How is the 24mm R?greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread
This lens seems to be disparaged because of its Minolta origins. Also Erwin doesn't like it. However it is my favorite focal length. Care to share user experience with it? Thanks in advance.
-- ray tai (email@example.com), April 24, 2002
In my experience (i had one for about two years), this lens is like Dr. Jeckill and Mr. Hide. I mean that it is a wonderful lens on color negative: beautiful colors, very very good in close-up images, very fine in the details rendering - but not at the same level on color slide where i have never appreciate the results. Why? This is a very subjective response. Ciao, Domenico
-- (Giandom@comune.re.it), April 24, 2002.
I took a 24-R home from my local dealer for a few days and that was enough to convince me to forget about it. I compared it side by side with a 24/2.8 AIS Nikkor and the latter was much crisper, and the corner sharpness was much greater. Compared to the 21/4 S/A-R and 28- R (both versions) the 24 is not in the same family--then again, not suprprising since "genetically" it is pure Minolta.
-- Jay (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 24, 2002.
I had one and liked it a lot, which is why when I migrated to M I got the 24 asph. The R 24 is nowhere near as sharp and somehow sparkling bright as the M 24, IMO. But 24 is generally considered one of the most useful focal lengths, as often said on this site. As for the minolta thing, I wouldn't let that worry me if I were you.
-- rob (email@example.com), April 24, 2002.
It's my favorite lens too, especially in urban area. If used as a 35mm, this lens delivers flat pictures, dynamism is created by putting a subject close of the camera.
Some say the quality in corners is not too good, well, I know my projector is not good... And Minolta participated to te R serie, so what? The Minolta CLE/CL is not too bad to a 30 Years camera, some will even praise its specific lens. However, use > F4 to improve the quality, my experience.
Ah, yes, it is sensible to flare, always use the squared lens hood.
An example: http://xavierf.b.free.fr/Elancourt/Elan08.jpg
-- Xavier d'Alfort (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 24, 2002.
Thanks for the responses. I don't think there is another Leica lens with a split in opinions this consistant. Too bad I can't rent one and try it out. I guess I will wait it out and read the reviews on the new zoom.
-- ray tai (email@example.com), April 25, 2002.
meanwhile, get yourself a Tamron adaptall-2 24mm f2.5 for under 200 USD 2nd hand! Much better than its extremely low price and discreet carrier might lead you to expect, and probably just as good as the 24mm-R. Of course, as an object, it lacks the Leica look and feel...
-- Jacques (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 25, 2002.
Brian Bower was lukewarm about it in his book, as well.
-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), April 25, 2002.
Never used it, but I doubt it is that awful. I would hope that it is better than the 21mm SA, which is not really very good at all in my opinion. But it will probably not be as good as the current 28mm which is exceptional. If it is as good as the old 28mm (of about the same vintage), it will still be a good lens. Just because it is a Minolta design does not mean it is bad. Leica impose there own QC on it and Minolta are quite capable of producing a good lens design.
-- Robin Smith (email@example.com), May 02, 2002.
If you look at the Lansdowne Road pdf on my website, it's done with the 24R and 35/2R. I think it's a good lens, but like all wideangles, hard to focus in low light.
-- rob (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 02, 2002.
An imposter Leica. Had one ( Latest model ). Wanted desperately to love it...hated it. Shot along side my other R lenses... the pictures looked different. Flat and lifeless compared to all the others that showed a consistancy. Get a Canon 24/1.4L. Much better, even if it has a plastic barrel with no useful markings.
-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), May 02, 2002.
I have both the M and R versions, and there is no doubt that the M version is superb, the R is a strange lens, it is very sharp in the central area of the image, and is quite good in close focusing situations edge to edge. However, it is not that sharp at the edges for distant images. There does seem to be a trick to it though, for near to distant shots, stop down to 5.6 to 8.0, and set the focus to infinity. The stopping down will cover the depth of field, and the performance the edges of the frame will be optimal. Any closer focusing seems to create more unsharpness of distant objects at the edges of the frame.
-- David Kernaghan (email@example.com), May 24, 2002.