[Leica] Re: What's wrong with the 24?

[Robert Appleby <robert.appleby@tin.it>]

>>>>>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 21:34:50 -0800
From: John Gong <jgong@cisco.com>
Subject: [Leica] Re: What's wrong with the 24?
Message-ID: <B6278E7A.8A8%jgong@cisco.com>
References: 

Javier,

I don't think the lens is so bad, however I have owned and sold two of these
lenses...

After selling my second one out of frustration with poor results (less than
sharp), I recently spent more time looking over photos taken with them.
Turns out that I was misfocussing very often.  The point of focus was
usually quite sharp, but not necessarily the subject I wanted. I find that
using the matte screen with grid lines, which is very useful for
architectural subjects, is more difficult to focus wide angle lenses than
with the standard microprism/split image.

Net result - I don't plan to purchase another 24-R. Besides being difficult
to focus on my favored screen, it is kind of bulky. The big front element
and irritating filter size just make it inconvenient. I get more
consistently sharp results using an M6/24 ASPH combo, and the setup is very
compact.


John
<<<<<

The focussing problem was the one got me too. In fact it was what made me
change over to the M system. Seems strange that it's harder to focus
wide-angles, probably this problem goes away when you get to 19 mm or so,
due to DOF. The DOF of a 24 close up is not so great in practical
situations as it might seem from the lens barrel markings.
As to optical quality, I can see the difference between the M and R 24's.
The M lens is a stunning companion for the 35/1.4 asph - as I will never
tire of saying (every so often). It seems to _cut_ outlines and detail into
the emulsion. Amazing and wonderful.
I just bought a 50/2 M, latest computation, it'll be interesting to see how
this rather elderly lens (twenty or so years old, am I right?) stands up
beside the two asphs. The other two definitely have a common "look" - maybe
what Erwin means when he talks about "fingerprint". I had thought of one
day getting the new 90/2, but that day is far off! Too much money for not
enough use! Whereas the 50 should make a nice complement to the 24.
To sum up, nothing is wrong really with the R - a wonderful focal length
and a very nice lens - but once you've tried the M version the R won't
satisfy you any more.
The beauty of the 24 length is that you can accentuate the wide-angle-ness
of it at will - sometimes it looks like a 35, sometimes like a 21. I don't
think other focal lengths have this versatility.
Maybe you've got the message by now - I love the 24.
Rob.