wide angle complement to 35mm

[jmr237]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi everyone, I am relatively new to Leica and rangefinders. I have a 35mm summicron and 75mm summarit that I use on my M6. I am looking at either 21mm or 24mm to complement the 35mm. I am saving for Leica's 24 f3.8 or 21 f3.4.

 

I have very little experience using wide lenses; here are my questions:

 

Based on past threads, there seems to be a consensus that 21 would be the most obvious complement to a 35? Or would you disagree?

Is 21mm so wide that it is hard to compose properly and fill the frame?

Is 24mm too similar to 35mm?

Is 24mm not wide enough?

What are the best or most ideal uses of 21mm? Of 24mm?

 

One of the reasons I like the 35/75 combination is that, because the focal lengths are sufficiently different, I rarely wonder which lens I should use. I hope for the same situation with the wide lens--I don't want to dither over whether to use the 35mm or the 21/24. So perhaps that puts a vote on the 21mm?

 

Most of my pictures are travel, family, and about town here in LA.

[mirekti]

This is really subjective, and if you wonder what each lens can deliver you might check a flicker pool. This can give you idea what each lens can deliver. I also have 35mm and 75mm, and was is a state of looking for a wide angle complement.

 

Started with a 21mm SEM, and had it for a month. This lens ended up to be too wide for my style. I swapped it for 24mm Elmar, and found much more use of it than 21mm.

 

In my opinion 24mm compliments 35mm perfectly, but if you want a "totally" different look than go for 21mm

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Al_OOF]

Jmr237, as already pointed out, there is a lot of subjectivity in this decision, but if this can be of help, I tell you my experience. A few months ago I found myself with a good opportunity to buy an Elmar 24. At first I had many doubts because I always thought not to be a "wide angle photographer" under the 35mm, which I love. I thought that I would not have used it very much and that I threw away the money. As you can imagine (because sometimes we are illogical) I made the purchase but luckily my doubts soon disappeared. I realized that, maybe for the great quality of the lens, it was not so difficult or "dangerous" to use it because of the difficult perpective. Not just for architecture but also for ambience and "on the fly" photos since it is easy to pass in front of the subject and shoot with the camera, low in hand, due to its large depth of field (but of course you have to be rather close).

Despite my joy of being able to use the 24 more than I thought I'm pretty convinced that for me the 21 is too wide. I use it without external viewfinder and I've never had the need.

And for your other question... between 35 and 24 I think there is a huge difference.

Edited September 10, 2014 by Al_OOF

[IWC Doppel]

I love the 24 Elmarit, it is as wide as you can go without it being obviously wide, it's more like taking a step or two closer into the scene than standing back to get a wider perspective

 

I have 18,21,24 and 18 and recently added 12 and 15. I love the breadth of 21-12 but they feel wide whereas the 24 is more immersive. Just different to be honest

 

By the way the 24 has an incredible 3D look up there with the best of Leica

[jmr237]

Thanks everyone for taking the time to share your thoughts.

 

Is the 24mm f2.8 still available? It is not listed on Leica's website or B&H.

 

The suggestion to search flickr groups is a good one ... not sure what I didn't think of that myself.

 

So it sounds like some of you are able to use the 24mm without an external viewfinder? That would be a mark in favor of the 24mm over the 21mm, as it is one less thing to deal with and one less expense.

[01af]

... here are my questions:

 

Based on past threads, there seems to be a consensus that 21 would be the most obvious complement to a 35? Or would you disagree?

While I would choose 21 mm to complement an existing 35 mm lens indeed, I still disagree with the the expression 'most obvious complement.' Maybe we should say, 'most popular complement' instead. Choosing 24 mm or 18 mm would make perfect sense also, depending on your preferred subjects, intentions, and personal vision.

 

 

Is 21 mm so wide that it is hard to compose properly and fill the frame?

A little harder than with more moderate wide-angle lenses it is indeed, but not enough to freak out.

 

 

Is 24 mm too similar to 35 mm?

No it isn't.

 

 

Is 24 mm not wide enough?

Not generally. Depends on your subjects and intentions.

 

 

What are the best or most ideal uses of 21 mm? Of 24 mm?

Now this is an excellent question. I elaborated on this before.

 

 

I don't want to dither over whether to use the 35 mm or the 21/24. So perhaps that puts a vote on the 21 mm?

I'd say, yes it does.

[MarkP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi JMR,

 

 

in my film Nikon F3 days my most used lens was 35mm (if I wasn't using my Contax T3 with it's 35m lens) and my go-to WA was 24mm - the widest lens I'd used at that time.

 

When I changed over to Leica in 2010 with an M9 I bought a 35 Summilux FLE as my standard lens and a 21 Summilux as my WA. I spent ages dithering over whether to get the 21 or 24 (just as you are now), and especially with the cost of a Summilux I didn't want to make the wrong decision!

 

The issue of an external optical VF was irrelevant as both lenses really need one. Yes, one can extrapolate to the very edge of the internal OVF but using the external OVF is so much faster and more comfortable (and expensive but if going optical get the Leica).

 

I agree with IWC Doppel in that 24mm is as wide as one can go and yet maintain reasonable control over perspective and subject distortion near the edges. However, I had often felt that in the past that 24mm had often been just a little to constrained. I also felt that I needed to challenge myself and hence went with the 21.

 

Despite my anxieties, heightened by the outrageous price I have never regretted it and many of my own favourite photos have been taken with a 21mm lens. However, there is a big difference between 21 and 24mm. Thinking 21mm is a very steep learning curve compared with narrower focal lengths.

 

In fact at one time I had three 21s - Summilux, SEM, and the stellar little ZM 4.5/21 (only got rid of it because the red-edges on the M9 gave me the shits but I should have kept it for my later Monochrom purchase). I still have the Summilux and SEM as they are very different lenses.

 

I have the excellent 2.8/24 ZM but it's often bypassed as if I've not gone to the 28mm it's straight to a 21. I do use it for architectural work where I don't need wider, or for more casual WA use.

 

 

However I've gradually moved to a 50mm Summilux as my most used lens and FL in combination with a 28mm Summicron (although if I'm just out with one lens for more 'casual' photography I take the 35) so 21mm is the next obvious step from 28 for me.

 

2135 is a nice and flexible combination as is 24/50.

 

I have often framed and shot for 24mm with the 21mm lens and externa OVF. Remember that with the current resolution of these lenses and sensors you don't lose much IQ with a 21 to 24mm crop.

 

Personally, I would go with 21/35 rather than 24/35 because of the increased versatility.

 

 

Good luck!

Mark

Edited September 11, 2014 by MarkP

[Chuck Albertson]

Is the 24mm f2.8 still available? It is not listed on Leica's website or B&H.

 

The suggestion to search flickr groups is a good one ... not sure what I didn't think of that myself.

 

So it sounds like some of you are able to use the 24mm without an external viewfinder? That would be a mark in favor of the 24mm over the 21mm, as it is one less thing to deal with and one less expense.

 

 

The 24 Elmarit was discontinued a couple of years ago when the Elmar-M 3.8 was introduced. The 3.8 is an excellent lens, as is the Elmarit. A few dealers may have the Elmarit new, and there are some available used. When the M8 was first out, I got a few offers to buy my Elmarit from M8 owners who wanted a 35mm equivalent.

 

Get the external viewfinder.

[MarkP]

 

Get the external viewfinder.

 

+1

[colonel]

+1

 

I know the OP is using an M6 but I presume on a M240 an external VF is redundant ?

 

I am also choosing between a 24mm and a 21mm. My main lens is a 50mm and I flirted with the 28mm for the convenience of the frame line but on second thoughts I don't think its wide enough for what I want

 

I am split between usage. i think if there are people involved indoors the 24mm makes more sense to keep them vaguely normal, however for close urban the 21mm is much more attractive

 

i am choosing between the 21mm f3.4 and 24mm f3.8 and I also think the 0.4 of light is additionally useful for indoors.

 

I think I will probably get the 21mm but supplement it with the 28mm as i need something wider for people shots

 

best rgds

[MarkP]

I know the OP is using an M6 but I presume on a M240 an external VF is redundant ?

 

..but an OVF is so much nicer to use than an EVF (although the latter has it's advantages including more precise framing).

 

 

 

I think I will probably get the 21mm but supplement it with the 28mm as i need something wider for people shots.

 

Agreed, especially if paired with a 50.

 

Regards,

Mark

[rirakuma]

I have never owned a 24mm so I cannot comment on that but I have a 21mm and it's one of my favourite focal length. Here's my response to your questions:

 

1. 21mm is wide but its not hard to compose a scene in the right situation.

2. 24mm is very different to a 35mm. I recently added a 28mm to my lineup and even that is extremely different to a 35mm.

3. I've read many people being happy with a 24mm, it all depends on your style and how wide you want to go. I would suggest looking at samples and try get a feeling of which length you prefer. I don't know if there's much difference between a 21mm and 24mm but in my honest opinion if you have a 21mm you can either do a slight crop or get a bit closer to emulate a 24mm.

 

And here's some samples taken with the 21mm, these are all uncropped so you can get an honest view of the focal length. The last one is not a Leica but hey were discussing focal length right =p?

 

 

 

 

[algrove]

Almost too personal to answer well.

 

For me I seldom use my 24, but often use my 21 and 18 equally, but then again I am talking landscape photography in this case. Street to me is more 35 and 50.

 

Twelve shots in this blog article were taken with either 21, 18 including two with the R 15/2.8. But if no 15mm then it would have been taken with the 18mm. If you crop then the wider lens leaves more room for that approach.

 

Louis Foubare: Making Every Minute Count

[Gary Clennan]

I agree with Algrove - it is all very personal and dependent on your own needs/wants. I shoot a lot of landscapes and my most used lens is the 21SEM. However, I also frequently use an 18mm, 25mm, 35mm, 50mm and 90mm at times. Your own style (and environment) will dictate which FL you would likely use the most.

[DMJ]

ZM 25mm f2,8 is nice - coded as 28mm 2,8 as Zeiss' advice. Changed RF coupling plate to 28/50 supplied free (& free postage) from Zeiss.

[paulsydaus]

I highly recommend the Leica 24mm f/3.4 WA lens. It's super sharp with low distortion and enough wider than your 35mm for you to notice the difference...

[Nick_S]

As with the 35 mm lens I find the 21mm lens to have a distinctive look that I can visualise well before even raising the camera to the eye.

 

For a year I have been using the Voigtlander Skopar 21mm f4 lens and I was planning to add their 25mm lens and get to know them both before selecting one of the more expensive Leica versions. In the end I liked the 21mm Skopar on the Monochrom so much that I have not to wanted to change. Though using the 21mm lens was tricky in the beginning I found that it made me much more aware of spacial relationships in three dimensions which has subsequently improved my photographs with the 35mm lens.

 

The Voigtlander small metal external viewfinder has both 21mm and 25m frame lines so one can always see what a crop to the 24/25mm field of view looks like.

 

Nick

[250swb]

Is 21mm so wide that it is hard to compose properly and fill the frame?

 

Given where you live in LA you may find some inspiration from the work of iconic American photographer Henry Wessel. He tended to use a 28mm lens, but his use of space would be applicable to a 21mm as well. Apart from the use of light and subject matter he shows that the frame doesn't need filing with 'things' if space is used as a dynamic element, to isolate the subject matter for instance. He is also able to fill the frame with 'things' and uses a wide angle lens to describe the clutter of the urban landscape. In either case his work shows that a wide lens can be used for something other than situations where you can't 'fit it all in', which is often a default position for some photographers.

 

I think in the normal progression of adding lenses a 21mm makes good sense, far enough from a 35mm that it has it's own character, and it leaves the door open to fill the gap with a 28mm later. Get an external finder (I like the plastic CV version better than the plastic Leica version) and you are away. As lenses go the 21mm f/2.8 ZM Biogon is very good, but I like the CV 21mm Skopar as well, for it's size and character, although it is temperamental as to what it is coded as.

 

Steve

[MarkP]

 

I think in the normal progression of adding lenses a 21mm makes good sense, far enough from a 35mm that it has it's own character, and it leaves the door open to fill the gap with a 28mm later.

 

Yes.

 

 

Get an external finder (I like the plastic CV version better than the plastic Leica version) and you are away.

 

I found the VC and Zeiss finders to have an offset error for framing which is corrected with the Leica finders, both the metal (which I have) and plastic versions. There are a nuber of controversial threads on this issue here in the Forum. The problem is that the metal Leica OVFs are the cost of the CV lens .

 

No such problems with the EVF but then again it's an EVF.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Nick_S]

... I found the VC and Zeiss finders to have an offset error for framing which is corrected with the Leica finders, both the metal (which I have) and plastic versions. ...

Given these threads, I spent some time photographing using the metal VC 21/25mm viewfinder with vertical objects located at the periphery, at around 1 to 3 meters, and I was pleasantly surprised to get images nicely centred. What varied markedly with distance was the vertical parallax error as one would expect. The gaps in the two pairs of framelines makes vertical/horizontal alignment easier when photographing handheld in the manner of grid lines, though there is some barrel distortion at the edges which takes a little getting used to.

 

Nick

Edited September 12, 2014 by Nick_S