On getting wider...

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'd love to know your views on the 18 and 21mm focal lengths on the M9. (I have neither, yet.)

 

And is there much difference between the two?

 

I'm not primarily asking about the technical quality of the various lenses so much as your thoughts about the aesthetic impact of the images they produce.

 

Also, whether you have experience of using them, and if so, how they affect the way you take photos with them.

 

I don't know whether these questions make sense, but I'm reasonably confident you'll know what I mean!

 

Thank you.

[chrisgad]

I had a 14-28mm zoom on a micro-four thirds camera before my Leica M9, and I almost always used it at it's shortest length. So for my Leica I got the Super Elmar f3.8 18mm and viewfinder (crazy price for the finder), with which I am very happy.

[adan]

1. The main practical difference between the Leica 21s and the 18 is aperture speed. The 18 is f/3.8, the 21s are f/2.8 (recently discontinued but available) or f/1.4. If you do a lot of low-light work, that makes the 21s preferable.

 

2. There is not much technical quality difference anyway, at least at identical apertures. So you are right not to worry about that. What little there is is more in things that are matters of taste, like color rendering or contrast, which are linked to the era the lens was made or designed. (I would say the 21 f/1.4 is a bit mushy around the edges at f/1.4 - but, hey, it is the world's only 21 f/1.4, so for its specs, it is pretty good.)

 

3. I don't see much aesthetic difference - both are "pretty damn wide." Using a 21, I don't see an aesthetic difference until getting down to about a 15mm. That's about normal for me - lenses have to be about 1.4x-1.5x apart for me to see a useful creative difference.

 

4. However, if your back is up against the wall, and a 21 still won't take in everything you want, the extra wideness of the 18 can save the day.

 

5. A 20 or 21mm f/2.8 has been my "money" lens since 1978. The first focal length I buy in any system. It is exactly wide enough for most of my wide needs, and I do use the f/2.8 aperture a lot. A 24 feels "cramped" - and most 18's were too slow for a long time.

[Washington]

Concerning field of view there is not a big difference… with a 21mm affixed if you

take about one step back that’s about the same coverage as the wider.

[adan]

Well, if you're shooting a landscape at, say, 5 miles away, you'd have to back up a lot more than a "step." More like 1,000 steps. And one big reason I got into 20/21s was too many times when there was no room to take even one step back with a 24.

 

Really it boils down to individual needs and purposes: architecture (interior), architecture (exterior), landscape, "creative" distortion and big/small effects, low light, etc.

 

For me the 21 hits a sweet spot of FoV, aperture and so on. I can easily see where an 18 or 24 will hit someone else's sweet spot even better - for them.

 

Ultimately it will boil down to the individual's experience. Peter H may get either a 21 or 18 based on our comments, and eventually decide for himself that a 21 isn't wide enough or the 18 isn't fast enough. After running into enough real-world situations that color his own experience.

[01af]

In terms of angle-of-view or field-of-view, the difference between 21 mm and 18 mm (on 24 × 36 mm format) is significant but not huge—it basically is comparable to the difference between, say, 35 mm and 28 mm. In terms of aesthetic impact, however, the difference is insignificant. So you may choose whatever fits your wallet and/or your existing lenses better. For example, if you already have a 24 mm lens then it makes sense to skip the 21 mm focal length and get an 18 mm lens instead. If however the shortest you have so far is 35 mm then I'd suggest a 21 mm lens rather than 18 mm.

 

There is a significant difference in aesthetic impact, in my opinon, between 24 mm and 21 mm. That's why lenses from 35 mm down to 24 mm, on 24 × 36 mm format, are considered wide-angle lenses, and 21 mm and shorter are categorised as super-wide-angle lenses. I elaborated on this topic before (—> search function).

 

If you absolutely cannot decide then maybe the Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21 mm Asph is for you ...

[Washington]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes you are right: I was thinking in terms of the ’'back against the wall'' scenario.

[freusen]

........is there much difference between the two........?

 

Peter, it depends on the other focal length you have and if you will use your wide-angle lenses

for inside or outside use.

If you already have a 24mm or 28mm lens, buy the f3.8/18mm Super-Elmar for Architecture or

Landscapes, with the M9 you can crop the picture if it's a little to wide.

If you need f1.4 for available light pictures, buy the f1.4/21mm Summilux, unfortunately there's

no 21mm or 24mm Summicron (both on my wishlist).

____________

FrankR

[Washington]

Yeah, for no other reason than it tickles my ‘’sweet-spot’’ (as Andy mentions above)

I like the 21mm. My mostest favorite walk-around lens is this Konica Hexanon Dual

lens… 21mm and 35mm. Excellent lens!

[lars_bergquist]

It is really terrible to see how Leica are destroying their wide angle lineup of lenses.

 

The Elmarit line is gone now, replaced by "sunshine" Elmar lenses (f:3.8) and monstrous Summiluxes with dubious image quality, especially in 24mm. The 2.8 speed made the Elmarit 24mm and 21mm useful for quite a lot of indoor work, especially with digital cameras. Elmar lenses are for outdoor work, or flash. There's a place for them, but the gap in weight, bulk, (un)handiness, IQ and, yes, price is absurd. 21mm and 24mm Summicron lenses would have been welcome, and would have paired well with the Elmar lenses, but now we will not see them – Leica can't afford to offer three different speeds in outlying focal lengths.

 

Sensible, everyday photography has been sacrificed for bragging rights. Leica should concentrate on keeping available – meaning, delivery within a week or two of the order – a range of sensible everyday lenses, instead of brandishing exotic special optics while even mid-speed, mid-focal lenght lenses are nearly impossible to find.

 

A Leica is a camera to make photographs with – not a piece of luxury bling.

 

The egregious old man from the Age of Photography

[Peter H]

Thank you all so much for some fascinating, thought-provoking and in some cases even helpful comments!

 

I'm very familiar with the 21mm focal length on my DSLR (I use a ZF21mm on full-frame) but I'm using the M9 for almost everything now, and thinking about replacing the DSLR kit more or less completely.

 

That's why my first instinct was simply to replace 21 with 21, but I wondered whether it was a good opportunity to look at something a little different like the 18. But I understand what a number of you are saying, and share the view that 21 seems to hit a sweet spot.

 

A nice 21 Summicron would be perfect, I agree. Oh well...

[nex100]

The 21mm zm biogon is perfect on the M9. Blasphemy some might say on the leica forum but it is one of the very best 21mm I have used. Wide enough for the dinner table and also better distortion than the leica on the buildings.

 

21mm is probably the widest you can go without ending up with weird long faces at the corners.

[sblitz]

i agree on the biogon 21 zm ... wonderful lens on the m9, although at closer range you do get that face flattening at the edges

 

andy -- which 21mm do you use with your m9?

[thighslapper]

I have, and have tried extensively 18, 21 and 24......

 

Having recently picked up an 'as new' Tri-Elmar I can say the versatility and quality of this lens takes some beating....... it is also very compact for such a complex lens.

 

The marginally extra cash for a used one of these is well worth it.

 

I find it is perfectly usable with an 18mm brightline finder rather than the supplied monstrosity..... the full finder view equates almost to 16mm and the M8 frame lines equate to 21mm.

 

As to the aesthetics I like the look of pics with this focal length ...... distortion is minimal and for indoor and landscapes the results can be stunning. You need to watch what you include in the periphery ... particularly people ... as they can look very odd and distracting.

 

From a practical point of view there isn't much difference between any of these focal lengths and their 'look' .... just the amount you can get on the frame. There is the usual argument about getting the same effect by moving in and out .... but there are times when it is impossible to pass through walls, trees, ford rivers or fly through space .... so there is always a place for any of these focal lengths. Get a Tri-Elmar, then you have them all !

 

...... oh and when you can hand hold down to 1/6 sec with an M9 at these focal lengths the need for 2.8 ... or 1.4 for that matter.... is debatable.

[sblitz]

oh and when you can hand hold down to 1/6 sec with an M9 at these focal lengths the need for 2.8 ... or 1.4 for that matter.... is debatable

 

what about the quality bokeh at infinity?

[SJP]

You can handhold up to 2 seconds if you really have to, not that it necessarily gives the greatest compositions but this is OK as a snapshot & it was a special time for this cat (Mischa) being relocated without his consent. See here 28/2 wide open at 2s.

L1005869 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

Mischa spent 6 weeks in the (basically dark) clothes cupboard, only sneaking out after midnight to get some water and dry food. But, he is very happy now, a great cat with a lot of personality.

 

My longest handheld timings using a Nikon F3 or FM2 were in the 0.5 s range. The sheer density of a Leica M gives more leeway.

[NZDavid]

Focal length really gives very little clue as to the field of view. A little goes a long way at the wide end, not so much at the long end. FOV for the 18mm = 100º and 21mm = 92º. Get a protractor and you can measure it.

[lars_bergquist]

Hand-holding at 2 seconds is all right if the cat is asleep – but remember, camera movement is not the only variable in the equation. Subject movement is there too. Dogs and kids are notoriously mobile.

 

The old Catman

[Archiver]

I don't have an 18mm lens, but I have the Zeiss 21/2.8, and it is magical on the M9. I took it with me to Japan along with the CV 35/1.4, Summicron 50 and CV 75/2.5. The 21 got at least a third of the use, maybe more. Its ability to capture entire rooms, streetscapes and buildings is immense. The sharpness, contrast and colour of this lens are all fantastic. Minimal, if any, red edge when one of the 21mm settings is selected.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[NZDavid]

A plug for the 2.8/24 Elmarit M-ASPH. It's a terrific lens. I'm sure faster would be nice but I wouldn't need it; besides, it's bigger. 2.8 is a useful maximum aperture indoors. The 2.8/21 Zeiss is also excellent, as mentioned, possibly more contrasty than Leica but excellent detail, especially in the corners -- I think you will notice the difference with W/A RF lenses in comparison with your DSLR lenses.