I'm interested in getting user comments on the 24/2.8 Elmarit for the M. I'm not interested in MTF graphs, etc, but rather real world experience. I do documentary work and I find that often the 21 is a bit too wide (most of the time I shoot with a 35/2). What's the closest this lens will focus? How does the camera perform wide open (I shoot available light and generally shoot wide open)? How's the size of the lens in use? Any huge differences between ASPH and non-ASPH versions. Any advice and/or pictures taken with the lens would be appreciated.

-- Richard Le (rvle@yahoo.com), December 04, 2001

Answers

There is only one version - the 24/2.8 ASPH. It focusses to .7m. It is utterly superb wide open - so much better than the 24 Nikkors I've used that its positively embarrassing. It behaves like every other modern Leica M lens - sharp, contrasty, low flare, great tonality. With the hood on it's not a small lens - it's only a bit smaller than the Nikkor, and may be a bit heavier. You will probably need the separate viewfinder, as I found the framing through the built-in VF (even on the .58) to be too vague.

If you like this focal length and can live with the add-on viewfinder, you will love this lens. I struck out on both those counts, and sold mine in favour of a 28 Summicron. I'm probably one of the few who has ever ditched this lens. It's rapidly become one of the classics.

-- Paul Chefurka (paul@chefurka.com), December 04, 2001.

Paul, thanks for the correction on ASPH and non-ASPH. I looked at the ad from KEH incorrectly. Your info was useful. Actually, with the wides, I prefer using the external viewfinder. I often use an external VF with my 35 and walk back and forth to get into focus.

-- Richard Le (rvle@yahoo.com), December 04, 2001.

Richard, I use the 24 every day. It's by turns rewarding and agonizing. The most rewarding aspect is the wide distortion-free perspective. This makes it my ideal for photojournalism and street work. I can capture the human element within the larger environment. For example, two months ago I filmed Palestinian teens at a Hebron uprising. (A mess.) The 24 let me capture the expressions of teens in the thrall of rebellion; and it put those expressions in context, that is, it gave me the action, (stone throwing, molotov cocktail-hurling, etc.). A wider lens, say a 21mm, would have minimized the faces or forced me too close to the action for comfort. It should go without saying that the contrast and color rendition are excellent. The downside to the 24 is the auxilliary viewfinder, which scratches easily and has doesn't always frame accurately. My advice is to rent the lens for a week and use it exclusively.

-- Eve Hessler (Evehessler@hotmail.com), December 04, 2001.

Another strong vote for the 24... It is, in a word, SUPERB! Outstandingly sharp from f2.8 and up. Incredible contrast. Enough tighter than the 21 that it does not seem to distort faces as much. Ifit has any shortcoming, it is the fact it departs from the "look" of traditional Leica wides. But what it lacks in terms of the classic Leica look, it makes up for by setting an entirely new standard in a class by itself.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), December 04, 2001.

Eve: thanks for the insights. I'll have to rent one and test it out before I shell out the cash. I liked the idea of something significantly wider than 35. So I opted for the cheap (money wise) solution: the voigtlander 21. Generally, the lens isn't bad. I liked the wide angle of coverage and the VF's really bright. But like you said, the 21 tended to minimize the people too much and it required me to move in closer to compensate (or get lots of foreground). I like framing people off center and moving in closer would often give me too much distortion (those dreaded "football" heads).

-- Richard Le (rvle@yahoo.com), December 04, 2001.

If it has any shortcoming, it is the fact it departs from the "look" of traditional Leica wides

Jack: how so?

-- Richard Le (rvle@yahoo.com), December 04, 2001.

Paul- When you talk about framing through the built-in VF, you mean just using the overall finder as an approximate and not using an aux. VF, right? I've wondered how many folks who have the 24 do this, and how it works in practice. I had no trouble focusing by scale, rather than rangefinder on a Rollei 35s and was wondering if guessing coverage with a 24mm might be as easy. I also think the 24 could be a better investment than the 28, as there probably aren't as many of them. Do you know how many aperature blades are used in the 24?

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), December 04, 2001.

Richard

I think the main thing you are going to have to decide is whether you can bear to use a separate viewfinder. In terms of quality the 24mm is superb, but perhaps the 28mm Summicron is even better and it is a stop faster, and you do not have to use a v/f (although many think it is better to do so even with a 28mm on a 0.72) and you get parallax compensation. The only way you can tell really is to look at the lens options yourself and see what you like. I suspect that like Paul and Eve, I would find the the separate VF option annoying, but that is just me.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), December 04, 2001.

Frank,

Yes, I was talking about appoximating the coverage. I tried it a bit, but not enough that I got good at it. Interestingly enough, I tended to overestimate the coverage - I'd get stuff chopped off at the edges of the image - it's possible to see a 21mm coverage with the .58 finder, and I tended to do this. I think you'd have to learn to frame a bit loose in order to avoid this (along with parallax issues), so the angular advantage the 24 would have over the 28 framed tightly with the built-in VF might disappear.

I don't know the number of aperture blades, but like the horsepower of a Rolls-Royce the answer is: "Enough, sir."

-- Paul Chefurka (paul@chefurka.com), December 04, 2001.

Great lens. I traded up from a 28 because I had a 35 and a 28, and I wanted something substantially wider than a 35. It's very sharp, even wide open, and obliges you to get close to your subject. The external viewfinder is not a hassle--to the contray, if there's enough light to shoot with the lens stopped down, I quit worrying about everything being in focus, and just frame and shoot with the viewfinder. And, so long as you don't tilt it up or down too much, there is very little stuff exploding out of the corners of the frame.

-- Chuck Albertson (chucko@siteconnect.com), December 04, 2001.

Richard: In my reference to the "look" of traditional Leica wides, I'll try to explain as follows without getting to etherial...

Many folks have suggested that the 24asph is so sharp across the field and so contrasty that it lacks traditional Leica lens character. While I agree with the statement, it is often meant as a negative comment towards the 24, which I do not agree with. Many Leica lenses exhibit subtle traits that render unique looks; looks like a slight softness in the corners relative to the centers, or slightly softer contrast at the wider apertures, or a slight veiling flare when pointed towards a light source, and various combinations of each of these. How these traits balance together in a specific lens is sometimes referred to as the lens' "signature" or "fingerprint". (Other manufacturers lenses will have these same faults, but generally to higher degrees in one area over another, and are balanced and weighted very differently from Leica. For example, most Nikon lenses will have more contrast than a Leica lens, but will not be as sharp, and will render out-of-focus areas very differently.) The 24 is so clean across the entire image field, that it is essentially "perfect", or more accurately, possibly as perfect a 24 as has ever been produced. (I understand the 28 asph 'Cron is even more so, but I have never shot with one...) Some claim this perfection is too clinical, and thus the lens has no character. My comment is simply suggesting that this "perfection" is this lens' unique signature.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), December 04, 2001.

May I thank the contributors to this thread for a most interesting discussion. I've used 24 SLR primes but my widest M is 35. I have found this to be an objective and helpful thread. So thanks again.

-- Tim Gee (twg@optushome.com.au), December 04, 2001.

Richard

The 24/2.8-ASPH M lens is outstanding, perhaps the best of any Leica superwides (including M-21 mm and R-19, 21, and 24 mm). Erwin Puts compared the 24 M vs R (which is a Minolta design) and concluded the 24 M is light years ahead in performance. Unlike the 21 mm M lenses (which have either 8 or 9 elements) and the 28 mm M lenses (which have either 8 or 9 elements), Leica was able to achieve the desired degree of correction with only 7 elements, thus providing a very high contrast lens. The design is a landmark for Leica.

The 24/2.8-M ASPH has an eight blade diaphragm. The filter size is E55. The only negative as far as I can see is that the 24 mm Leica finder is a relatively cheap feeling product (from Leica Portugal) with barrel distortion. There is also a metal 21-24-28 variable finder (which I think comes from Japan).

As others have mentioned, the lens hood is relatively large, with a rectangular opening for best shielding. Conveniently, Leica provides two front lens caps, one which fits over the front rim of the lens without the hood, and the other which slides over the front of the hood. So you can easily use the lens without the hood. All in all, as far as lens performance, it doesn't get any better than the 24/2.8 ASPH M lens.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), December 04, 2001.

Never having owned a 24/2.8, I probably don't belong in this thread. I just wanted to say that one ought not to be dissuaded by a funky- looking finder image, if the lens delivers the desired image to the film. I don't find the view too pleasing either with the 21mm finder, or with the 38mm Superwide-C finder; but the resulting photographic image never lets me down, in either case.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), December 04, 2001.

Thanks for all the responses (Jack, thanks for the clarification). I'll rent one for a while and see how I like it.

-- Richard (rvle@yahoo.com), December 05, 2001.