cknobel Posted December 2, 2009 Share #1 Posted December 2, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Am a lucky owner of a M9 and would like to ge myself a wideangle. Existing lenses are 35mm and 90mm. I am between the 21mm and 24mm, f2,8 and cannot decide. Shoot mainly street and landscapes. Seeing that the price is practically the same I tend to go for the extra angle on the 21mm but the question is, do I need this extra more..... Can anyone help me out here and give me some advice based on their experience? Many thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 2, 2009 Posted December 2, 2009 Hi cknobel, Take a look here 21 or 24mm. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Marty Posted December 2, 2009 Share #2 Posted December 2, 2009 With a 21mm you could argue that you won't need anything wider such as 18mm, whereas a 24mm would still make you feel that something were missing. I already have 18mm and 24mm but sometimes do play with the thought of replacing both with a 21mm. But it remains just a thought because both are fantastic in their own right. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walt Calahan Posted December 2, 2009 Share #3 Posted December 2, 2009 I'm not lucky enough to own an M9, but on my M6 TTL cameras I use a 24 mm as a jump wider from a 35 mm. Lens selection is very personal. I recommend trying out both lenses if you can before making a decision. I've never regretted having the 24 mm. It just feels natural to the way I see. You're results my differ. Good luck. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balivernes Posted December 2, 2009 Share #4 Posted December 2, 2009 24mm is the one for me. Works well with people (thinking of bars, cramped flats, public transportation, etc) - not too close, not too far. Kind of perfect to catch people sitting opposite you at same table for example. The 21mm projects them too far back, and the "flattening" optical effects on people near the edge of the image make it very hard to use in such settings. The 24mm has much less of that side "distortion". The 24mm (on M9 of 35mm film) also works well in cityscapes, landscapes, etc. Captures a lot of space, but does not kick the elements too far back. The 21mm and wider are also harder to use in that respect: the more stuff you get in the frame, the less "presence" that stuff will have. Furthermore, the M's minimum focusing distance with all those lenses is 0.7m. That has consequences on "near/far" compositions with wide angles, as the "near" will need to be quite large. A given object at 0.7m will get "smaller" as your angle of view gets larger. Again, in every day life, the 24mm seems to fall at the right place. I have had the 21mm on M6 some time ago, and it just did not feel right on my normal day-to-day photography. Everything just got too small, and I could not get near enough. On a SLR, with ultra-wides you usually can get much closer than 0.7m, so a 20mm lens gets more usage. The 24mm opens the field quite substantially, in real life more than in specs, compared to the 28mm, but does that "politely" and in a very useful way. The 28mm is just that little bit too close to the 35mm, and feels, to me, almost the same. Somewhere between 28mm and 24mm something odd happens that makes me (as the photographer or as the viewer) realise that the vision has really gotten wider, that there is more breathing space.... Could be a very personal feel, but works for me. I now have the 24mm Elmar, and love it. But lust for the Summilux! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
danyves Posted December 2, 2009 Share #5 Posted December 2, 2009 Balivernes said it all about the 24mm, a great lens to have in preference to a 21mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sully Posted December 2, 2009 Share #6 Posted December 2, 2009 After working with the M9 for about three weeks, I have found the Zeiss 21mm finder to match the FOV of the Summilux 24 more closely than the Zeiss 25/28. The Zeiss 21mm finder also seems to cut off a little too much when I use it for the 21mm setting on the WATE. The regular old Leitz 21 (plastic or metal) seems to cover more accurately for the 21mm view. It seems the Zeiss finders all have a smaller FOV when I use them on the M9. Has anyone else found this to be true, or am I just getting too old see well? Of course, I am cursed with glasses. BTW, DAG put a wonderful focusing tab on the Summi 24 which really helps find focus quickly and also tells where the focus is, just by feeling where the tab is located on the lens barrel. Ciao, Sully Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbuckley Posted December 2, 2009 Share #7 Posted December 2, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I used to have a 24 with my M8, but traded it in as part of a complex package by which I ended up with the 21 Summilux. The 24 Elmarit is a great lens, up there with the 50 Summilux Asph and the 75 Summicron, in my book. I do have to say, though, that the 21 is an ideal midpoint between the 35 and the WATE or something wider, and if you get it, there's room for a 28, too ;-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted December 2, 2009 Share #8 Posted December 2, 2009 My opinion is that with Full Frame 21 is a sort of must if one doesn't plan to go further with extreme wides: 21 is surely a lens to be used - and the reason for I took a CV 15 for my M8 - while, personally, never felt the NEED to go wider... ultrawide for me is a sort of "experimental" photography... not a focal which simply fits well some situations, as 21 is. 24 was for me a very pleasant surprise when I discovered how useful is on M8... but never used it with film, and M9 is yet to come, so no opinion about. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cknobel Posted December 2, 2009 Author Share #9 Posted December 2, 2009 24mm is the one for me. Works well with people (thinking of bars, cramped flats, public transportation, etc) - not too close, not too far. Kind of perfect to catch people sitting opposite you at same table for example. The 21mm projects them too far back, and the "flattening" optical effects on people near the edge of the image make it very hard to use in such settings. The 24mm has much less of that side "distortion". The 24mm (on M9 of 35mm film) also works well in cityscapes, landscapes, etc. Captures a lot of space, but does not kick the elements too far back. The 21mm and wider are also harder to use in that respect: the more stuff you get in the frame, the less "presence" that stuff will have. Furthermore, the M's minimum focusing distance with all those lenses is 0.7m. That has consequences on "near/far" compositions with wide angles, as the "near" will need to be quite large. A given object at 0.7m will get "smaller" as your angle of view gets larger. Again, in every day life, the 24mm seems to fall at the right place. I have had the 21mm on M6 some time ago, and it just did not feel right on my normal day-to-day photography. Everything just got too small, and I could not get near enough. On a SLR, with ultra-wides you usually can get much closer than 0.7m, so a 20mm lens gets more usage. The 24mm opens the field quite substantially, in real life more than in specs, compared to the 28mm, but does that "politely" and in a very useful way. The 28mm is just that little bit too close to the 35mm, and feels, to me, almost the same. Somewhere between 28mm and 24mm something odd happens that makes me (as the photographer or as the viewer) realise that the vision has really gotten wider, that there is more breathing space.... Could be a very personal feel, but works for me. I now have the 24mm Elmar, and love it. But lust for the Summilux! Many thanks for your spot-on comments. I will go for the 24mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JQ Huang Posted December 3, 2009 Share #10 Posted December 3, 2009 whilst you've decided to go for the 24mm, you might want to consider the Zeiss 25mm f2.8. renders warmer colours and very sharp as well. The price is another bonus. Check out the review at Stevehuffphoto.com Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted December 3, 2009 Share #11 Posted December 3, 2009 if you have a 35mm, a 24-28 is the ideal next lens IMO. The gap from 21-35 is a chasm IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted December 3, 2009 Share #12 Posted December 3, 2009 whilst you've decided to go for the 24mm, you might want to consider the Zeiss 25mm f2.8. renders warmer colours and very sharp as well. The price is another bonus. Check out the review at Stevehuffphoto.com I can endorse that lens. Do check however that you get it with a bayonet that codes for 35/135 frames, not 28/90, if you want to have the lens 'hard-coded' later. Zeiss will supply the lens 'for M cameras' which means non-standard 35/135. The old man from the Brass Age Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Lea Posted December 4, 2009 Share #13 Posted December 4, 2009 I also prefer the 24mm. I had a 21mm, but found it too wide for street work and not always wide enough for architecture. Get a 24mm, and if you need something wider, add a WATE or an 18mm later. Peter Lea Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Posted December 4, 2009 Share #14 Posted December 4, 2009 I would add that on M9 the viewfinder itself provides a fairly accurate view of the 24mm reach (provided you don't wear glasses). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 4, 2009 Share #15 Posted December 4, 2009 Not quite true. When looking through the VF straight even 28 is not easy to see.You have to shift your eye around quite a bit to get an impression of the VOF of a 24. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Posted December 4, 2009 Share #16 Posted December 4, 2009 An impression is all you need, and that's why you can't wear glasses For serious composition an external viewfinder would be best although even that requires the eye to be quite close. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.