I like it, Carsten. Nicely done HDR. Have you posted photos of the modification to the rear of the lux that allows you to use it on a FF? I'd think that would be of interest to other Nikon shooters.
I don't have any photos like this, but worldinlens does. He did my lens, while I was watching Maybe he can post a link. I know they are around somewhere. Essentially though, you just need to remove a sh*tload of metal from around the rear element Better to leave it to an engineer or machinist.
But without intending to be immodest, there are some better ones coming! The tour consisted of two locations, and these photos were from Zeche Zollern. The other location, Hansa Kokerei, was much more beautiful.
Yes, this is considered 'less attractive within the R series'. Being a Minolta design it has a reputation of being 'less than Leica' from the get-go. Ironically, here Minolta glass is generally highly praised. It would be interesting to see the R24 compared on a FF body with a Zuiko 24/2.8, Contax 25/2.8 and maybe others where it's shortcomings could be seen and compared objectively but I think most people just jump on the 'it's a Minolta design' bandwagon and dump on it for that reason alone.
I don't have many digital pics from it as I've only ever used it on a 40D as it won't clear the mirror on my FF bodies. However I've used it on film, mostly E6 for pro work, for a very long time and only had one issue with it. It's the dumb-ass-idea-from-hell to place white lettering on the front of a lens where it can reflect of any filters back to the image (in high contrast/flare prone conditions). This is exactly what happens when you photograph automotive interiors, which is what I do, so I had to tape over the lettering with matt black tape. Problem solved, see pic below.
It is a very sharp lens in the central area, even wide open, but I admit I'm not one to care much for corner sharpness and I think the R24 falls over in this department to some degree. It's probably not a 'landscape' lens and if that is your intended application then this possibly isn't the lens for you. Edge sharpness is probably the main real gripe with this lens, other than that it's a 'Minolta design', yadda yadda yadda. It's a nice lens for general use, people, reportage etc.
I like the relatively soft bokeh from this lens (The Yashica 24 ML is a little softer, not much) and I think this is probably it's strength combined with excellent central sharpness and it's highly saturated colours (which are fairly similar to the R50 Cron). Putting a polarising filter on this lens can give intense almost cartoon-like colours.
It might be a mediocre lens in some respects (it's not clinically sharp into the corners) but I've hung on to it in the hope of a FF mirrorless body. It's kept company with my R35/1.4 side lined for the same reason. Maybe a cheap zuiko 24 is a better option, I don't know.
In the only 'test' I ever did with this lens it was sharpest in the centre (at close range and at distance) of the Canon 24-70/2.8 (I) L, 17-40/4 L and Yashica 24/2.8 ML.
I don't know if it's due to the light, HDR processing or just the bokeh of the lens, but the rear part of that vise seems to have a very strong 2D-effect. Quite odd. Maybe the tone mapping lowered the contrast, which makes it look as flat as a piece of paper.
Carsten, Summilux 35 seems to have pretty interesting drawing style. One day I would like to try this one and specially the 50mm Summilux, but would have to change to Nikon camera or get rid off the mirror to do it...
Today went to shoot "farewell to Vario-Elmar-R 80-200mm f/4"; I doubt that this lens gets much use after I get 180APO and Leitax (wanted to try this instead adapter) for it. All wide open, 1/30s and ISO 100 (and like 99% of my photos: no PP, unless you count black levels and WB finetunings). This lens really shines as 135mm f/4 lens.
if this was the zeiss thread, there'd be about 2 months and 10 pages of raves about micro-contrast from this one photo...
i have to say while i normally prefer the look of leica lenses to zeiss, i definitely prefer the zeiss 35/1.4 to the leica R from all the photos i've seen. the zeiss has much nicer bokeh, while still maintaining the zeiss look. the leica would probably be better for glamour type photos, but otherwise i'm pretty sure i like the zeiss better.
anyway, here's yet another bird with the 350/4.8 (that's what i bought the lens for afterall). wide open at mfd. shot at iso 1600 pushed to 4000ish since i had to push the shutter to 1/500 for the twitchy little punk: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7092/7123108337_4bcf73c757_o.jpg
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Carsten, Summilux 35 seems to have pretty interesting drawing style. One day I would like to try this one and specially the 50mm Summilux, but would have to change to Nikon camera or get rid off the mirror to do it...
The Canon mirror is actually more forgiving, but both need modification to the lens or mirror. My copy would also work on a Canon, for example.
I am not especially an HDR fan, and would likely process these differently for my own purposes, but the technique does come in handy on occasion. Here is the middle shot of the vise, unprocessed, for comparison. Once I have finished processing these shots for the Nikonians thread, I will probably pick out my favorites and re-process them more for my own taste, i.e. more realistic.
About the micro-contrast, the better Leica lenses actually have loads of micro-contrast and resolution, their drawing style just isn't as in-your-face as the Zeiss lenses. A bit of processing brings it out. What I sometimes miss in the Leica lenses is the special clarity and 3D look of the Zeiss lenses which makes things look real, not like a photograph. As a general rule, Zeiss lenses deliver believable rendering, Leica lenses deliver beautiful rendering. These are not mutually exclusive in either direction, but the actual crossover is small in this case.
sebboh wrote:
i have to say while i normally prefer the look of leica lenses to zeiss, i definitely prefer the zeiss 35/1.4 to the leica R from all the photos i've seen.
The Zeiss 35/1.4 is an awesome lens, but so is the Leica. I tend to post shots with strong processing and dramatic light, but under the right circumstances, the Leica is also an awesome portrait lens. I would put them at about par for most things. I would eventually like to own both.
Carsten, I'll have to say that your HDR added quite a lot to 35 summilux photo, look rather uninteresting without HDR.
johnahill wrote:
Samuli - The shots from the Vario-Elmar look amazing, which 180APO are you getting?
Here's a dusk twilight shot from the R28 (v2)
John, f/2.8 v2 from 1998 manufacturing batch (link).
R28 seems to be good lens for "all sharp" images, how it's do you like it's bokeh?
Vario-Elmar-R 80-200 is really great lens, thou I never learned to shoot with it (I'm prime shooter, these zooms just confuse me...). The middle range of zoom (~120-150mm) is the hot spot, but it's not bad on either end of the zoom, same subject f/4:
Maybe he can post a link. I know they are around somewhere. Essentially though, you just need to remove a sh*tload of metal from around the rear element 
Quite odd. Maybe the tone mapping lowered the contrast, which makes it look as flat as a piece of paper.
