BBHewee Posted December 6, 2016 Share #21 Posted December 6, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Despite popular consensus, I have to say 24 works best for me, because it's wide without becoming exaggerated. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 6, 2016 Posted December 6, 2016 Hi BBHewee, Take a look here 35mm shooters: 18mm, 21mm, or 24mm as your single WA lens?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
adan Posted December 6, 2016 Share #22 Posted December 6, 2016 I come from the opposite direction. The first lens I've bought in every camera system I've used since 1978 has been a 20/21 f/2.8. It's my axe. As it happens, I've paired the 20/21 with a 35 for the past 20 years - never found a situation that one of those two can't handle. 6 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted December 6, 2016 Author Share #23 Posted December 6, 2016 So far...... 18mm - 1 vote 21mm - 10 votes 24/25mm - 5 votes other - 4 votes Very interesting. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Per P. Posted December 6, 2016 Share #24 Posted December 6, 2016 At the moment I don't go wider than 28mm so put me down as "other". Previously I have owned both 21 and 24mm as well as the Zeiss 25 but it's too much real estate for me and I hated using an external viewfinder. At times I am tempted by the 24mm SE though... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelwj Posted December 7, 2016 Share #25 Posted December 7, 2016 So far...... 18mm - 1 vote 21mm - 10 votes 24/25mm - 5 votes other - 4 votes Very interesting. From another perspective, this shows a huge preference for 24/25mm. Considering that Leica 21mm's have been available since the dawn of the M system (or 1959), while the 24 is a new addition, the first being the 24mm Elmarit ASPH in 1998. So Leica 21mm's have been around for three times as long as 24mm's, yet are only twice as popular. Interesting... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregm61 Posted December 7, 2016 Share #26 Posted December 7, 2016 (edited) I shoot mostly 35mm but like to carry a wide-angle lens for those occasional landscape, architecture, group shots, etc. My current choice is the 21 SEM. What focal length do you prefer, and why? (remember, only one FL, which excludes the WATE) I have all three and tend to use either just the 21 Elmarit ASPH or the 18 and 24 Super Elmars (superwide to wide) combination with the 35 and 75 Summicrons. There's quite a difference between the 18 and 24mm fields of view. Edited December 7, 2016 by Gregm61 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted December 7, 2016 Author Share #27 Posted December 7, 2016 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) From another perspective, this shows a huge preference for 24/25mm. Considering that Leica 21mm's have been available since the dawn of the M system (or 1959), while the 24 is a new addition, the first being the 24mm Elmarit ASPH in 1998. So Leica 21mm's have been around for three times as long as 24mm's, yet are only twice as popular. Interesting... Yeah, I felt that was interesting as well. If I had a strong preference for 24/25mm I'd probably skip 35mm and go straight to 50mm as my standard lens........ different strokes for different folks. I have all three and tend to use either just the 21 Elmarit ASPH or the 18 and 24 Super Elmars (superwide to wide) combination with the 35 and 75 Summicrons. There's quite a difference between the 18 and 24mm fields of view. IMO there is a clear distinction between 18mm and anything wider, although 18mm is already a bit SFX territory for me. 28mm ---> moderately wide 24mm ---> wide 21mm ---> super wide 18mm ---> ultra wide 8-16mm ---> fisheye and hyper wide Edited December 7, 2016 by Mr.Q Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithlaban.co.uk Posted December 7, 2016 Share #28 Posted December 7, 2016 Choose the focal length you need rather than that voted for by others. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryMulcahey Posted December 7, 2016 Share #29 Posted December 7, 2016 I use my MM1 to death. It is the machine I pick up heading out the door. I have been working on an exhibit for April and most of the shots are taken with a Zeiss 21mm. Great lens! Gives me the landscape feel to these photos of people in their environment. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sml_photo Posted December 7, 2016 Share #30 Posted December 7, 2016 Happy with the 24mm as my widest option on my Leica. Wide enough and "different" from my next widest, the 35mm. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted December 7, 2016 Author Share #31 Posted December 7, 2016 ^ I guess the added benefit of a 24 over a 21 is that you could frame with the outer edges of the viewfinder without having to carry a seperate OVF. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin B Posted December 7, 2016 Share #32 Posted December 7, 2016 ^ I guess the added benefit of a 24 over a 21 is that you could frame with the outer edges of the viewfinder without having to carry a seperate OVF. Yes. Maybe worthwhile to mention that the CV 21/24 external viewfinder allows to see the frame of a 12 mm lens when looking outside the frame lines, too. It avoids to buy a separate viewfinder just for a 12 mm lens... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
newnew Posted December 7, 2016 Share #33 Posted December 7, 2016 21 SEM with 35 Lux FLE and Elmarit 90. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xavier Posted December 7, 2016 Share #34 Posted December 7, 2016 ^ I guess the added benefit of a 24 over a 21 is that you could frame with the outer edges of the viewfinder without having to carry a seperate OVF. I initially thought so, but found that, after a little bit of use, I can frame my 21 precisely enough without an OVF... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Per P. Posted December 7, 2016 Share #35 Posted December 7, 2016 At one point I got a bit obsessed with configuring "The Perfect Bag" so instead of comparing the focal lengths I took a look at the difference between the (diagonal) field of view (FoW) for the M lenses. This showed facts that may surprise some of us, for example you only get 8% more FoW in a 21mm than a 24mm (91 vs 84 degrees). But you get 12% more going from 28mm to 24mm and 19% more going from 35mm to 28mm. There is a - for me - surprising 34% more FoW in a 35mm than a 50mm. I was not interested in 18mm and 135mm but the logic is the same. On this basis you could then consider how many lenses you want to carry any given day, and then e.g. select to maximise the range (e.g. 21, 50, 90), or have consistent gaps (21, 35, 75 or 24, 50, 90). All this is a slight digression from the original question. And, of course, the maths are useless if you know that you either like or need a certain focal length. But I would suggest that the difference between 21mm and 24mm is maybe not as dramatic as some of us may have thought, whereas the difference between 24mm and 28mm is maybe bigger than anticipated. 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shane Guthrie Posted December 8, 2016 Share #36 Posted December 8, 2016 On this basis you could then consider how many lenses you want to carry any given day, and then e.g. select to maximise the range (e.g. 21, 50, 90), or have consistent gaps (21, 35, 75 or 24, 50, 90). This was the question for me, including a consideration that my crop-sensor Nikon D300 not giving me a wide-angle I often wanted in practice. I decided on 21, 50 and 90. I'm very happy with that, and if funds enable, might change in the future. I wonder if a 28 would fit nicely, but I'd have to see how much I use the 21 gets and whether I'm really missing a length between 21 and 50. At the moment, I suspect not. Thank you Per – very helpful to consider the field of view differences in practice. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted December 8, 2016 Share #37 Posted December 8, 2016 My most used lenses are 35mm and 50 mm. If I need to go wider than 35mm, I reach for my 21 Super Elmar (#11145). The S/E is an outstanding lens; even at an angle of view of 91° it shows no distortion in most shooting situations. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan c. davis Posted December 8, 2016 Share #38 Posted December 8, 2016 I have both the CV 21/4 and the Zeiss 18 Distagon. To be quite honest I rarely use either. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve McGarrett Posted December 9, 2016 Share #39 Posted December 9, 2016 For me, generally speaking, 35 + 21 or 18 (or R 19, that I'm using since 20 years...) I don't like 24 very much. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
4X5B&W Posted December 10, 2016 Share #40 Posted December 10, 2016 In the film days the Schneider SA 21mm 3.4 was a must have for serious shooters.......that BTW was always an expensive lens to purchase. The SA design goes too deep into a M body for effective use with a digital sensor and to work effectively edge to edge. However it is interesting that Leica has in effect created the digital equivalent with the 21mm 3.4 Super Elmar. The current 21 SEM is a fabulous lens, compact, no distortion, extremely sharp edge to edge, and relatively modest in price. As stated by adan, it is a great lens to start with and add complementary lenses to ones taste.......rather than the other way around. Today's digital equivalent of the classic 21 Super Angulon.....just love it on any M and especially the Monochrom. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.