35mm shooters: 18mm, 21mm, or 24mm as your single WA lens?

[Stein K S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I started my Leica "era" with a 35 only. And lived happily for quite a few years. Then I bough a 50, then a 90... and then a 28... (... because could and because I believed I needed them?). And som my set was for another few years. And with the 35 still used more than 80% of the time.

However, today it has all "fallen into place" after buying a 75 cron and a 21 Elmarit asp... meaning that my set now clearly is the 21, 35 and the 75... with the 21 used a lot!

 

Happy now!

[michaelwj]

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.

 

 

 

It still is for us film shooters!

 

I believe I saw a price list from Leitz NY that had the SA (with VF) priced just under the 1.2 Noctilux, and more expensive than any other lens in the catalogue. Makes the new 21/3.4 super cheap!

[Advertisement]

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

[markforce]

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.

 

 

Added the 28Cron between 21 SE and 50Lux (and 90cron) in my bag and feel like it fits perfectly as I thought the gap was too wide (pun!).

[IWC Doppel]

I did have 35,28,24,21,18, 15,12

 

I rationalised my lenses and have kept 35's, 28, 21 and 15

 

Occasionally I wish I still had my 24 for its width without exaggerating the scale(distance), 21 is acceptable here but 18 and wider can be annoying IMO. I still wish Leica would release a 15-16mm f2.8. I also disliked the speed of the 18mm so the SEM wouldn't be for me

 

My vote would be 21

[stevesurf]

21mm SEM (+35mm Summilux + 75mm Summicron) as a carry around set.This covers an awful lot.

 

Most definitely agree with 21SEM; in my case, together with 35 Summilux and 50 Summilux make a wonderful experience for everything from landscape, architectural, street and portrait.

 

Remember that there may always be a possibility of using a 21 on an APS-C body for a 1.53X conversion or even the M8's APS-H for a 1.3X full frame conversion, so your 21 would be 31.5mm and 27mm respectively.

[Mr.Q]

The 21SEM seems to be the most popular WA lens. It probably helps that the other popular Leica lenses (28CRON, 35FLE, 50LUX) all share a common 46mm filter thread.

[sblutter]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

+1 the CV 21/1.8

[Per P.]

I should never have started reading, or contributing to, this thread, it could only ever go one way.... 

 

So, I now find myself busy coming up with creative ways of justifying the Elmar f3.8/24mm. GAS - don't you just love it?!

[rosuna]

I have a 21/35/75 set.

 

I had the 24 Summilux, which I loved. I returned it because the aperture ring had problems.

 

Now I think the set based on 28 + 50 is more versatile and comfortable. Too late.

[Mr.Q]

^ it's never too late :-)

[xixi_gelly]

I'm surprised to see the relative popularity of 24mm in this thread. I always assumed RF shooters vastly preferred 21mm given the history of Leica's lineup but it's not as one-sided as I assumed.

 

I use my 35 summicron 95% of the time and have a 21/ 2.8 elmarit, but I've been considering trading it for a 24mm, which feels much more a natural focal length. I haven't decided whether I'll go through the trouble of the focal length swap and, if so, which 24mm to get -- maybe the elmarit?

 

In my business (news) there has been a trend of abusing the 16/17-35mm UWA zooms in the last 15 years or so that's given me an almost violently allergic reaction to anything shot wider than 24mm.

 

How often do you 24mm shooters get away with not using the hotshoe VF?

[D-Lux]

I have used an Elmar 24 mm for quite some time, and found it was not wide enough. So I switched to a SEM 21 mm to get that little more room.

So I now have 21, 35, 50, 75, 90, 135.

 

I could use the Elmar 24 on the M8 - note that the M8 has specific 24 mm framelines!

But it is too close to the SEM 21 to keep it, so it will go for sale - please watch the "Buy & Sell" area if you're interested.

[Herr Barnack]

Of the three focal lengths offered in the OP's question, I would choose the 21/3.4 Super Elmar. 

[dunhoy]

21SEM (with external finder) - I got a used example especially for a trip to Ecuador last year - it's great 

[Per P.]

...But it is too close to the SEM 21 to keep it, so it will go for sale - please watch the "Buy & Sell" area if you're interested.

I would have been if the local Pusher had not offered me an as-new at a fair price. With warranty and no need for shipping I didn't have the heart to say no...

[01af]

I happen to have a Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21 mm Asph—and I most often use it at 21 mm. And even though the Super-Elmar-M 21 mm Asph is the better lens technically, I prefer the Tri-Elmar at 21 mm due to less vignetting. The ability to switch to even wider angles of view is appreciated but is not the primary reason to prefer it. Anyway, my vote goes to the 21 mm focal length.

 

Which is different from my preference on SLR or DSLR cameras where I prefer 24 mm. That's why I also bought an Elmarit-M 24 mm Asph the other day ... but for some reason, I hardly use it. On the Leica M, it's 21 mm for me.

[mmx_2]

I use the SA on my MM2 with great success. With light metering set to advanced it also meters correctly (although this creates a bit of lag). I also have the new Elmar 24 which is just a fantastic lens (probably the worlds best performing 24mm).

 

For the topic, hard to choose 21 or 24 but, I like that the 24 can be framed without an external finder so I vote 24.

 

 

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.

[efreed2754]

Ah an eternal question. FYI have an 18SEM, 24 Elmarit, MATE 28-35-50, 50 Lux, 75, 90 and 135. Owned 21 SA 20 years ago

 

1) best answer depends on your needs and style.

 

2) for every day use prefer 24, 35, 50, and 75 or 90 plus 135 depending on subjects

 

3) when traveling take MATE and 18 plus longer lenses. 28 and 24 close so 18 to 28 (MATE) seems better option

 

Find 24 very natural as some have mentioned and usually no 24 finder as camera one good and can chimp if need to confirm composition. Find the 24 is excellent for tight places with no distortion and so sharp and always delighted every time it's used.

 

Not sure a wrong answer here. Can say have no desire for another 21 as 18 does remarkable job when need very wide.

[james.liam]

The travel kit I've grown into is a 21 SEM, 50 APO and a Ricoh GR in a pocket.

Have to echo all those before me; the 21 SEM is both superlative and incomparable. Period. (My prior 21mm points of referemce: Nikon 17-35, 14-24 and ZF 2,8/21)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Lord Lucan]

Spot the difference. Reference:Third row. Carl Zeiss 21mm f2.8 ZM

https://www.onedigitals.co.uk/catalogsearch/result/?q=carl+zeiss+zm&cat=