Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2015/11/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]When I started with the LUG in the late 90's I'd been shooting Leica for half the decade and everyone I knew and talked to said to avoid the 24mm R lens as it was a Minolta and you are spending Leica money for a Minolta lens. Other R lenses were tainted by this rumor but the 24 got it the most. It seemed to be the classic case of Leica badge engineering. But when the internet really kicked in it becomes more easy to really sort things out as you can be in touch with source or expert information. Sal said it was not the case and others said it was really a Leica Lens. Erwin said either on the LUG or in his book that though it was designed by Minolta but that design was taken over and implemented (built) by Leica in Germany. Soon the problem with the 24 R which was a 1974 design was that it was not the 24 Elmarit M which was a very cutting edge ahead of the pack by a mile 1998 Aspheric design which was the year I joined the LUG. And got the lens. And still have it. A few years later the 21 was also a revamped ASPH with compressed molding technology which Leica had and others didn't which was a twin for the 24 and I got and used that one too. And still have it. I belive Erwin when relying his tests said the lens was exceedingly average (my words) and calling the contrast "average" I just checked.... Not improved by stopping down. I think when they call the contrast "average" that's maybe not a good thing... For a Leica lens.. Or any lens. The 24 2.8 in Nikon was always a main lens for me, one of my first and I've gone thought many versions, AI, AF and about to get their latest which is a 1.8G. I'd always wondered how those first versions of mine (which I still have) would test out against the "Minolta" Leica 24 of the same era. My guess would be it would be about the same. Maybe a little better. The Nikon was amazingly good. On 11/3/15 5:59 PM, "George Lottermoser" <george.imagist at icloud.com> wrote: > > On Nov 3, 2015, at 3:33 PM, John McMaster wrote: > >> That was a Minolta design with Leica build quality? > >> -----Original Message----- >> >> Anyone have experience about 24mm R lenses? > > I have one. > It performs very well. > If there's some specific you'd like to know about it; > let me know. > It focuses to 12". > One of the things I like about it. > > I enjoy the performance of all of my R glass; > 15 Super Elmar > 21 Super Angulon > 24 Elmarit > 35 Summilux E67 > 35 Summicron > 50 Summilux > 50 Summicron > 60 Macro Elmarit > 80 Summilux > 100 Apo Macro Elmarit > 180 Apo Elmarit > 350 Telyt > 400 Telyt > 560 Telyt > 2x Apo > > very much because of they all > focus quite close; > show good contrast; > each is quite close in their color rendering; > general sharpness and fine micro contrast. > > I'm sure the 15/2.8 would great - though I don't use the 15 that often. > I'm sure the 50 lux E60 would be great - though my 50 lux always brings > oohs > and ahs; > and, "what kind of camera do use?" And the 50 mm Lux Asph for the M gets to > state of the art. > > Some show more of what I would call a "unique signature" than others. > Though they all perform admirably; and as "expected?" > > Regards, > George Lottermoser > > http://www.imagist.com > http://www.imagist.com/blog > http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information -- Mark William Rabiner Photographer http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/