounds a liitle high but not over the top. And if it's someone you trust might not be a bad deal.
Goodluck.
There is no optical difference between 6bit vs non coded Elmarit ASPH right?
gordec wrote:
There is no optical difference between 6bit vs non coded Elmarit ASPH right?
There is always the possibility that newer lenses have slightly improved coatings which Leica wouldn't announce or tell anyone. That said 6bit lenses aren't necessarily newer. Anyone could always add a 6bit code to a lens even when it did not have one initially. So, a lens with a 6bit code I think is nice because digital Ms will automatically record what the lens is coded, but it cannot be a reliable indicator of anything about the lens.
For what it is worth I think $1,900 is on the high side for the 28 elmarit Asph, but not that high. I think you should be able to get a good one for $1,500 to $1,600 with the hood and the case and if you are patient perhaps even a bit less. I wouldn't weigh the 6bit coding as adding any value because you can easily add that yourself if you want to do so.
I have used the 24 mm focal length a lot in the past on my DSLR. Now with rangefinder M, I switched to 28 and 21 mm focal lengths. I have two M lenses in each of these focal lengths:
CV 21/1.8 M and Leica 21/2.8 Elmarit-M pre-ASPH version
CV 28/2.0 version I and Leica 28/2.8 Elmarit-M pre-ASPH version IV
I got both Leica Elmarit lenses a couple of years ago in excellent condition including hoods for deals I couldn't refuse. Even a stop slower than their CV counterparts, they are IMO nearly equivalent in image quality.
Biggest con to use 24 mm on a Leica M is obviously the lack of frame lines (similar to 21 mm FL). It requires an external viewfinder, usage of EVF/LiveView, or simply a good estimate from the narrower 28 mm frame lines. Curious to hear if estimating the field of view in the Leica M viewfinder is better with 0.58x magnification. The lack of frame lines for 24 mm M lenses is likely the main reason why Leica stopped making them.
I have used both Leica Elmarit 24 and Elmar 24 and they are both excellent lenses. If you can live with f/3.8 and want to have more modern rendering, the Elmar will be a perfect fit as it’s compact and light weight. But I personally find Elmarit 24 is more useful, especially in closeup and with f/2.8. The lens renders beautifully with great center resolution and micro-contrast. And the colors are rendered very crisp and special! The Elmarit is a true 24mm focal length, a bit wider than Elmar. The Elmarit 24 ASPH + Summilux 35 ASPH + Summilux 75 are my most used travel companion set.
